From top: Rainbow vigil, Barnardo’s Square, Dublin on Monday night; Anne Marie McNally
Can you preach intolerance of an entire demographic of people and then be truly sorry when they have been removed from the face of the earth?
Anne Marie McNally writes:
It was a terrorist attack. It was a hate crime. It was neither. It was the Federal Government’s fault. It was the club bouncers’ fault.
All actual opinions expressed, by media commentators of various shades, in the wake of the unspeakable tragedy in Orlando over the weekend which saw 49 people murdered, many others injured and the entire global LGBTQ community – and most other right-minded humans – devastated.
An intense narrative developed in the wake of the shooting and the revelation that the shooter had been of Afghan descent and had previous links to radicalised Islam groups. Clearly that meant it was a terror attack apparently.
The fact that the man’s own father claimed his son had been aggrieved by the sight of two men kissing and had previously displayed strong homophobic tendencies before murdering LGBTQ people in an LGBTQ space didn’t appear to matter to those who were determined to paint this as another example of jihadi terrorism perpetrated by those whose religion perhaps differs from yours.
It has since transpired that the man himself appears to have struggled with his sexuality delving in and out of the LGBTQ scene, perhaps struggling with a persuasion to something he had avowed to hate – yet another insidious consequence of the brutality of religious doctrine regarding sexuality.
The religion and terror radicalisation question is an issue for another day (though hopefully not another tragedy) but the issue for today is the seeming reluctance of so many in the public space to categorise the Orlando massacre as a hate crime because to do so would be to acknowledge the role that their beliefs may have played in such an event.
On Sunday, Twitter and other Social Media streams filled with lovely graphics and messages calling on us to #PrayforOrlando….but pray to whom?
The god who tells us that those in the LGBTQ community are misguided at best and sordid at worst?
Or would you rather I combined my prayers for the victims with incantations begging whatever God you believe in to absolve those victims of their apparent sins (that being their sexual persuasion) so that they may enter the kingdom of heaven or whatever other holy afterlife you believe in?
You see I’m confused. You can’t preach about intolerance, unacceptance and in many cases outright hatred of an entire demographic of people and then expect me to somehow believe you are truly sorry when you hear they have been removed from the face of the earth.
You either want me to disown these people, as they are, or you don’t.
And don’t give me some crap about you wanting to embrace them and make them see the light and the ‘error of their ways’ for loving who they love and living their life based on their own desires because that is almost more abhorrent than simply disowning them.
The horrific righteousness of that perspective is impossible for me to swallow and much more so as people have been brutally slaughtered because of their sexual preferences and a man, with easy access to a murder weapon, whose religion had thought him to hate himself for his own sexuality and to hate others who lived comfortably with their sexuality.
That hate, preached to him throughout his life, is what left 50 people dead on the floor of a nightclub where they had gone to enjoy life love and friendship.
If you have sat back and quietly allowed that hate, intolerance or unacceptance to go unchallenged in any religion that you are a member of then you are actively supporting an organisation that has facilitated the massacre we witnessed on Sunday.
I’m all for people finding solace in faith and I’m all for people believing in what they choose to believe in, but I’m not OK with what you choose to believe in being a catalyst for my friends, family and loved ones to be demeaned, degraded, disrespected and ultimately discarded.
We have to accept the correlation between the two and to not do so is not just ignorant it is dangerous.
Anne Marie McNally is a founding member of the Social Democrats. Follow Anne Marie on Twitter: @amomcnally
You have missed the ball on this one Ann Marie.
The defectors went into overdrive after Orlando with generic rebuttals like ‘it is not just LGBT it is all of us’ and ‘hijacked by the LGBT movement’ was only out drowned out by ‘they want to own the grief’. Setting response terms was an absolute and framed in zero sum politics.
The gays have heard the ‘it couldn’t possibly be homophobia’ line a thousand times before which always comes with an inference that it was their own fault. The difference this time was scale. The biggest single act of homophobic violence of our time was being explained away by abstract global excuses like radicalisation and terror. The insidious nature of this type of homophobia was not only insensitive, it was downright offensive.
As for the right wing Christians wanted to join hands and sing ‘we are the world’, the gays sent carefully worded refusal… mainly because they hadn’t enough surgical gloves.
You might enjoy this
https://youtu.be/BkSUE7esjG8
I think the worst thing about the media and other coverage of the tragedy is the perverse politicisation of the event -by Trump, Hillary, Obama and now our very own non-entity but ardent wannabee – the Mighty Ammo.
As a friend wryly noted: “the Orlando tragedy – the GOP base didn’t know who to root for”.
Aside from all that – how do you feel about the fact the perp was likely a gay himself SOQ – will that affect attitudes within the community do you think?
In fairness, the LGBT movement has always been a political one, as well as a social and a cultural one. It had to be. There has to be a political response to this, and there has to be pushback against the likes of feckin’ Trump capitalising on it as an exercise in ant-immigrant fearmongering. By all accounts, Clnton’s response hasn’t exactly covered her in glory, either, though more for being tone-deaf and generically post 9-11.
a friend remarked it was a good idea to put gun control front and centre of the gay movement as they are pretty good at getting shiiith done!
The fact that he was gay himself makes it even more sad. Such was his hatred of himself and others like him that not only did he murder them, he by default committed suicide.
I hope this opens a debate on homophobia more generally, as LGBT are well ahead of the curve on this one.
“The fact that he was gay himself makes it even more sad.”
I think it proves pretty conclusively that it was purely a homophobic hate crime that had little, if anything, to do with religion.
It proves nothing of the sort.
The perp is reported as being quite radicalised in militant Islam while being possibly gay. There simply isn’t enough evidence to be as definitive as you are being and it is most likely there were multiple motivations for this senseless act of terror.
Whatever you say, fella.
Supposedly he’s claimed links to ISIS, their sworn enemies Al-Qaeda, even Hezbollah, threatened to shoot up his school when he was a kid. Next thing we’ll hear he has an uncle in the ‘RA.
ISIS would seem to have as much to do with this massacre as JD Salinger had with the assassination of John Lennon.
@ Rehab.
It is obviously anecdotal evidence but if as reported, on numerous occasions he frequented the venue on his own. Straight men don’t do that. Also, his father said he was not religious and that it was a homophobic hate crime. He should know.
What does ‘Radicalised’ actually mean anyways?
Thanks SOQ
I didn’t read that his father had said that. Only the stuff about his father being quite actively looking for a leadership position in the Afghan government and having expressed some radical views.
Thanks Caroline, I’ve only read about this claims of links to ISIS and reports that he had phoned 911 to claim an ISIS involvement prior to the attack.
I agree. It’s somewhat reassuring however to see a lot of ordinary people rally in with the LGBT community on this one. I don’t think we’d have seen such a high level of public concern and awareness say 10 years ago.
I started to read but I am now just way too jaded from reading about this.
After days of bullpoo by people who didn’t bother waiting until something was actually known about the incident, I just can’t read about this anymore.
You mean, stuff like this feminist nonsense about “toxic masculinity” – http://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/overcompensation-nation-its-time-to-admit-that-toxic-masculinity-drives-gun-violence/
#DeludedFeminism band wagoning the murder of 49 people to push an intolerance agenda.
Disgusting.
Please note, that when I say “feminists” I just mean the mental feminists, not all feminists. (Thanks Una Mullaly for a tip on how to write stupid clauses like a knob end.)
Well I must be a mental feminist then, because I do think that male violence is the problem that people just will not face up to. Not just directed against women, but against men, too. Call me mental if you like.
But I think you might need to talk to someone about this morbid obsession with Una Mullaly.
‘morbid’… ah, calm down :)
Did you read the piece at all? The headline? Or are you just annoyed at someone having a legitimate go at silly feminism? Read the headline again please, then read the piece. It’s nonsense.
The headline would be better written as…. It’s Time to Admit That Guns Drive Toxic Masculinity á la Gun Violence… or something to that affect, she has it backwards.
“Or are you just annoyed at someone having a legitimate go at silly feminism?”
In fairness, you accused Una Mullally of saying that all men were potential rapists. It’s clear that your “legitimate go” is just emotional kneejerking with regards feminism.
I didn’t accuse her of it. She has said it, more than once, and even called for indoctrination of men into believing they are potential rapists. It’s not an accusation, she said it and stands by it. So no, no emotional kneejerking thanks, you can keep that one yourself :)
When did she say it? I’ve Google her name with those words and got nothing.
Y’know I’m heartened that you can qualify your statements about ‘mental’ feminists to identify those you think are out of touch, on the fringe or just plain over the top. We might disagree on the particulars, but never mind that. It shouldn’t be that difficult to make the leap to the idea that ‘toxic’ masculinity is a subset of masculinity. How widespread it is among males I don’t know, but I do think its social effects are disproportionate and even magnified by various factors, often because men who are not toxic themselves get defensive at the very concept, while others either do not or choose not to notice it.
more than six months ago, so maybe requires a better search. Search the site itself, IT. She also said it on TV. Can’t recall. Sure, if you can’t find that, just ask her.
*when.
Well no. The point of that piece is that men het up for whatever slight they have perceived can get easy access to brutal weapons and kill lots of people because they see them as a threat or the enemy for some reaosn.
And this key point:
“even though the modifier “toxic” inherently suggests that there are forms of masculinity that are not toxic.”
“more than six months ago,”
If you can remember when, you obviously remember the article she said it in quite clearly. Can you provide a link? I seriously can’t find it anywhere.
Nigel…. c’mere…. you’re looking for an argument where there is none. I’m not debating the existence of toxic masculinity here.
For sake of debate, I’ve taken the phrase on board and my point is…
The guns feed that assumed characteristic of “toxic”, not “toxic” feeding the gun violence.
“The guns feed that assumed characteristic of “toxic”, not “toxic” feeding the gun violence.”
So men feeling angry, alienated and depressed would be fine if they didn’t have any guns?
Fair enough Clampers. sorry if I took you up wrong, and an excellent point. There’s probably a whole ugly feedback loop going on there.
Moyest, if I have it right the idea is that anger, pain, frustration, powerlessness and entitlement are all perfectly normal and understandable negative human emotions. There are ways of dealing with them and coming to terms with them in an understanding and compassionate manner. Do guns, in particular US gun culture, and their potency for violence and fantasies of empowerment and revenge feed those feelings and cause them to grow, encourage them, even, contributing to the whole idea of toxic masculinity? I doubt it’s that simple or straightforward, but it’s an entirely reasonable approach to take.
“So men feeling angry, alienated and depressed would be fine if they didn’t have any guns?”
No, I would not say that. But thank you for recognising that they are conditions of being human… “feeling angry, alienated and depressed” and not a distinct facet of masculinity being “toxic”. Well done for breaking free of the pseudo psychology of feminist language.
“No, I would not say that.”
So what would you say then? I would be of a mind that someone will walk into a public place and mow everyone down *because* they are angry and alienated. The guns allowed them to action that anger but it didn’t cause the anger.
“and not a distinct facet of masculinity being “toxic”. Well done for breaking free of the pseudo psychology of feminist language.”
Didn’t you talk about “silly feminism” on this thread? There’s nothing wrong with the word “toxic’ being used to describe the state of mind of people who are so angry and depressed that that they purposely cause pain for others. Toxic is pretty apt actually.
” And this key point:
“even though the modifier “toxic” inherently suggests that there are forms of masculinity that are not toxic.” ”
Forgive the extra quotes, me no sub-ed.
Anyway…. again, it’s the language Don, this “toxic” idea is very much language intended to denigrate. It’s not academic. It makes no effort to speak about the issues which Moyest was so very easily able to differentiate through real language – “feeling angry, alienated and depressed”.
To use “toxic masculinity” as a method of explaining these three (in this example) very different issues and combine them as a characteristic of maleness under the phrase “toxic masculinity” is simplistic nonsense intended to execrate men on the whole. Nothing more.
I think it’s worth considering that whatever the academic language of feminism might suggest – academic anything can seem dispassionate, detached and very alienating, but that’s how you explore these idea at that high a level of intellectual thought – consider that it’s feminism as it is lived and practiced on the ground that has broken down a lot of the ideas about masculinity which did a far better job of denying those emotions and the necessity of recognising and dealing with them than any feminist academic. The general trend has always been for patriarchal masculinity to deny the common humanity of men and women in that regard and for feminism to promote it.
“Anyway…. again, it’s the language Don, this “toxic” idea is very much language intended to denigrate. It’s not academic. It makes no effort to speak about the issues which Moyest was so very easily able to differentiate through real language – “feeling angry, alienated and depressed”.
As Nigel says, its academic. The word has specifically been chosen to describe what it is. It isn’t saying all masculinity is toxic and therefore all men. The examples she is using as to show that it isn’t a black and white thing, it’s a continuum that stems from the same thing – a feeling of being belittled and humilitated and that why would you do that, I am a big strong man.
I think you need to see this more objectively than you are. That is one term is what you are taking from that piece is telling.
@Moyest…
“Toxic” may be apt in common discourse.
It is not academic. It is not the language of psychology. It is feminist language used to frame an idea that is clearly makey-up by throwing in a bunch of different negative conditions and then saying, “hey, that’s toxic”. It has no real academic meaning, it’s a catch all phrase that suits feminist rhetoric.
—–
On the earlier bit… “No, I would not say that.” – I was referring, clearly I thought, to the part where they’d be “fine”. No they would not be fine, I would not say that. Hopefully you got that this time. I miss stuff too.
“Don, this “toxic” idea is very much language intended to denigrate.”
You’re upset or surprised that someone would want to denigrate those who intentionally hurt others?
“”toxic masculinity” is simplistic nonsense intended to execrate men on the whole.”
No it isn’t. If you scroll a couple of messages up you’ll see that you’ve written today; “#DeludedFeminism” and “Please note, that when I say “feminists” I just mean the mental feminists, not all feminists.”
Well people referring to toxic masculinity aren’t referring to all men, just the ones that like to beat people up, verbally belittle others and the odd one who enjoys killing 50 people in 20 minutes or so.
““Toxic” may be apt in common discourse.”
It is not academic. It is not the language of psychology. It is feminist language used to frame an idea that is clearly makey-up by throwing in a bunch of different negative conditions and then saying, “hey, that’s toxic”. It has no real academic meaning, it’s a catch all phrase that suits feminist rhetoric”
So you’re annoyed she used the word toxic because it’s written down? That’s seriously how it comes across. You say the word is fine in common discourse but not for that article. Sounds like you’re grasping at straws and coming up with arbitrary rules to fail the opposing side with because you can’t tackle the content.
I see it quite objectively thanks. I have no problem with people talking about male issues as Moyest did.
My issue is with framing a debate around a pseudo academic phrase intended by feminism to denigrate. It’s the “tank” thing. It’s a big “hammer”. It treats mental issues like something that can be swept up in a yard with a big brush and bagged neatly. It’s nonsense.
I’m not sure how true this is given it’s reddit and I don’t have time to look further but toxic masculinity was invented by men’s rights activists
https://www.reddit.com/r/FeMRADebates/comments/1voxgf/toxic_masculinity_came_from_mens_activists_not/
Come up with a decent critique of it or given give the feminism is evil stuff a rest yeah? It’s getting old really really really fast.
Have to go with Moyest here. Toxic masculinity refers to an identifiable strain of male thought and behaviour that runs though social, political, cultural and personal spheres. You could probably identify strains of toxic femininity if you wanted to but I doubt anyone is especially keen to give misogynists a free one, and it isn’t as if there haven’t been whole areas of pseudo-scientific study engaged in proving the inferiority of the female of the species and more than enough current commentary on how awful women are. The thing about identifying the existence of toxic masculinity is that it relies on the experiences and observations of the women who are mostly subjected to it, therefore it tends to get discounted on that account.
Your repeated posts on the evils of feminism show you are the furthest from objective you can possibly get.
” So you’re annoyed she used the word toxic because it’s written down? ”
I’m not responding to this made up assumed to be offended chest out nonsense Moyest. Thanks.
Don, take what I said today, thanks.
“I’m not responding to this made up assumed to be offended chest out nonsense Moyest. Thanks.”
You do what you need to do. I didn’t make up that you said the word toxic was fine in common discourse *but* (ie, your problem with it) it wasn’t an academic word.
” You’re upset or surprised that someone would want to denigrate those who intentionally hurt others? ”
So, you admit the language is loaded.
Thanks.
I don’t admit anything. You’re the one saying it’s about denigration. I’m asking you that, seeing as *you think* it’s about denigration, why are you upset that someone would want to denigrate those that go out of their way to hurt others. That doesn’t mean *I* think they’re denigrating.
“Toxic masculinity refers to an identifiable strain of male thought and behaviour that runs though social, political, cultural and personal spheres.”
No Nigel, it is not an ‘indentifiable strain’. It is a phrase used as a catch all of a number of conditions and psychological issues among men. It is not a thing that can be pointed at.
Remember why this thread started, why I kept it going, the Salon writer said that it was toxic masculinity that lead to the Orlando killings. She used a catch all phrase to push an agenda of hate. She used the deaths of 49 people, and the actions of an unhinged person to further her arguments for “toxic masculinity”.
Disgusting.
You guys can defend that all you want. I see it as sick twisted juvenile feminist nonsense.
My post was modded but its an MRA term, not a feminist term.
I am taking you by what you are saying today and it’s ridiculous.
“the Salon writer”
Why do you expect a Salon writer to use “academic” language and “the language of psychology”?
“said that it was toxic masculinity that lead to the Orlando killings.”
Right. She didn’t say masculinity caused it, she said *toxic* masculinity, as in the kind of masculinity which is mixed with anger and entitlement and desire to hurt others.
I won’t debate you on the origin Don, I’ll give you that, no problem. And if you look deeper into that, where I’m coming from, you’ll find the argument about how feminism uses and develops it for their own purposes – such as in the Salon article.
Salon is the height of feminist academic rigour is it now? Jesus Clampers, I just can’t with you right now.
I have no time for MRAs by the way. They be right tools, just like those feminists who call for indoctrinating of men.
Funny you should say that given you sound just like one
Yes, ‘academic’ …it was a stretch to call Amanda that. Maybe I should reframe my stance, and just call them toxic feminists, those who come out with such nonsense.
Her critique is more academic than yours
“critique” you say. Right then…. a critique that blames Orlando killings on “toxic masculinity”. Whatever. Diatribe would be more fitting.
Diatribe sums up your recent comments well, yes
I’ll just leave this here. You can lead a horse to water, You can give him a tall stool and a cocktail umbrella and put something smooth on the jukebox. Can’t make him drink.
Thanks Nigel.
FYI – https://ecoequine.wordpress.com/2014/01/26/10-tips-for-getting-water-into-your-horse/
I agree with toxic masculinity as well, though its a bit of a tank term
Toxic masculinity / toxic femininity …not sure what a ‘tank’ term is. What I see in that pseudo academic language is intolerance.
Like using a hammer, when a civil discussion would do…. maybe that’s what you mean by ‘tank’, going all in on something no matter what. Or to use another phrase, it’s a “wide brush” statement to paint everyone male with, while saying it’s not all men.
See my comment below
Tank term – I mean it’s a bit heavy handed and does drive some people away from the conversation. It is most definitely something that needs discussing though
True
Not familiar with the concept, not read the article, but Toxic Masculinity would be a good synonym for homophobia I think.
Women in general don’t tend to find the concept of two women kissing disgusting, abhorrent, bile-inducing, violence-inducing to the same extent as some men do about two men kissing. Why?
Objectively they’re both just two people kissing. Because one goes against the grain of what they’re taught ‘being a man’ is about. Which a lot of time looks like hating men. Like how men can think penises are disgusting to look at though they dedicate hours to their own.
The whole fear around ‘coming out’ is down to one or both of two things, being gay in and of itself, and the fear of other peoples’ reactions to that fact – When a young gay guy is struggling with his identity – the identity and not the prospect of other people’s reactions to it – it’s because there’s something wrong with the type of masculinity instilled in him.
I had more of a problem with the second aspect, I never disgusted myself, but I know plenty of guys who’s self esteem has never recovered from spending years being disgusted in themselves. It actually made the whole shooting more intelligible to me when I found out the killer was gay or bi himself. It’s far more comprehendible to me than something abstract like jihadism.
interesting, thanks for sharing this.
*Women in general don’t tend to find the concept of two women kissing disgusting, abhorrent, bile-inducing, violence-inducing to the same extent as some men do about two men kissing. Why?*
I don’t know, to be honest, it’s an interesting question. Maybe it’s a question of how masculinity and femininity are read by society. To be a man, to many people that means you’ve got to attract lots of women and failure to do so makes you somehow less of a man – this is an active participation thing. Gay men opt out of that which is a bit threatening to people who build their identity on the real manly man concept. To be a woman, you have to attract lots of men – this is a passive thing, you can adorn or decorate or starve yourself but you don’t need to actively do anything other than be sought. Being a gay woman doesn’t negatively affect that at all – and some see it as a plus, so it’s socially more neutral.
No idea whether this is accurate.
I think it’s more simple and I don’t think it’s a biological / evolutionary thing at all, there’s nothing like it in nature – I think it’s societal.
I think it’s how little boys are raised. I don’t think some men are more hardwired for depression or suicide or bigotry than women, I think they’re raised with less scope to be themselves. Toughen up, don’t cry, be a man, don’t be a sissy.
It runs in families. My peers who struggled most had the worst familial reaction to coming out. Whereas mine was a breeze in comparison. It’s the family you come from and how they raise boys.
I wasn’t suggesting that it was a biological aversion – that wasn’t entirely clear. I also think it’s entirely socially constructed ideas of masculinity and concepts of what men are/do and femininity and what women are/do.
I don’t believe in ladybrains or manbrains in the least.
Interesting idea – bit from column A and bit form column B maybe?
Totally agree re family situation – “They fupp you up your mum and dad” is maybe the most bang on explanation for a lot of social problems!
Toxic masculinity would not be a synonym for homophobia.
I agree. In some cases, there is a fine line between homophobia and latent homosexuality.
Nope.
Great read, Anne-Marie.
The level of nastiness and deflection that came out of comment sections over the last few days really took my breath away, and I’m a jaded fupp already.
True but it’s noteworthy that both broadsheet and Ammo think it would be a good idea if we can all take another day of this and +100 posts, clicks and page impressions.
Trollny, you should be delighted that “Ammo” has written anotice article all about people like you. You’ve called AJ there a mouthy queer before, yesterday you accused gay people of trying to monopolise the grief, then, on the same thread, you asked someone to name any Islamic state that treats gay people well. Your exactly the kind of mouth breather being discussed here.
I don’t know who you’re referring to there son but advise you to calm the fupp down.
Don’t be coy now, Trollny. Own your juoartiiys stupidity.
*hilarious. ‘Something something on your wedding day’
dog bless you Moyest – you’re rather a disturbed fellow, clearly.
I hear ya, ahjayzis.
(Nice article, Anne-Marie.)
One thing friends have noticed is not enough straight friends or ‘allies’ have bothered to express much sympathy after Orlando. And they’re not happy about it.
It’s the same “quietening” that happens after every terrorist event: Charleston, Elliot Rodgers etc etc on and on. The same discomfort with, or abject failure, to recognise the role that people’s own language and behaviour plays in perpetuating stereotypes that men (all of the nearly 1000 shootings in the US in the last year or so have been men) who feel failed, who feel excluded, who feel weak (and we all know a real man would never put up with feeling weak or gay or like a girl right) will seize on and use to justify such horror and hate and death.
There is a lot to unpick there – gender, religion, gun control, sexuality, economics, disenfranchisment – but you need to before you even start to get at the heart of these repeated events. And if you don’t, I guess we will wait for the next one and repeat this all over again.
For those who have been saying the LGBT community are trying to “own tragedy”, I would suggest even the most perfunctory read through the hashtag on Twitter. Go and learn you some about other people’s realities.
Love is love.
Well said Don… took me a bit to get me head around, but I got there :)
And this links in with “toxic masculinity” – that men feel they have been let down by society or aren’t being respected in some way or aren’t getting what they deserve (hey lady, I bought you dinner, you OWE me sex now). It feeds into Trump, into Farage, into homphobia, into sexist “banter”. All of it.
I hear ya Don, there’s gotta be a better language for this. Feminist ideologically lead language is not going to do it, it’s too one sided, and most certainly doesn’t look at whole picture stuff, it pidgeon holes and cherry picks.
( No pun on Pídgéόní intended… I see you used all the fadas :) )
Yes, the concept doesn’t matter, the problem is that so-called “ladies” came up with the term.
Is it strictly feminist? Masculinity isn’t a feminist word and I think there def needs to be a discussion about what it is to be a man today. Gender roles have changed a lot of both men and women and I do think a lot of men feel unsure about their place in the world which feeds into a lot of problems we see in men.
Writing off things as being silly feminism doesn’t help things either as I’m sure you’re aware. Some feminists do look only at women, some feminists are more gender studies based and look at both men and women.
@Real Jane …I’m sticking my tongue out at you. It’s the only response that matches the heights of that pathetic ‘ladies’ comment.
———-
“Writing off things as being silly feminism doesn’t help things either”…. precisely!
Don, remember Una’s line that, when I say ‘all men’ …’I mean the all the bad men’. I’m using that through out this post when I speak of feminism. I’m doing it to demonstrate what a ridiculous stance it is to take. You have confirmed it is stupid. Thank you.
Look, I don’t deny the good that feminism has done, and can still do. But to not look at feminism critically and call it out for nonsense when it spreads it would be foolish of everyone. “Toxic masculinity” is a phrase borne out of feminism, a one sided ideology, speaking generally of course.
You don’t look at it critically at all as is plain to see. You want to be the news of feminism go ahead
“Feminism in Britain has had two strands: as a media phenomenon and as an academic discipline. The vast realm of reality that lies between remains unaffected by either.”
…not just Britain :)
excellent point
No proof anything happened in Orlando, just hearsay and pointless idle speculation.
Fake News is Fake.
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/06/14/orlando-shooting-still-no-evidence/
You’re welcome.
Thankso, fella. I’d say most people reading needed some light relief alright.
+1 Moyest
Agreed. We need to calm down and wait a century or two for someone to get down to writing a gospel about it so we know what happened.
Ha, quality :-)
I’m surprised Bodger hasn’t included this link with all the reports about it
Rotide,
Zuppy knows.
There is a reason he was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal.
Who – Zuppy International?
Three things fights this…
-Tolerance
-Flexibility
-Love
You tolerate people who do not harm others
You be flexible with people who you do not agree wtih
Kill people with love
Not a bad mantra to live life by…
Also what research shows prevents radicalisation as well. Making people “other” only drives them further away and makes them more hateful.
The media seems unable to get the facts straight on this…as per usual. Any time there’s a tragedy of this nature in the US the details get obscured by special interest reporting and agenda setters clamoring to spin it into something they can use. Is it or is it true that this guy rang the authorities and informed them of what he was going to do in the name of ISIS? It’s a wonder there isn’t a heavy Islamic terrorism spin on this. If he’s a lone nut, which he probably was, then we can ignore any motive etc. He was just a nut using Islam as an excuse to murder people he didn’t like because they were gay. There’s no blame beyond him. However, this does not excuse the FACT that Islam is anti gay. There are still Islamic nations where being gay will get you executed.
“It’s a wonder there isn’t a heavy Islamic terrorism spin on this.”
Are you being sarcastic? Trump used this to call for a ban on muslims entering the states.
“However, this does not excuse the FACT that Islam is anti gay”
So is Christianity.
“There are still Islamic nations where being gay will get you executed.”
Uganda is Christian.
There are Christian countries where being gay gets you killed or raped as well.
There are christian countries where you could be imprisoned for being gay in the living memory of people who aren’t very old, We don’t have to look very far.
Eoin just did a Clarke and scored an ‘Eoin’ goal …
And Christian countries where holding your beloved’s hand can get you assaulted. But hey! Its the Muslimists with the problem!!!
Eoin is such a tit.
Looking increasingly like he was a self-loathing closet case who does what self-loathing closet-cases do best – attack the people living happily and freely sans closet. His putting of an ISIS sheen on it makes total sense.
The FACT is all three of the Abrahamic religions are anti-gay. The #PrayForOrlando thing was insulting considering the fact that the Bible injuncts Christians to kill ‘abominations’ like gays.
You see to think it must be one thing or the other, rather than a number of things at once, and that the homophobic aspect is being unfairly highlighted, which is incomprehensible to me from any reasonable standpoint. In a way it doesn’t really matter whether he was homophobic because of Islam or used Islam to channel his homophobia or some complex psychological feedback of both. Nor does his invoking if ISIS preclude him from being a lone nut (turns out it’s remarkably easy to become an ISIS operative even if you were claiming allegiance to their sworn enemies a while before), nor does it mean he wasn’t homophobic. But fifty mostly LGBT people are murdered in one go at a gay nightclub by a guy apparently set off by two guys kissing: why the hell is it so important that the homophobic aspect NOT be the headline characteristic?
I doubt you’ll have much to teach LGBT people about Islam being anti-gay. Particularly gay Muslims.
God I wish BS had an edit function for the comments.
‘To think it must be one thing or the other, rather than a number of things at once, and that the homophobic aspect is being unfairly highlighted, is incomprehensible to me from any reasonable standpoint.’
In 2014 when the west started bombing them ISIS actually stopped their call for western converts to their cause to come to the ‘Caliphate’ – they instructed them to carry out terrorism in their home countries, explicitly against civilians, and to not bother asking permission or even getting in contact with them – just to publically declare their allegiance to Al Baghdadi beforehand. So when they take credit for this stuff, it’s really a very tangential involvement. It’s still a lone wolf type affair, just with a brand name.
I was so shocked by this mass murder. I saw the social media response & decided that it was utterly useless to add to noise in the face of such horror.
Trump is a dangerous idiot – he’s maintaining that a muslim ban would have stopped the attack. Ignoring that the shooters family have been living in the states for 30 years, that he was born in the US.
Collective punishment based on religion – studpid & dangerous.
Sure but it resonates well with the social conservatives who by nature are terrified of everything.
Make of this what you will but….
Jay
Sus
Lads
https://twitter.com/i/moments/742975954860052481
Even if Trump loses (leasepleaseplease) that ain’t going away.
‘If you have sat back and quietly allowed that hate, intolerance or unacceptance to go unchallenged in any religion that you are a member of then you are actively supporting an organisation that has facilitated the massacre we witnessed on Sunday.’
So as a practicing Roman Catholic I facilitated this massacre? ( I Voted No by the way, exercising my democratic right to have an opinion different from yours.) Please enlighten me how my personal choice of religion facilitated some homophobic Nut job in the USA from taking an automatic machine gun into a club and slaughtering 50 people?
You can be religious and still have a sense of human rights. Im not too sure if Im following the thread correctly here.
If you voted No in the same sex marriage referendum it should not be your democratic right to decide if I am equal to you…your religion says everyone is equal in gods eyes
(I voted Yes by the way and Im a practicing atheist..)
“Please enlighten me how my personal choice of religion facilitated some homophobic Nut job in the USA from taking an automatic machine gun into a club and slaughtering 50 people?”
Everything action starts put as a opinion/thought/emotion/feeling in someone’s head. People do bad things because they have bad opinions/thoughts/emotions/feelings. They often learn bad thoughts and opinions from other people. They often have those bad thoughts and opinions validated by others. Then they turn thoughts into actions.
Basically ‘I hate those gays. Look at all these smart people who say that gays are trying to harm society by getting married. I’m definitely right to hate them. Oh good, guns are legal.’
I Voted No by the way, exercising my democratic right to have an opinion different from yours
So brave, so selfless to take a stand against stuff that could never effect you.
No bother, pet. I’ll do likewise when next I’m asked to vote on your life x
Practicing Roman Catholics facilitated centuries of child abuse, abuse of women, abuse of power – and you’re surprised it’s also facilitated homophobia in society? Bless. Just what crime does your club have to commit before you rethink your affiliation?
I Voted No by the way, exercising my democratic right to have an opinion different from yours.
You Voted No exercising your democratic right to force your opinion on others surely?
Whiter you like it or not, The CC is a homophobic organisation and while it does not advocate the murdering of gay people, it certain does advocate the discrimination of. It is not the even the thin edge of the homophobic wedge, it is half way down. It is the same thing.
*I Voted No by the way, exercising my democratic right to have an opinion different from yours.*
That’s not having a different opinion, though, that’s an action to limit the rights of other people where those rights do not in any way conflict with, or limit any right you may have. That’s not a difference of opinion.
Jesus this is going to get me in trouble but here goes.
Without a doubt this was a homophobic hate crime motivated by the guys self loathing and/or a real hatred of gay people. I can’t see how anyone can see it as anything else. The ISIS involvement is a massive red herring seized upon by the usual suspects to further the fear narrative that is so prevalent. So far so sensible.
Here’s the thing though. This is the biggest mass shooting in US history and just the latest in a depressingly long line of mass shootings made possible by the eye-wateringly lax gun controls in the US. Initially the talk was about terrorism, now its about homophobia and ‘the gays owning it’. It should be about neither of these. The LGBT community is merely just another community that has been targeted by random people who by any right thinking minds should not have access to the weapons they have access to. The narrative at all times should be about denouncing homophobia, of course. However in the wake of this the narrative should be about limiting gun control so this does not have to happen every month. To gay people, to black people, to chidren in schools, to people at their workplace.
I understand that this is an extreme example of the homophobia that LGBT people around the world have to put up with every day of their lives and needs to be highlighted and I get that the sense of shared grief that has led to the ‘love is love’ slogan and I know it’s stupid in the extreme to compare the plight of postal workers worldwide with how harships of the LGBT community, but they do have at least one thing in common. They both suffered from tragedies that should not have been allowed to happen.
Having said all that, if 20 six and seven year old children won’t change Americans minds about gun control then nothing will.
+1
Agree with every word.
What riled me up the other day wasn’t me trying to ‘own it’ – Trump and the Republican’s had got my back up and people on here seemed to be trying to deny the absolute bare faced truth of the motive. Insisting this was an attack on “us” – “we” were attacked. The very people they exclude from their usual “us” and “we” when discussing marriage, bathrooms, armed services, discrimination laws – and they used the attack to do what they’ve done to LGBT people and other minorities for decades – they used it to demonise all Muslims for electoral benefit, and jettisoned a proper discussion about homophobia or gun control.
+1 Rotide
The availability of guns in the States is absolute madness. And yes, it allows every crack pop who holds a grudge to take out innocents at will but in this context it was a premeditated hate crime. After witnessing two men kissing three months earlier, the guy drove ninety miles and if it wasn’t guns he would have used something else. Nail bombs as was the case in London for example.
The wave of the massacre de-gaying came from two sources.
The likes of Trump and the Christian right attempted to apply the ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’ tack which backfired as the video posted by Moyest at the beginning of this thread shows. But, out of bad comes good and it is one of the few opportunities to really challenge these bigots because they are way more of a problem to LGBT people in the States than any Muslim, religious or otherwise.
But what personally roused me was the second layer of homophobia inferring that even in their death these LGBT people were not to be allowed the dignity and respect for who and what they were. This includes a number of men who posted on this site. Of course this is not the first time such a cover up has happened. The only Nazi prisoners not realised after the Second World War were gay and in some quarters, that double standard clearly still remains.
Oh you’re such a ‘drama llama’, as you say.
You claimed there were armed police outside The Stonewall Inn so I phoned a friend. Why the pretense?
http://m.timesunion.com/news/article/New-Yorkers-grieve-at-Stonewall-Inn-8091608.php
Go away you self-loathing cretin
@ Kirean
Well that is not what I was told. It may be that they were not there once the crowd has dispersed.
Please don’t be getting nasty.
@ SO
Agree totally. I couldn’t believe how hateful some of the men were on here in the wake of what happened in Orlando. I found that so alarming and upsetting.
Hope you’re feeling brighter, trying to reason with that type of mentality must have been so
depressing and draining.
+1 CMcE
Tnx Cath.
No I am fine really. I have way more important things to be thinking about than a few vindictive clowns on the internet.
Homophobia is a sliding scale akin to and somewhat connected to Kinsey, although there is a lot of work to be done in this area. We all sit on that scale somewhere but there is no harm in pointing out to some that they are not as kind-hearted or balanced as they would like to think they are.
There’s a lot of good people out there too SOQ just try to also remember that. And a good few also that are in the middle. The Internet can be misrepresentative as it frequently draws only the worst sorts like flies to Shiite
That message is for Kieran NYC too btw
‘These LGBT people’.
If I am cool with my colleague, friend of relative being bixexual, gay or likes to switch gender, why would I call him/her an ‘LGBT person’?
I’m sure she can be sarcastic at times, she is an old queen after all.
@ SOQ
That’s the spirit, good for you.
As Delboy said as well, the internet brings the worst poo-stirring commentors, big brave keyboard warriors.
Onwards and upwards :-)
Another old queen called Panti Bliss On Orlando And Homophobia
https://vimeo.com/173053072