Riddle me this
The more I read the comments threads at Troppo, the angrier I get. Not because of people like observa saying homosexuality is a perversion, no different to bestiality or paedophilia — you get that from time to time, and you learn to read past it.
No, I get angry about Ken Parish’s insistence that gay teachers don’t “flaunt” their sexuality by having a five-minute discussion about their partner (and there is no evidence that sex was actually discussed) when the students instigate it. I’ll avoid the posts where Ken uses terms like “brainwashed,” because he had obviously become exasperated by that stage. I think his argument is fairly summed up by this extract from one of his earlier comments:
There is a critical distinction between a class teacher discussing the existence of different sexualities in the abstract in sex education classes for primary age children, while being careful not to express any view as to the morality of any such behaviour, and discussing it in very concrete terms after the children have seen the teacher with her partner. The latter unavoidably conveys the value that this is a perfectly acceptable lifestyle choice no different from any other. Like it or not, that is a highly socially-contested value. You and I may agree with it, but many Australians don’t and they have every right to object to you and I inflicting our values on their children. If you don’t accept that restriction on the freedom of your words and behaviour while in the presence of the children you teach, then you shouldn’t be a teacher at all.
Ken argues that because there is widespread (but, according to the report he cites, shrinking) opposition to homosexuality in the Australian community, gay teachers should avoid discussing their personal lives with their students. Heterosexual teachers, on the other hand, have a free rein. This is because “no-one ever gave [gay teachers] a democratic mandate for it”.
Nuts to that. We don’t elect teachers, we elect members of parliament. It is up to them, through the relevant Minister, to set education policy. If parents aren’t happy with what is being taught in schools, they should vote for a party that runs a different line. And while John Howard likes to rail about the influence of PC unionists in schools, the people keep electing Labor governments to run the schools.
Meanwhile, I’d like to see Ken respond properly to the “miscegenation” analogy. Yellowvinyl put forward this suggestion:
I put to you, Ken, that it doesn’t matter a fuck if a parent thinks being gay is morally wrong. maybe 50 years ago in the States parents in the South thought it was morally wrong for black and white people to marry. thus they wanted segregation in schools. it was clearly ethically right for the US supreme court and LBJ to desegregate schools, because their values were based on *PREJUDICE*.
After some prodding, Ken responded:
yellowvinyl’s analogy is a false one. Requiring that people may not discriminate by conduct (e.g. by dictating what school they can attend or who they can marry) is qualitatively different from telling them what they must think, and ensuring that the next generation subscribes to YOUR preferred views by brainwashing their kids against the wishes of the parents.
To a certain extent, he’s right that the analogy is false, but it doesn’t take a massive leap to fix it. Let me try.
Some people believe that homosexuality is unnatural and abominable. They would prefer it was punished according to God’s will, but because they live in a secular, pluralist nation they are prepared to compromise. They think gay people should just keep themselves to themselves and stop foisting their horrible sexual practices on our children. One of the most insidious ways that they do this is by discussing their disgusting homosexual relationship in class as if it was normal.
Similarly, some people believe that miscegenation is unnatural and abominable. They would prefer it was punished according to God’s will, but because they live in a secular, pluralist nation they are prepared to compromise. They think race-mixers should just keep themselves to themselves and stop foisting their horrible sexual practices on our children. One of the most insidious ways that they do this is by discussing their disgusting mixed-race relationship in class as if it was normal.
In both cases, assume that the majority of the school community is opposed to the sexual abomination in question.
Now imagine that the students see a black man collect their teacher after school. They prod her to talk about it, and a five-minute conversation ensues: “Yes, my husband is black. Sure, lots of people have black husbands. Oh, your aunty is married to a black man? That’s nice dear.”
Should we immediately characterise this conversation as sexual (marriage is, after all, a proxy for sexual activity), and should we reprimand the teacher for brainwashing the children and defying the parents’ democratic right to inculcate their children with bigotry?
Disclosure: I do know a gay teacher, but I don’t have children. This is relevant because if I had children I would apparently become scared that they might catch gay from him.
Update: Don’t miss Mark Bahnisch’s excellent history of the closet, which picks up a theme of my previous post but puts it in context and argues it more eloquently and forcefully:
The significance of the closet is that queer people were meant to be complicit in their own subordination. By being unable to speak their truth, or the truth of their desires, they were taught to despise themselves as dirty and unnatural beings. Even now, the rhetoric of “discretion” … speaks powerfully to the desire to repress, and render silent.
Also worth reading is National Party MP Adrian Piccoli’s explanation of how he killed a man through homophobic prejudice.
Since trackback is turned off, I’m just noting that I’ve linked to this post from Troppo, Rob:
http://troppoarmadillo.ubersportingpundit.com/archives/008697.html
Your readers may also be interested in my post, where I try and explain what is it about the system of heteronormativity that gets people in our society so steamed up, and why we should get over it.
another excellent post, Rob!
I’ve linked to it here, plus added a few thoughts of my own on a couple of other posts:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/yellowvinyl/
Mark’s post also explains why Ken jumped to the conclusion that the student teacher *must* have talked about sex.
I pointed out to him that there was no evidence that she had, and he responded that what was reported would have only taken 30 seconds or so:
http://troppoarmadillo.ubersportingpundit.com/archives/008692.html#042097
Ken asks the rhetorical question “what else was discussed”?
as if there were only one possible answer!
in fact, discussions with young children are often repetitive and circular – because of their listening skills and cognitive development at that age (a bit like some blog commenters!).
so it’s more than plausible that the discussion took five minutes to cover the ground reported.
but his quick assumption is telling.
I’d have made this point at Troppo but I agree with you that Ken was getting exasperated. I think in part because he’d found that he was unable to defend his argument, without all sorts of ludicrous consequences flowing from it.
one of the best responses was from Dan:
http://troppoarmadillo.ubersportingpundit.com/archives/008692.html#042105
anyway, I thought Ken had been hassled enough for one day. but I do think that one premise of his argument rests entirely on supposition, and a supposition that (probably unwittingly) buys into the sorts of cultural tropes that Mark discusses.
I do hope he comes over here to answer you, though, Rob, and I hope that he’s had some second thoughts about where his argument leads.
thanks again for your posts – I really do believe that efforts to combat homophobia (of which I am not accusing Ken) need to be made again and again.
I said this on suzoz’ post:
“all this has been very disturbing indeed, suzoz.
as a lesbian-identified queer woman who’d like to have kids, I’m starting to get a sense of just how horrible the environment for them might be at times. it’s really lamentable. I’m an American citizen, and moved back to Australia in part because I thought that on the whole this was a more tolerant and progressive society. now I’m starting to question that assumption.
I get tired of fighting – and tired of being accused of being strident – the insult thrown at uppity women everywhere – and of special pleading. but I remember women like Rosa Parks who changed so much simply because she was tired. sometimes in our most exhausted moments we can speak clearly to the truth of ourselves, and that gives me some hope.
a belated happy IWD to you :)”
http://susoz.typepad.com/personal_political/2005/03/two_mums.html
apologies for the long comment and keep up the good work, Rob :)
I suspect the venom in that thread began when Sophie inadvertently conflated pedophilia and homosexuality by classing them both as forms of sexual orientation. It’s notable that heterosexuality did not go into that scheme as a third sexual orientation. Once that had happened nothing much was ever going to be said except for both sides repeating their arguments and Ken (as is his wont) staking out an unsustainable position and then taking forever to concede it.
I found Adrian Piccoli’s article honest and moving and have written to tell him so. It’s not something I would have expected from a National Party MP (now who’s prejudiced?).
“flaunt”, “inflict”, “brainwash” this really is shabby work in a desperate argument reminiscent of high school debating. Claiming it’s not about who she is, while at the same time obsessing about what she does.
Nice work on this Rob, I’m off to buy one of those internet fridges so I can read, bang my head, and get a nice cool drink all at the same time.
If this is an example of the attitudes of some kids we need more teachers like the one who was sacked.
I like the miscegenation/homophobia parallel but remember that if these people had state power they would enforce their values by force and violence.
[Edited for formatting. ---RC.]
I still do not understand why people care. Why does it matter at all what is someone’s sexual orientation? I simply cannot see why it is that people have an issue with homosexuality.
I understand that homophobia perceives homosexuality as some kind of perversion. But I don’t get why. Is it a simple matter of people being scared of what is different from them?
Because that just seems, well…very primary school-like.
I think what is evidenced in Ken’s response (the other character’s ‘perversion’ comments don’t merit a serious reply) is a lack of compassion and certainly humility.
One can have a different take on this issue without resorting to the kind of ‘evidence’ concocted by homo-haters and the arguments advanced by the same. Sort of like claiming you’re not a Nazi and then using ‘Mein Kampf’ to back up your argument.
Even for someone who is more inclined to agree with Ken’s initial premise, the way it’s expressed makes my skin crawl.
Sorry to change the tune…
When I was in year 2 or 3 (I can’t recall exactly) my teacher disappeared from the class one cool winter afternoon. She was replaced permanently the next day by a bearded bloke who made primary school painful. Making school painful for a 7/8 year old is a hard task. I remember a week after the event asking my Dad why Ms. (blank) went away. He said it was because she was a dyke. He said nothing more. When I asked my Mum what a ‘dyke’ was, she told me to look in my pocket dictionary. My pocket dictionary (which was too big to fit into my pocket at the time) told me something about rock walls and the Dutch.
Only in my late teens did I ever think back and realise that this lovely woman was ‘moved on’ because she was a lesbian. Thank fuck civilised society has moved on. Or has it?
Trackback replacement:
http://52nd.blogspot.com/2005/03/imposing-truth.html
Did you know there is a culture in West Sumatra which is a matriarchy – I am thinking of moving there…
Gosh wouldn’t these guys’ perspective on life be so different[maybe a bit more positive] if they were raised to celebrate life and diversity, instead of attempting to control everyone and everything in it, with their patriarchal, crush-kill-destroy attitudes?
Far out – if even Jabba Vanstone can chill out and crack a human expression every now and then, why can’t Troppo?
Anyone who isn’t middle aged, middle class, white and male, gets a right trampling in their writings, it’s really a bit of a worry.