Family+-+'Appearances'

Family: "Appearances" I'd like to first state that the phrase "homophobia" doesn't make any sense to me; //homoios// means same and //phobia// means fear of the irrational. Alright, so it's litterally "fear of the same". Well, I dislike monotany too, but I wouldn't say I'm terrified of it, maybe a little. In light of it's current meaning: how can you be afraid of homosexuals? Feel uncomfortable, maybe, perhaps a feeling of resentment or seething hatred, but I wouldn't call it "fear". Therefore, I'm not going to use the term homophobia, but rather anti-homosexualism, it just seems to be more accurate to me.

Homosexuality has become a big topic of discussion in today's American culture but the focus of the topic is the morality of the subject and it's acceptance, not the reaction and backlash towards homosexuals that persists in America today. That backlash is what Vázquez is concerned about in her article: the hostilities many Americans have towards homosexuals and what it means. Vázquez's main concern is how people are selected for these outbursts of anti-homosexual violence: "dress like a homo, dance like a homo, must be a homo (491)." Frankly, this kind of selection method is not only inefficient, but also disturbing, the fact that these violent outbursts are disgusting is a given in my mind, unfortunately it's the dominant method of the proverbial gaydar. The problem is that we don't know what a "gay" //is//, and there's a problem within that statement too: "gay" is not a thing, it's lifestyle, and it's not always blatant. So we begin to look for ways to determine who's homosexual and who isn't, and where do we go? My, apparently favorite scapegoat, seriously, I blame it for like everything in earlier articles, it would almost funny if it weren't true: the media. Now it's not as though the media is blatantly posting pictures of people, fashions, and behaviors captioned with "gay" or "straight", but what it does instead is portray what a "true" man or woman looks like. It's more than just news media, in fact it may be more entertainment media with their sassy-gay friend stereotype, advertisements of beautiful men and women, glorification of sex, and all around near dictation of what people ought to look like. Thus, if a person doesn't conform to these stipulations, they're different, and God help the differents in America.

One of the craziest stories in the article is from the interview with a man aquitted for murdering a gay man where he offers an insightful, and well-thought out reason for his actions: "We hate homosexuals. They degrade our manhood. We was brought up in a highschool where guys are football players, mean and macho. Homosexuals are sissies who wear dresses. I'd rather be seen as a football player (492)." Aside from the articulate and beautiful use of the english language (and this is why the sarcasm mark needs to become mainstream), this little bit does have quite a few insights into the anti-homosexual mindset. First off, this is undeniable evidence that proves that media and society's dictations of gender roles and images of what a man and a woman should be have a huge effect on the way homosexuals are percieved, because if it isn't right, it's wrong. Although please note, I'm not flat out saying that homosexuality stems entirely from negative pressure. It also shows that the common logic used to figure out who's homosexual or not, is built on a really bad premise of logic: if it isn't right, it's wrong. Homosexuals do not "wear dresses" and are definitely not "sissies", I personally know a guy with a boyfriend, and he is a totally cool guy; in fact he's a gamer, an artist, and an awesome musician. All of that just further shows America's "us-versus-them" mentality that's been around for a while. This mentality is a huge hinderance to individualism because people who think in these terms see a single person as representative of everyone from a particular group, and that's not the case. The most tell-tale thing is that this man was //aquitted//. Now, this is completely under the assumption that the murder was performed on purpose, and not an accident of some bar brawl, being aquitted says that it's okay to kill a homosexual, they're not people, which isn't true.

I think the most effective part of the article was the multiple stories that were used to build an argument. The fact that alll persons involved in these stories were in fact heterosexual shows that the violence of the anti-homosexual movement is as crazy as the Salem Witch Trials.To me it also shows that any of that "hate the act, love the person" stuff is just stuff, empty words, much like a lot of those old sayings we like to use. Further more, some of the statements made in the stories are just spine chilling, "as claimant lay crumpled and bleeding on the floor of the bus, the bus driver tried to force claimant off the bus so that the driver could get off work and go home (490)." Really? No 911, no ambulance, no //attempt// to help another person? To anyone who may think that it's just because the claimant was thought to be homosexual, so the driver wouldn't do anything about it, you are wrong. This kind of apathy is everywhere, like some kind of sick, cruel joke, and boy the punchline better be good. America's got some work to do, we've done this kind of thing before, and we're still working on the details, so it's going to take some time; better now than ever.