News

It Doesn't Get Better: VIDEO

Fckh8

For homophobes, that is.

The latest video from FCKH8 features YouTube celebrities Shane Dawson, Glozell, Miles Jai, Chris Thompson, and Tyler Oakley mocking the hypocrisy of anti-gay groups with FCKH8's trademark brand of filthy language and sass.

Watch, AFTER THE JUMP...

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. "@CDA The "proof" is self-evident."

    This is the beginning of virtually every dumb claim that cannot be substantiated by fact or anything other than opinion. Just saying.

    "If effeminate behavior were in some way directly related to sexual orientation, itself, then ALL gay men would be effeminate."

    Nope. What you are talking about is either a necessary or sufficient gender identity. No one is claiming that. There could be a correlation. It leaves room for wide swathes of exceptions, especially where the idea of a spectrum is concerned.

    "But they are not. Likewise, if effeminate behavior were random in the sense of being completely independent of sexual orientation, then you would expect to see as much effeminacy in straight men as you do in gay men. But you don't--in fact, you see almost none."

    Nice straw man. I never came close to claiming anything that you write here. I am not claiming it is independent of sexual orientation... I would probably need to have a study before me to make such a claim. I guess I'm just not arrogant enough to say "Welp, I just know that this is the case!" a quality which seems to distinguish the two of us.

    "So what does this tell us, particularly in the total absence of any genetic evidence to differentiate the effeminate from the non-effeminate? It tells us that effeminate behavior is the result of the EXPERIENCE of being homosexual in a homophobic culture--which manifests itself in some, but not others, depending, obviously, on the degree to which they have internalized societal norms that dictate that homosexuality and masculinity are incompatible. And that is reinforced by the fact that most effeminate behavior is learned--it is not as though these individuals each arrived independently at the idea of referring to other men in the female vernacular, just to use one example"

    Nope. This is what we who repair to the dictates of logic call a complete non sequitur.

    "This is all obvious from deduction, without any formal academic studies having been done."

    No, it isn't. There is a reason that people with a poor grasp of logic and no proof are predisposed to touting how obvious and clearly correct their ideas are. It is not because they actually are correct. If you wish to argue with this point, by all means go ahead. You will be in league (to the extent that you aren't already) with the most virulent, dumb and religious homophobes that beset our movement.

    "As for the point about virtually all gay men preferring masculine men, there is an academic study that supports this (I linked it once--it was authored by a prof at Northwestern)....but again, it is not something that we don't all know from everyday experience"

    By all means feel free to dig it up. I don't so much object to the content of what you say this study says, as what you yourself have drawn from it. Are your harmful conclusions spelled out in the paper as well? If not, can you provide any credence for them, other than that "they're so obvious, through deduction"?

    "Your last paragraph betrays you, though, as what I was describing in my response to Shane.

    You are clearly a social anarchist--and you will never achieve the goal of a society without ANY rules of behavior whatsoever because such societies are unworkable, for obvious reasons.

    And while some forms of non-conformity are worth fighting for, I can think of nothing that is less worth fighting for than a desire to behave effeminately."

    Weird. That is not a goal that I have. I'm pretty comfortable with rules that govern behavior, but I take a Millian approach. Have you read "On Liberty" or Nussbaum's "From Disgust to Humanity"? They're pretty good, and the latter pulls heavily from the former... My homeboy Mill was actually a pretty rabid Christian, but he correctly identified that activities which we might disapprove of but which don't materially harm us are not fit criteria for legislation, coercion or discrimination. I happen to agree.

    There is a difference between social anarchy and what I propose. Neither Mill nor I nor anyone on this board would honestly say that gay men will not have their rights until all churches are made to watch muscle daddies fisting on their altars, but at the same time, no one is really harmed by a bunch of guys in boxer briefs dancing around the West Village with fairy wings on (and btw, those latter dudes probably don't want to be a CEO or POTUS). The distinction to be drawn is that there is a whole host of activity that takes place in the public sphere, and the vast majority of it is no business of (and certainly - where effeminacy is concerned - no harm to) other folks. I don't particularly care whether or not society approves of what we do. I just want them to treat us the same way. I want our rights, and quite frankly as long as their disdain doesn't extend to me getting fired just for being gay or having my neighbor's ass beaten for no better reason than because he likes to wear dresses, then they can hate on us all they want. Call it social anarchy all you want; I call it evolution.

    Posted by: CDA | Apr 17, 2012 7:23:37 PM


  2. http://littlekiwilovesbauhaus.blogspot.ca/2009/09/in-defense-of-my-glorious-femme.html

    CDA - Rick, in a nutshell. a big feathery mauve nutshell.

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Apr 17, 2012 7:36:58 PM


  3. CDA - I echo what has been said before. Your arguments are brilliant, but they are viewed by someone with no light shining in his eyes. If it serves a purpose for you to write, keep at it. If, however, you hope to change a heart and mind, be ready to settle for the prospect of that happening with someone other than the poster with wom you are engaging. Trust me. Been there. Got tired of that.

    Posted by: TJ | Apr 17, 2012 7:50:17 PM


  4. @LittleKiwi

    Very well said! Aaaaand I want to be playing with your dog right now.

    Posted by: CDA | Apr 17, 2012 7:52:27 PM


  5. Thanks TJ and Shane!

    TJ - I think you're right. The thing is, this debate should be had. I know I struggled with the matter at hand until I sat down to really thing it through. No one is free of bias or bigotry, but we all have the ability and the duty to rid ourselves of it, and I think that these conversations can foster that.

    Also, because I think there is an adverse side that may be able to rely upon facts, or established study, or something with legitimacy (not that they would "win" but they would pose significantly more thoughtful challenges than present company) we should be prepared to rebut them. It's easy to scoff at the complete loonies, but when it comes down to the things that I believe will eventually vindicate us (e.g., the Constitution), it's not as easy to wave away the objections of our detractors.

    Unfortunately, instead of arguing with Paul Clement I seem to be arguing with Sean Hannity.

    Posted by: CDA | Apr 17, 2012 8:04:40 PM


  6. CDA - From your first post in this thread, I felt that I could relate to your position, as it is one that I argued in the past. Not a "girlyman." Fairly ordinary. But I also have learned a lot over the years, about myself and others. Who I am and what I am comfortable being doesn't have to define anyone else, and pleasing others has nothing to do with rights and justice.

    I've truly enjoyed reading your posts. Thanks for sharing.

    Posted by: TJ | Apr 17, 2012 8:32:59 PM


  7. I thought the video was hilarious. It made me laugh until I had tears, and I think that was the point of it. I've lurked here a long time, reading not only the articles, but the comments by you all as well. I'm not a gay man, I came here to further understand. I fully support the civil rights issue you all are battling, and sincerely hope that the rest of this country and the world would just let people be people.

    That said, and this is just my opinion, I have a few friends who will tell anyone, and in their own words, that they are an "effeminate, flaming fairy" and proud to be so. I laughed so hard the first time my friend Lyndall said that. He's hilarious, and if you don't love the unapologetic comedian, free-thinker, liberated souls that these guys are, then you just aren't human IMO. The 'obvious' queens, if you will, remind me of the hippie types or avant-garde souls...who are just happy and at peace with themselves. They don't give a crap what you think of them.

    The person my friend Lyndall is has nothing to do with this civil rghts debate Rick. You personally may not be comfortable with him, or others like him, but him being in-your-face gay has nothing to do with your obvious issues being who you are. I've never heard anyone around me lump all gay men into one stereotype, so for you to say that an effeminate man is ruining the chance for all gay men to be treated equal is ludicrous and narrow-minded. I want Lyndall to be able to marry his partner of 20 years, and I want to same for you, even though I don't care for your points of view on this and other posts I have read on here.

    It's a civil rights issue to me. Not a gender one.

    Posted by: Spider3tattoo | Apr 17, 2012 8:58:59 PM


  8. Among the numerous absurdities underlying the argument that there would be world peace if only gay men manifested "masculine" traits, is the reality (I don't have to prove it cause it's self-evident :) ) that straight men exhibit a wide range of traits along the masculine/feminine spectrum. I know any number of straight men who could be assumed to be gay if a rigid set of outward standards was applied. There seems to be more of a socio-economic/intellectual correspondence, wherein blue-collar aligns more commonly with masculinity and intellectualism/artistry with femininity. There is nothing simple in this, or any other aspect, of life. There is no standard of right. It's all subjective. Everyone deserves respect. Everyone's rights must be defended, because no matter who you are, there's someone in the world who thinks you're offensively different.

    Posted by: Linda | Apr 17, 2012 8:59:17 PM


  9. Ugh this video makes ME want to gay bash some obnoxious nelly queen.

    Posted by: starpeople88 | Apr 17, 2012 9:53:54 PM


  10. Oh, I want the guy that is in front plan.
    Chris Thompson ...

    Posted by: nszane | Apr 18, 2012 2:28:06 AM


  11. this is unnecessary and extremely annoying.

    Posted by: Jonsaman | Apr 18, 2012 9:17:16 AM


  12. "I don't particularly care whether or not society approves of what we do. I just want them to treat us the same way. I want our rights, and quite frankly as long as their disdain doesn't extend to me getting fired just for being gay or having my neighbor's ass beaten for no better reason than because he likes to wear dresses, then they can hate on us all they want. Call it social anarchy all you want; I call it evolution."

    Human society does not work that way and that really is the whole point. You are living in an ivory tower rather than in the real world if you do not understand that. People will treat you as an individual and different groups of people well if they respect you and like you and are comfortable with you. If they don't respect you or like you and are not comfortable with you, then they won't.

    That is the basis of culture, which is a fundamental characteristic of any society.

    And neither you as an individual nor gays as a group are ever going to get away with living entirely outside the rules, any more than any other individual or group is.

    To your point of "no harm done", well, that depends on your perspective. There would certainly be lots of harm done to any society that made it acceptable for men to be cowards. Why? Because then nobody would be willing to fight when the society was subject to aggression from another society. And this is why masculine values are reinforced in every culture through a number of means, including sports.....and it is why cowardice is universally frowned upon and cause for loss of social status......and of course, the cowardice that is one of the principal manifestations of the "gay" culture of effeminacy is a big part of why gay men are not respected.....and parading around with fairy wings on is just a visible manifestation of that culture of effeminacy and cowardice and people rightly see it as such, which is why it is frowned upon.

    Interesting how you fail to see this point, but claim that the fact that gay men overwhelmingly prefer men with a masculine demeanor as being "harmful"....when in reality it is just a reflection of nature.

    And that is really the problem with some of you. You despise nature because it is incompatible with the way you want the world to be.

    But nature always, ALWAYS asserts its power over the human domain.

    And so it is with masculinity. You will never escape that reality, no matter how hard you try.

    Finally, as for your attempts at rebuttal of my points about effeminacy being a product of the experience of being homosexual in a homophobic society, you did nothing but engage in personal attack, along with making the silly claim that "Because you can't "prove" it, it doesn't exist"........and, as I am sure you know, if that rule were applied across the board, then all of science would have to be discarded, as well as philosophy, because, in the end, absolutely nothing can be "proved" beyond all doubt.

    But you know the truth as well as I do.


    Posted by: Rick | Apr 18, 2012 11:23:58 AM


  13. @SpiderJTattoo I don't doubt your sincerity, but you are hardly the only straight person who enjoys effeminate gay men as "eccentrics" who are the source of a good laugh every now and then.

    Why do you think shows such as "Modern Family" and "Will and Grace" have been so popular? Not to mention "Sex and the City".

    What they all have in common is their depictions of "gay man as societal clown"--flaming sissies that straight society laughs at the way they once laughed at black "Step-n-Fetch-it" characters.

    Is that a form of "acceptance"? Yes, but acceptance does not equate to respect.

    And there is a long history of this among straight women, by the way, the whole "fag hag" phenomenon.....which is a little different from the "gays as clowns" phenomenon, although that is part of it (as evidenced by "Sex and the City").....the "fag hag" allowed straight women to turn gay men into social accessories who advised them on everything from fashion to how to give a blow job properly.......and this relationship was and is kind of like the relationship of the black mammy to her female mistress in slave days.........in that, the fag hag could be accepted into straight (i.e. male) society, while her "fag" was not and is not accepted into it

    So, thanks for the condescension--it will undoubtedly be enough for some gay men, but for those of us who want to be fully respected as men, it won't do to be your clown/plaything.

    Posted by: Rick | Apr 18, 2012 11:35:41 AM


  14. Looks like there are still Luke "Sissyf*g" Montgomery sycophants on the Towleroad staff. Hero worship so tragically misplaced is a pitiful sight to see.

    Posted by: Stuffed Animal | Apr 18, 2012 12:28:35 PM


  15. It's "IN-curable".

    Posted by: bornready2 | Apr 18, 2012 1:25:00 PM


  16. The ingredients in Yeastrol were selected for their time-tested ability to attack a variety of yeast infection symptoms that plague both men and women who suffer yeast infections

    Posted by: yeast infection in men | Oct 6, 2012 2:13:03 AM


  17. « 1 2

Post a comment







Trending


« «Canadian Activist Beaten to Death Outside Halifax Gay Bar« «