Tuesday, June 19, 2012

THE GAY LOCKER

"So, if you had to say, who do you think is the cutest guy on the team?"

There was a time when reading the sports page in your newspaper was safe; it was always going to be about sports, and not political or have a personal slant - unless it was to root for the home team. Nobody felt the need to inject their opinion on other topics, because it was sports writing.

Well, no longer. Now you get opinion pieces about all kinds of things in the guise of sports writing, and its typically rather annoying to a conservative. Then there are stupid things that happen, like ESPN's report using a very common sports term "chink in the armor" that got someone fired and apologies flying around.

But sometimes the pieces are meant to be opinion and deal with more political subjects, such as a recent article in Buzzfeed by Nate Jackson, former Denver Bronco, about homosexuality in the NFL. He writes about why there are no openly homosexual players in football, because you just can't have any topic without forcing homosexual advocacy into it these days.

So fine, I don't read that site often and who cares, I can skip over it, except there's this bit in the article, courtesy Maetenloch at Ace of Spades HQ:
A locker room is a very diverse work setting in some ways: ethnicity, socio-economic background, home town, marital status, age, etc. And in others it's very narrow. There are racists, fascists, bigots, losers, Jesus pushers, conspiracy theorists, Republicans, dope smokers, alcoholics, pill poppers, womanizers, hunters, gamblers, grumps and hacks. And they all work together to form a football team. They put aside their personal beliefs about a player and his lifestyle for the good of the football team, which takes precedent. Add gay to that list and I don't think it matters much, as long as it isn't, "Hey you guys! I'm GAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!" Although that would make for a great football comedy.
Now look at that and consider it a moment. Notice the list of things he puts into this grouping of people in the locker room. They're all negative, all of them, except a couple which stand out as bizarrely out of place. Womanizers, alcoholics, conspiracy theoriests, bigots, fascists, losers, ok... then... hunters? Republicans? Jesus "pushers?" Is Jesus code for some drug I'm unaware of here, someone "pushing" it? He's equating these things as bad because every single other thing on that list is something negative.

So hunting and being a Republican is negative? Apparently it is to Nate Jackson, whose NFL career was not particularly outstanding (2 TDs, 240 yards rushing, 27 receptions in 5 years with the Broncos). Yet look at that more closely, and ponder this: he's writing this article about homosexuals in the NFL and how bad it is that none are openly so because everyone is so juvenile and "homophobic."

And he's lumping homosexuals in that list, too.

So he still considers it negative, even though he's trying really hard to say he doesn't and uses all the right buzz words like "there's an ingrained frat-house, borderline (and sometimes not-so-borderline) homophobic culture that will be difficult to change" and "An openly gay man would create an entirely new dynamic in these conversations — ideally, a less crude one." He's presenting himself as the typical modern "not that there's anything wrong with that!" tolerant multiculturalist, but deep down you can tell he actually does think there's something wrong with it.

And deep down, I bet you do too, no matter how well you cover it with the proper platitudes and PC statements you've been taught to say and pressured by modern culture to publicly claim.

Its okay, I won't tell. But its something you should maybe ponder.

3 comments:

Eric said...

C_T I agree with you on many issues, admire your intellect, and respect the integrity of your faith... but man do I hate it when people resort to the "deep down in your heart you know it's true" debate tactic. After ad homs, it is the biggest rhetorical cop-out there is.

Christopher Taylor said...

Deep down in your heart you know that isn't true.

Just kidding, but you'll note I didn't actually say that. I specifically said "I bet you do too," because I don't know what's going on inside everyone else's mind and soul. I simply notice that when you get past rhetoric and what people have been trained by social pressure and educated to say... they act differently.

Eric said...

Good point, and now that I read it more carefully you are correct that you did not employe the method I was complaining about.

And for what it's worth I think most heterosexual people are uncomfortable at a base level with homosexual acts (at least between two men... a lot of people seem to be much more aesthetically comfortable with lesbianism), but most people also shudder at the thought of booger eaters and shaking the hand of a plumber... but that is in no way proof that there is something inherently wrong with those acts.