Quote:
Originally Posted by BDF
You're twisting the context a bit with your quotations on "act less smart" "act less black" etc...
When someone tells someone else to "act less gay", it doesn't necessarily directly suggest that person is gay at all, but just behaving awkward in general, or simply that he, she, or it, is stupid, or dumb etc. I've heard people call all sorts of things gay... cars, houses, street names, shops, pencil cases, etc... I think you get the point. Never have I heard in my life "black", "short-sighted", used to describe behaviour, "smart" more frequently though, but usually positively and used as a compliment. Some things you can change, some things you can't. Being black, short sighted, or even being smart, you can't, not really. "Acting gay" here is referring to a certain style of behaviour, which can be changed. Here, the person "acting gay" has two choices (assuming the teacher doesn't help):
1. Either they stop "acting gay" which would draw less attention to themselves and perhaps get them bullied less, or
2. They start going to the gym, do karate, kick boxing and judo, and learn to stand their ground.
In my opinion, very practical advice, although personally I'd chose the second option.
And about the political correctness thing I threw in... I simply chipped it in because I felt like ranting. It did not alter the course of my argument. Political correctness or not, I'd not support the sacking of the teacher.
There are two meanings to "gay" in this context:
1. Homosexual
2. Stupid
If they were bullied not for "acting gay" (2), but actually "being gay" (1), it would be a different story. The difference is in how the words "being" and "acting" are used. The teacher clearly told the kids to "act less gay".
And please goddamit don't call me RATHIST or whatever. I'm just dishing out the facts as far as I'm aware of them.
|
I think regarding acting/being, it's simply semantics. If you are saying that by saying 'gay' the teachers meant it in a slang context (as in stupid, dumb, lame etc) I think you're reaching... a lot. For one, I've never met anyone over the age of 16 who goes around using the word 'gay' in that context, and I certainly doubt teachers would even be allowed to go around using that word that way. Even if it were true, it would probably be even worse. If someone is getting bullied and the teachers tell them to basically not be so lame... well, I don't have to explain that any futher.
If someone is acting really flamboyently, drawing attention to themselves etc which puts them at risk from bullies, I understand why the teachers would think they should just 'tone it down', but it's a dumb idea and victim blaming.
I wouldn't go to a neo nazi convention and announce my conversion to Judaism, and I wouldn't go to the bad side of town in the middle of the night with a $10000 necklace hanging around my neck.
The difference is, though, going to school shouldn't be putting yourself in a 'dangerous situation'. If school is an at risk place, THAT should be adressed, not whether or not a student's hair is 'straight enough'.
And as for the teachers, I want to make it clear that I don't think they should be fired. I was merely arguing that it WAS bad advice and it is not being over politically correct to say so. However I do think that sometimes the
LGBT community takes things to an extreme. This was terrible advice for sure but it wasn't some human rights abuse as it is being portrayed. I think the teachers should be educated, not fired, because it doesn't sound like their actions were malicious or intentionally harmful... just stupid.
By the way, is a RATHIST a racist as told by one of those famous gay lisps?