« Hate him, don't date him | Home | Book 8: Harry Potter and the Nihilistic Curmudgeon »
July 22, 2007
We'll have a gay old time
Poasted by gekko at 11:43 AM and filed under 
"Politik Inkorrecta"
There's some flap about the use of the term "gay" as in "that's so gay" or "They made me wear gay sweaters."
Before I commented on the kerfuffle, though, I wanted to find somewhat on the history of the word. Wikipedia has this to say:
The word originally meant "carefree", "happy", or "bright and showy" and was very commonly used with this meaning in speech and literature. [...] The word started to acquire sexual connotations in the late 17th century, being used with meaning "addicted to pleasures and dissipations".
See, now, I never knew that "gay" had sexual connotations prior to being used by homosexuals to describe themselves. I grew up watching "The Flintstones." Color me innocent.
There's loads more at Wikipedia about the overall sexual connotations, but I want to pursue the movement of the word to mean "homosexual":
The use of gay to mean homosexual was in origin merely an extension of the word's sexualised connotation of "carefree and uninhibited", which implied a willingness to disregard conventional or respectable sexual mores. Such usage is documented as early as the 1920s. [...] By the mid-20th century "gay" was well-established as an antonym for "straight" (which had connotations of respectability), and to refer to the lifestyles of unmarried and or unattached people. Other connotations of frivolousness and showiness in dress ("gay attire") led to association with camp and effeminacy. [...] Using it to describe an object, such as an item of clothing, suggests that it is particularly flamboyant, often on the verge of being gaudy and garish.
If Senator McCain, who is taken to task for his comment on gay sweaters had been speaking during the 1960s or 70s, then we could reasonably assume he was using the term as a reference to gaudiness. Of course, the black sweater he's pictured in on the referenced site is hardly gaudy.
More likely, McCain was doing what Dawn and a bazillion other people, including my son I'm sad to say, do. Wiki has commentary regarding that as well:
Using the term gay as an adjective where the meaning is akin to "related to gay people, culture, or homosexuality in general" is a widely accepted use of the word. By contrast, using gay in the pejorative sense, to describe something solely as negative, can cause offence. [...] When used with a derisive attitude (e.g. "that was so gay"), the word gay is pejorative. While retaining its other meanings, it has also acquired "a widespread current usage" amongst young people, as a general term of disparagement. This pejorative usage has its origins in the late 1970s, when homosexuality was more widely seen as negative by a majority of people.
I believe this. Saying "gay also means lame" ignores the fact that the "lame" connotation came out of disparagement of homosexuality. That is its direct descent. A person may now attempt to divorce the two, but people who are sensitive to it, people who genuinely dislike homosexuality, and gay people will likely always remember that it is derived from a disparagement of gays and the gay lifestyle.
The use is changing, as words do. At the end, Wiki cites a ruling by the British Board of Governors regarding a BBC broadcast where a radio DJ used the term:
" The word 'gay' ... need not be offensive... or homophobic... The governors said, however, that Moyles was simply keeping up with developments in English usage. [...] The committee... was "familiar with hearing this word in this context." The governors believed that in describing a ring tone as 'gay', the DJ was conveying that he thought it was 'rubbish', rather than 'homosexual'. [...] The panel acknowledged however that this use... in a derogatory sense... could cause offence in some listeners, and counselled caution on its use. "
It's slowly turning into a term that means "rubbish" or "lame", just as it gradually became a word with sexual connotations, then a word co-opted by homosexuals for a non-clinical self-descriptor. Yet, it still causes offense and should be used with caution.
This isn't really about the absolute definition a word must retain. It's about feelings. If you care about how someone feels, then it pays to listen to them. When someone says "that offends me, I would think it beneath you" they are crying out to you, emotionally. You hurt them in some way -- could be small, could be large. If they matter to you, then you might modify the way you use a term. If they don't matter to you, then you might throw it back in their faces and tell them to grow the fuck up.
When the term genuinely comes to mean a generic "lame" more than it means "I am putting down a class of people", maybe it will be time to gently take those who still find offense in it to task. For now, it is still solidly understood to disparage homosexuals. It retains more than a vestige of intolerance.
Tagz: PC, Rant, Sexuality
10 comments make for a lot of heat
I hate when people make me reconsider my position as bullheaded. :oP> I need to make some amends.
Good post, Gekko.
Hiya Gekko,
Mark directed me over here to this post. I think the most important point was saved to the last sentence: "For now, it is still solidly understood to disparage homosexuals. It retains more than a vestige of intolerance."
I wasn't trying to start a war, my original post was as non-confrontational as it could possibly be, it was only after Dawn's heavy handed response and subsequent use of SERIOUSLY bigoted terms that everything exploded.
Thanks for this post.
A very nice post. Excellently said.
It seemed like there were many people at Dawn's blog thinking they were pushing the borders between edgy and offensive. I'm not sure that border is as mobile as some think and when they get caught with their feet a little too far over the line it's going to wrinkle some feathers.
UV: Thanks. Not having been a regular Dawn reader, I can't comment entirely. I read her post from your link, and one or two of the comments. Read your post, too, natch. Then saw the thingie about McCain and decided I really needed to say something about the topic, rather than the kerfuffle.
Mark: Kewl.
Jester: Just took a cruise by your site. I love the layout and graphics! Tres cool. Read through your comment section and got sucked into the controversy. :-)
othurme: Thanks for the kind words about me 'umble poastie.
Excellent post. So spot on. The phrase is not innocent in the least. And when it's used to describe objects it generally means that the only gay folks would use/wear the objects and that's somehow bad. I think people would like for us all to forget that.
Excellent post, gek, and beautifully written. But I would expect no less from you.
JJ: It would be nice if phrases were not born out of a need to denigrate another over something as personal, as private as loving or desiring another consenting adult. Or skin color. Or height. Or anything else that is outside of a person's choice or control.
PJ: Thanks, GF!
All right, all right. I guess I'm jumping the gun, expecting it to have evolved like the word "bastard" so quickly. Give it another century.
othurme is so right, oftentimes we take a position because it's a little edgy rather than having thought through every last bit of it, and then may get all defensive when the position we've taken turns out to be a little too exposed to enemy fire.
I've never used "gay" disparagingly and I'll quit defending it. Or maybe I should just ask my brother, he's a thoughtful and articulate sort.
Say, g, I'm thinking of you also cause I'm stuck at PHX thanks to a missed connection and I know you're down here somewhere. I only have, hmm, four more hours to kill ...
Enjoying our rain, D? I'm enjoying our rain.
Wish I wasn't stuck in meetings all day, or I'd head to the airport for a quick cricket or moth with you.
Post a comment
Leave a comment
©Copyright 2002-2007 gekkoGrafx.com -- All Rights Reserved
Good post. The interesting thing to me about the Dawn kerfuffle was not the original phrase and Jester's reaction, but what happened after that, all the haters who exposed themselves, and her blatant encouragement of same. The lack of caring from most people was exposed in a major way -- and of course it's a different story when those same folks are offended by something. I see many them in a different light now, which is the typical result of an online "war," whether blog or froup.