An Online Magazine…For Fags?

Posted: February 5, 2012 in Fag Up!, Feminism, Freedom of Speech, Identity, Masculinities, Uncategorized
Tags: , , , ,

Unilad, a website that became notorious this week and has now been taken down. I don’t know who spotted it first, but it quickly entered the social network sphere via women who were outraged by it. I didn’t get to see a great deal of it before it was taken down after a deluge of complaints, but what I did see warranted a few raised eyebrows, to say the least. Advertising itself as a guide to being a successful ‘lad’ in university, it seemed mainly dedicated to the degradation of women, disabled people and pretty much anyone who doesn’t conform to their masculine ideal. One of the passages I read was a bizarrely detailed mathematical analysis of how many women are sluts and how to have sex with one, and ended with the observation that 85% of rapes go unreported, so you’re likely to get away with it if you force yourself on a slut if she ends up rejecting you.
*
Or something like that. I may be mistaken, it’s hard to read clearly when you’re brain is trying escape through your eye sockets.
*
Obviously, once it became known about, a lot of people had some serious complaints about the Unilad website, and complain they did. From what I saw, the Unilad team, demonstrating reasoning skills in-keeping with their writing skills, seemingly resorted to one of 3 responses to these complaints.
*
1. Accuse the complainer of being a lesbian.
*
2. Accuse the complainer of being a feminist
*
3. Accuse the complainer of having no sense of humour.
*
Undeniably, a lot of those complaining were women. This is understandable, seeing as it was largely women who were being denigrated and degraded by Unilad. If you break into someone’s home, it’s usually the home owners who end up calling the police. Cause and effect, that is.
*
So, as a heterosexual white male non-feminist, non-lesbian, working class background comedian who’s been a member of a university for over 10 years, I’m clearly part of Unilad’s target demographic. And they claimed it was all for comedy, all a collection of jokes and ‘banter’. If we accept this claim at face value, then those who object to it are ‘wrong’ to do so as it’s not serious. Any criticism for it should be delivered in the context of comedy and humour, not political ideology and serious stuff like that.
*
So, taking this into account, as a comedian with a sense of humour, what reason do I have for not liking the Unilad website?
*
In a nutshell, it’s crap. From a purely comedic perspective, viewing the whole thing as one big collection of jokes as they assured us it is/was, all the jokes are very poorly thought out and lacking in any element of subtlety or nuance that elevates crude jackass level physicality to genuinely good comedy.
*
The argument Unilad use that those who don’t like their site lack a sense of humour seems very counter-intuitive to me. Only someone with only the most basic sense of what humour actually is could find their work genuinely funny. Anyone who has a working sense of humour and appreciation of good comedy would find the Unilad website as painful as Unilad’s theoretical targets would find the consequences of their advice.
*
Perhaps I’m being unfair, perhaps there are many men who found Unilad funny, but I’d imagine they’re not the sort of people I’d want to share a night out with. I’d probably prefer not to share a country with them, if that was possible, but that’s just me. ‘It’s funny because it’s a good joke’ is a very different thing to ‘it’s funny because it agrees with my prejudices’, and I distrust anyone who champions something based on the latter.
*
I should clarify that I’m not reflexively offended by the subject matter in principle. I’ve heard many feminist friends say that rape jokes are never acceptable, and I respectfully disagree. I see the arguments for this, but I don’t believe there is such a thing as a subject unsuitable for comedy, as long as it’s done right. Undeniably, it’s never pleasant to hear someone make crass jokes about a subject that’s emotive and painful for you, believe me I’ve experienced it myself, but a blanket ban is a level of censorship usually employed by totalitarian regimes, and it only ever gives power to those willing to make the jokes anyway. But that’s a discussion for another time.
*
My point was, making jokes about any controversial subject can be funny if it’s done well. Unilad, for all their bluster at being humorous and just ‘banter’, do not do it well. It’s seen as fashionable in comedy these days to be deliberately dark and bad taste, but this isn’t that. This is just bad.
—————–
The paragraphs above are the response of a great blogger to the recent Unilads furore. I had a lot of problems with the reactions overall, to this online ‘student’ forum, and its ‘misogyny’. However, I found the above blogpost and this video by bearded eloise (aka https://twitter.com/#!/rey_z) more worthwhile than most of the feminist whining about  Uni Lads.  Because they are personal, measured responses and they don’t use dogma to make their points.

One of my main problems with the feminist reactions, which led to the student site taking down all its content, was that they did not seem to consider the views of the young men involved, or any young men for that matter. On twitter, Petra Boynton the sex educator/academic, made quite a meal out of how bad she thought UniLads were. She pointed out, rightly, that feminists were concentrating on the ‘rape jokes’ on the website and ignoring e.g. anti-disability comments, and posts that denigrated men’s sexuality.
But her conclusion that the site was ‘anti-men’ did not seem to be based on actually talking to men!

I DID talk to some men about Uni Lads. The overwhelming majority of those I spoke to thought the site was unimpressive, included some very nasty comments, and, as the blogger above says, its jokes were UNFUNNY. I agree with him and other men I spoke to, that ‘banning’ jokes about sensitive subjects such as rape is ridiculous and censorious. Especially when there are some very funny jokes around, about subjects including murder and violence.

Not so long ago I argued with a feminist blogger about this subject. Her view that rape jokes are always unacceptable annoyed me. Partly because, as you can see I said in the comments, as a ‘survivor’ of ‘intimate partner violence’ I have found the use of humour very cathartic. And if I can justify  using it, why can’t anyone else?

So I liked the men’s more sensible comment that when it comes to humour, being funny, or at least competent at telling jokes, matters. And Uni Lads were not funny. One of the men I talked to, who is in his twenties and a student himself, did not defend the Unilads. But he did argue eloquently that maybe we should consider WHY men make jokes in this way, especially in groups.

He said:

‘I’ve seen many people, even the usually great Dr Petra, saying that they don’t need to understand ‘banter’ to know what the ‘lads’ are saying is disgusting and awful. That is wrong in my opinion. A big part of what banter is (or at least has been for me) is saying the unsayable. I have said things in the company of other guys which I don’t believe, and would never dream of saying in real life. That is sort of the point. The aim is to get a rise out of each other, or to out do each other. It is that horribly guilty pleasure of laughing at something you shouldn’t. The main problem is that Unilads made it public, and it slots right into a ready made feminist narrative.’

It sounds a bit more complex now doesn’t it, than just being anti-women, or even anti-men humour?

This person’s astute analysis reminded me of the work of Mark Simpson. He writes about how when men are in all male homosocial groups, which could be perceived as heading scarily towards ‘homosexual’ groups, they put a lot of effort into reinforcing their sense of being ‘men’. And heterosexual men at that.

But Simpson has pointed out how this attempt always fails. He explains that machismo is in fact incredibly camp. And, inspired by his idea for using the term ‘fag’ in place of ‘manly strap ons’ (e.g. Manfood manscara manbags) I came up with the term Fag Up.

So I think the Unilads Lads need to fag up. They have tried very hard to emphasise what big MEN they are, but have just come across as slightly pathetic. I don’t know if I think they should have taken down their content. I do think people who criticised them might have been a bit less shrill, and maybe even talked to them about their site, and their writing.

The fact is the scandal meant the Unilads got thousands of new followers on facebook and twitter and I expect it hasn’t dampened their spirits at all.

But maybe if they read this they will get the hint. And maybe the feminists will learn the art of nuance.

Well, a girl can only dream.

———

Thanks to everyone who contributed to the discussion.

Comments
  1. “He explains that machismo is in fact incredibly camp. ”

    You know, QRG, I have read most of Mark’s work, but never had the penny dropped quite to the ground until I read that sentence.

    Of course it’s camp. That is, it’s done with such contrived excess that it reveals the sham. Or reveals that underneath the surface, you’ll find the opposite.

    All these years, I took the title Male Impersonators literally. No, I really did. The allusion to female impersonators/drag queens as an overdone, unconvincing imitation never clicked. I just thought it was a clever pun. I don’t know how I missed it, since it’s the point of the whole fucking book. I’m a Thickshake.

    • You’re not a Thickshake HH! And Mark never really referred to Male Impersonators until he released it on Kindle very recently.

      I sometimes wonder if I have nailed his concept of ‘macho fags’ so clearly because I am not a man at all. I have absolutely nothing to ‘prove’ in the way of masculinity!

  2. redpesto says:

    “I DID talk to some men about Uni Lads. The overwhelming majority of those I spoke to thought the site was unimpressive, included some very nasty comments, and, as the blogger above says, its jokes were UNFUNNY.”

    That’s the thing though: most sane men would have left it at that and ignored the site, rather than be expected to side with feminists on the issue. Perhaps there’s a failure to credit men with recognising when another man is being a right dickhead?

  3. typhonblue says:

    QG,

    Is the photo you used to illustrate this blog post related to unilads? Because I’m always struck how the guys associated with shit like this invariably look like oily eunuchs.

  4. Personally, I think there is no subject which cannot, with wit and intelligence, form part of a piece of powerful humour. And I mourn the rise of the dour and unfertile political correctness that has attempted to censor humour that lies outside the bounds of the polite. It’s fair to say that we have fairly individualistic tastes in what is funny and our past experience and proximity to the subject often play a large part in whether we find something funny or not. But some of the funniest and most enduring humour has social critique at its foundation and the traces of powerful intelligence behind it.

    Sadly, judged on that level, the material on the unilads site fell far short, showing neither underlying social critique, intelligence, or even marginal cleverness. But mostly, it’s a fairly damning critique on universities, since they’re obviously not helping to make their young male attendees any more literate or clever.

  5. Scott says:

    James Ellroy calls this kind of humour “dog language”. At its best, Its about impacting the maximum cleverness with the maximum offensiveness. Between men, its about being the last to lose emotional control (so, at least as far as the Unilads go, the feminists are kind of playing into their hands here). Offensive humour is a true tonic when its witty, and, dare i say it, “consensual”. It cleans out the system. And sometimes its toxic, or seems to come from a sincerely nasty place; or is waggish and enforced. And what fuels that kind of humour is response. Stay silent, and your average uni wag will get angry or defensive: they really can’t take it.

    I’m glad you’ve been able to find that kind of humour cathartic, QRG. And you’re right, feminism has always had a censorious component, and isn’t famous for its love of nuance. I think we need a feminist critique of humour and language, I just think feminism all too often decides too much in advance.

    • very good points Scott.

      I learned a lot about analysing language via some feminist theorists. Dale Spender is a very good critic of traditions in writing/talking.

      But yes, it ‘decides too much in advance’ that is true!

  6. elissa says:

    Maybe just a trigger warning on the site would have been enough.

    Great insight from that fellow on the art of banter – easy to identify with, even if just alone under the covers.

  7. tu quoque says:

    “Of course it’s camp. That is, it’s done with such contrived excess that it reveals the sham. Or reveals that underneath the surface, you’ll find the opposite.”

    This sounds very confused. How on earth can machismo be a sign of femininity? Can you show an example of this being the case?

    It’s suspicious that people who try to claim that “macho” men are camp are never able to provide a definition of masculinity that these men are in fact failing to live up to. It seems like a petty attempt to emasculate the type of men that one doesn’t like.

    “Because I’m always struck how the guys associated with shit like this invariably look like oily eunuchs.”

    What a heinous comment. Apparently, men who perform in musicals also look like oily eunuchs.

    It reminds me of when Jezebel had a post about a student who wrote an article about date-rape hysteria and they put the student’s photo up and everyone thought he looked “rapey.” Thing was, they put the wrong person’s photo up.

    Funny how anyone can look “rapey” to a feminist if they hold contradictory opinions; likewise any guy can look like an “oily eunuch” if they’re the type of guy typhonblue doesn’t like.

    I think they look normal.

    • typhonblue says:

      @ tu quoque

      “Funny how anyone can look “rapey” to a feminist if they hold contradictory opinions; likewise any guy can look like an “oily eunuch” if they’re the type of guy typhonblue doesn’t like.”

      Yep. There are types of guys I don’t like. And they often have the same look. Perhaps it’s a ‘vibe’ more than a ‘look’.

      “It’s suspicious that people who try to claim that “macho” men are camp are never able to provide a definition of masculinity that these men are in fact failing to live up to. It seems like a petty attempt to emasculate the type of men that one doesn’t like.”

      Macho is performative. It’s a matter of how you look in someone else’s eyes. It is exactly the same dynamic as donning a sequinned dress or a feather boa. You’re acting/dressing to create a particular impression _in other people_.

      Not needing to impress other people might be a start for a ‘masculine definition.’ But then it’s sort of a self defeating definition.

      As for ’emasculating men you don’t like’… I, personally, will emasculate all men who expect me to be the source of their masculation.

      • tu quoque says:

        “Yep. There are types of guys I don’t like. And they often have the same look. Perhaps it’s a ‘vibe’ more than a ‘look’.”

        Apparently this is not the case, unless you don’t like guys who participate in musical theater.

        “Macho is performative. It’s a matter of how you look in someone else’s eyes. It is exactly the same dynamic as donning a sequinned dress or a feather boa. You’re acting/dressing to create a particular impression _in other people_.”

        This idea of performativity is so asinine. It’s like it was invented in order to trivialize masculinity, without any forethought to the consequence that it paints all human action as inherently dishonest. What is the distinction between performative and non-performative behavior and what are classic examples of each?

        It’s human nature to want to impress people. If masculinity is defined by not having that desire, then manhood becomes exclusive to psychotics, hermits, and men who are will to constantly fight their own natures.

        • how many times have we, and Mr Simpson had this conversation:D

          I am happy to ‘trivialise’ masculinity and femininity and gender. I don’t respect them as solid things.

          • Jonathan says:

            “I am happy to ‘trivialise’ masculinity and femininity and gender. I don’t respect them as solid things.”

            Yes and no.

            Yes, because masculinity and femininity are culturally defined; hence they are not fixed quantities (not solid things) but are dependent on local culture and history.

            No, because people’s individual gender is for them to define; hence within a personal definition they may well be solid things.

            I’m guessing the “yes” is more what you meant.🙂

          • tu quoque says:

            You can trivialize anything you want, but masculinity and femininity are no less solid of concepts than happiness, dogs, chairs, and Democrats.

            If you want to accept that language is arbitrary than you immediately resign your viewpoint as being exactly as justified as those who believe that manhood is defined absolutely by being a strong, aggressive penis-bearer.

        • typhonblue says:

          @ tu quoque

          “It’s human nature to want to impress people. If masculinity is defined by not having that desire, then manhood becomes exclusive to psychotics, hermits, and men who are will to constantly fight their own natures.”

          If it’s human nature to want to impress people, then a desire to impress people is not unique to men.

          If a certain behaviour is motivated by a desire to impress people, and a desire to impress people is not unique to men and masculinity, then how can that behaviour be seen to DEFINE masculinity?

          It’d be like saying, ‘well, I define men as bipedal mammals.’ Yes, men are bipedal mammals, but so are women.

          • typhonblue says:

            Incidentally saying that a man cannot have a desire to impress people because he shares the trait with women, is like saying men must forgo bipedalism and homeostasis in order to be a man because he, likewise, shares those traits with women.

          • tu quoque says:

            “Incidentally saying that a man cannot have a desire to impress people because he shares the trait with women, is like saying men must forgo bipedalism and homeostasis in order to be a man because he, likewise, shares those traits with women.”

            I have absolutely no idea what you’re arguing against. You were the one who suggested that men be defined by not wanting to impress people. I made the counter argument that the desire to impress, at least in a unspecific sense, is not gendered.

            I don’t know why you’re putting forth this argumentation.

          • typhonblue says:

            “I made the counter argument that the desire to impress, at least in a unspecific sense, is not gendered.”

            You’re right. However I did say that it’s a ‘self defeating definition.’

            Maybe masculinity has no definition, just like sour or sweet or red has no definition. Because masculinity is an experience?

    • typhonblue says:

      “I think they look normal.”

      Yeah, now I know that they weren’t involved in this sort of ass-hattery, they do look normal.

    • My use of the word “camp” had nothing to do, particularly with the masculine or feminine. It has to do with exaggeration and pretending.

      What definition of masculinity are “macho men” failing to live up to? Physical combativeness when there’s nothing to combat is a good start.

      Both sexes pretend, in a myriad of ways.

      What is the definition of masculinity? What is your definition of masculinity, TQ? I can see us getting into a circular argument about styles of masculinity, defining it as anything which happens to attach to any one or more men.

      The comment did, I guess, suggest that anyone who pretends is pretentious. To some degree, yes. That pretense can be wonderful, artistic, sexy, and entertaining. And who is to say that I don’t become what I pretend to be? We could get into another circular argument on that one.

      • tu quoque says:

        Everything you’ve written is very vague and seems stream-of-conscious.

        “My use of the word ‘camp’ had nothing to do, particularly with the masculine or feminine. It has to do with exaggeration and pretending.”

        You said that “machismo” indicates the opposite quality that it tries to portray. If “machismo” is an attempt to appear masculine, then what is this “opposite” quality that it, in fact, indicates?

        “What definition of masculinity are ‘macho men’ failing to live up to? Physical combativeness when there’s nothing to combat is a good start.”

        First of all, how can you be sure what physical threats, explicit or implied, another man has to deal with? You would have to know a lot about their life and past experiences. At best, you could only determine someone was camp on an individual basis, if that.

        “Both sexes pretend, in a myriad of ways.”

        What does this even mean? What would actually constitute honest behavior, a slavish obedience to one’s compulsions?

        “What is the definition of masculinity? What is your definition of masculinity, TQ? I can see us getting into a circular argument about styles of masculinity, defining it as anything which happens to attach to any one or more men.”

        My definition of maleness is this: having more and stronger traits statistically associated with human inducers of birth. My definition of masculinity is this: the ideal form of man determined by communities of men based on valued male traits.

        • “My definition of maleness is this: having more and stronger traits statistically associated with human inducers of birth. My definition of masculinity is this: the ideal form of man determined by communities of men based on valued male traits.”

          Like I said, TQ, a circular definition!

          I go back to my original post. What we commonly know as “machismo” is commonly an “overdone, unconvincing” act. Perhaos you’re right— I don’t know a lot about Chuck Norris’ “life and past experiences”, so it might be perfectly reasonable for him to demand that he be armed with nunchucks at all times.

          • tu quoque says:

            Umm, nothing in my definition is circular. Please be more specific.

            “What we commonly know as ‘machismo’ is commonly an “overdone, unconvincing” act.”

            It may be unconvincing to you simply because you’re not capable of understanding what you’re observing.

            “Perhaps you’re right— I don’t know a lot about Chuck Norris’ ‘life and past experiences’, so it might be perfectly reasonable for him to demand that he be armed with nunchucks at all times.”

            Well, since he neither makes that demand, nor is he actually armed with nunchucks all the time, it’s not clear that you’re actually giving this topic a proper analysis.

        • paul says:

          “My definition of masculinity is this: the ideal form of man determined by communities of men based on valued male traits.”

          Hi tu quoque. Thanks for making a stab at this, but let’s look at it a little. It contains a number of key words which are not at all simple and clear: “ideal,” “determined,” “communities,” “valued,” “traits.” Since I don’t want to swamp this comments thread with an essay … just a few thoughts.

          “ideal”: from what perspective? moral? aesthetic? spiritual? politicio-economic? some social ideology or other? This is crucial. The Dalai Lama’s “ideal form of man” will differ profoundly from that of George Bush’s, say.

          “determined”: how determined? by peer pressure shaped by mass media? majority vote? force?

          “communities”: which ones? all men of all ethnicities and classes? only men who care about whether or not they are “real” men? and why only men?

          “valued”: by whom? and why? because it reduces ambiguity/uncertainty? for reasons of economic productivity or social privilege or political controllability? because it tends towards a kinder, less aggressive, more just, creative, inquisitive, adventurous world?

          “traits”: again, which ones? there are many different kinds and qualities of traits–who decides which are the most important? peer pressure / majority vote / force again?

          At the end of the day, I would say that all we are left with is a normative impulse, which is limiting, deforming, harmful. Not just for those who are aware of their inability and/or lack of desire to conform to said norm, but everyone. We’re left dividing “the human” into two, making us all effectively half-people. And do we then really scratch our heads every time the new war starts? When kindness, gentleness, compassion, receptivity, the capacity to yield all get shunted over to the “feminine,” definitionally considered *not* to be part of the “ideal form of man”?

  8. tu quoque says:

    Also, making allowances for language based on the deftness of one’s comedic skills is morally ridiculous.

    It’s a way for people to protect language they approve of and demonize language they don’t.

  9. Typhon:
    ‘I, personally, will emasculate all men who expect me to be the source of their masculation.’

    Very good. I think that nails it!

  10. @ Jonathan – I don’t think people defining their gender identity makes gender fixed, solid or important as a ‘thing’ that separates people.

    and what choice do they have? why, if people are free to define their own gender do the vast majority choose male or female, man or woman?

    • Jonathan says:

      @ QRG: I didn’t say anything about separating people. I only meant that people (can) define their own gender for themselves and, in each individual case, that gender may (or may not) be a fixed, solid or important thing.

      Also I thought we were talking about masculine and feminine here, rather than man/woman, male/female (or any other identity). For me these binaries do not (necessarily) correlate. Culturally defined masculinity, for instance, is not the unique preserve of men.

      People who claim absolutes in the arenas of sex and gender… well, just point me at them and set me going.😉

      • sorry but gender is not an ‘individual’ thing. It’s a social construct with social effects.

        and it is never fixed.

        • Jonathan says:

          “sorry but gender is not an ‘individual’ thing. It’s a social construct with social effects.

          and it is never fixed.”

          I agree with that in the general sense: that there is no fixed definition, for instance, of masculine and feminine, because those are indeed social constructs and vary according to local culture and history. And, yes, in that sense gender has significance and there are consequences (social effects) arising from that.

          But to state that gender is not ultimately individual is to (attempt to) fix it, to tell each single person what their gender is and what it means. For me, coming out of the trans/genderqueer community, it is axiomatic that gender is individual: that our gender is what we each say is, that it means what we each say it does, and that no one else gets to say this for us.

          As a case in point: what my being a man does not mean is specified in the penultimate paragraph here: http://malefemme.blogspot.com/2011/08/pronoun-trouble.html

          • I think I am saying that ‘gender’ is social therefore individuals trying to define themselves within it will always be slaves to the social construct.

            the only way to be individual is to escape/move beyond gender.

          • tu quoque says:

            “I agree with that in the general sense: that there is no fixed definition, for instance, of masculine and feminine, because those are indeed social constructs and vary according to local culture and history.”

            There has never been a fixed definition for any term. The terms “male” and “female” are no more amorphous than “tree” or “mountain.” Yet most people find it acceptable to require the consensus of thousands of nouns.

            “For me, coming out of the trans/genderqueer community, it is axiomatic that gender is individual: that our gender is what we each say is, that it means what we each say it does, and that no one else gets to say this for us.”

            No one can tell you how to conceive yourself, but, in the exact same way, you cannot tell anyone how to conceive gender, theirs or yours, either. If you want to see yourself as a man, you have that right. If someone else sees you as a woman, they have that right.

  11. I have just seen this about a ‘tough guy’ competition which relates to our discussion.

    http://scienceofthetime.com/2012/02/01/the-tough-male/

    Note the comment from The Boss, who I think was pretty pissed off!

  12. tuquoque:

    ‘You can trivialize anything you want, but masculinity and femininity are no less solid of concepts than happiness, dogs, chairs, and Democrats.

    If you want to accept that language is arbitrary than you immediately resign your viewpoint as being exactly as justified as those who believe that manhood is defined absolutely by being a strong, aggressive penis-bearer.’

    I have studied language for years and analyse it all the time. So it is obvious I don’t think it is ‘arbitrary’. But that does not mean I therefore think it relates only to real, solid, fixed, measurable things!

  13. paul says:

    This reminds me a lot of something which happened at the Uni where I study just a couple of months ago. Someone in a fraternity had written up a questionnaire for their fellow frat brothers which leaked out. One question on it was something like: which famous person would you rape if you could? (It might not have been specifically famous people, I can’t remember.)

    Totally unfunny, dumb thing to have said, we can all agree. And also … when straight-identified guys, especially at a certain age, are homosocializing over perhaps one too many drinks, they are apt to say all kinds of ugly things. For that matter, any time someone casually says, “I could just kill him for doing that,” or things of that ilk, they are essentially making light of murder. In any case, to my mind this wasn’t an enormous deal, especially as it was never meant to spread beyond the frat, as far as anyone can tell.

    But after the story leaked, all hell broke loose! There were rallies against Rape Culture. The president of the university sent several remarkably stern emails out to everyone, assuring us that every step would be taken to find out who was behind this and to treat them with the severity the incident deserves. The police were even called in! Now that we’re at the other side of winter break, another rally has been held and the administration is still looking into the whole thing…

    As you know QRG, I have fewer problems with the term “feminism” than you and others who write here. It has helped shape my thinking in some very important ways and I haven’t seen enough of its negatives to make me turn entirely against it. But also I do very much agree with a lot of what you and Mark and others are saying about its current manifestations, and this is a case in point. I really do think people need to lighten up a little about language, which simply … isn’t … action. We’re all going to end up strangled into knots whenever we open our mouths about anything which anyone anywhere might become offended about…

  14. paul says:

    ps–I should of course add (it wasn’t strictly relevant above) that sometimes when a group of *gay*-identified guys are homosocializing / homosexualizing over perhaps one too many drinks, they too might be overheard to intone some rather nasty things…!

  15. paul says:

    However, those of us who are neither one nor the other are of course immaculate in our speech and never say anything bad, ever… 😉

  16. […] the ‘straight’ characters in the film are kind of ‘queer’ is through the homosociality displayed by the men in the movie. Strippers work closely together, in various forms of undress, […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s