I'm sick of people using words they don't know the definition of, or simply misusing them. A popular one in the current political climate is 'bigot'. It's being thrown around left right and centre by gay rights groups, accusing anyone who opposes them as being a bigot. There's a petition at the moment in support of a local GLBT festival (basically a Mardi Gras) which essentially calls the signatories of an anti-mardi gras petition "bigotted". The local newspaper recently carried a headline of an opinion piece (about said mardi gras) which included the word "bigot". Gay rights groups like to call the two main political parties, especially Tony Abbott, "bigots" (even though Julia Gillard is really no more supportive of gay rights than Tony Abbott is).
A bigot, according to the Oxford dictionary, is just someone who believes their opinion is superior and is intolerant of other's opinions. To me, that sounds an awful lot like a lot of gay people as well as straight people. Newsflash: being opposed to homosexuality doesn't make you a bigot. It's your attitude, no matter what your opinion is.
Another word is "discrimination". My grandad once said to me, "discrimination doesn't mean what it used to. When I was a boy, if your school report card said you were discriminatory, it was a good thing. It meant you were clever and wise and made good decisions. They've changed the meaning - it doesn't mean that anymore!" Obviously he didn't literally mean they've changed the meaning - it's just that its common use doesn't mean that. These days people think all discrimination is bad.
I read an anecdote on Not Always Right a while ago about a grandmother who accused a lifeguard of discrimination because he wouldn't let her young grandson, who couldn't swim well, jump into the deep end of the pool. Yes, of course it's discrimination. But it's good discrimination! Discrimination is necessary! What's important is why a person is being discriminated against and whether it has any bearing on the situation.
For example, paying a PA less purely because they are a woman is bad discrimination. Being a woman has no bearing on the person's ability to be a PA. But paying a female lawyer less because she has ten years less experience than a male counterpart in the same office is reasonable discrimination. Her less experience means she probably wouldn't do the job as well. It's not sexism. Just because someone is discriminating 'against' someone doesn't make it wrong.
4 comments:
The Australian Pocket Oxford Dictionary, 5th ed., defines a bigot as an "obstinate believer in a religion, political theory, etc. who is intolerant of others and tries to impose his or her views on others." This definition certainly fits those who petition against the GLBT festival on the grounds that their religion opposes homosexuality, just as it would fit a group of gay people if they tried to get the Bible banned because it doesn't support their lifestyles. So "bigot" is not being misused in this situation, unless you want to insist that your definition is more "correct", which would be pretty untenable given that my definition comes from the same group of lexicographers. Anyway, the meaning of a word doesn't arise because of a dictionary definition, it comes from a shared understanding by the speakers of a language which can change over time (unless you're in prescriptivist France). The modern meanings of "gay" and "lesbian" are prime examples.
I must admit that I share your concerns about the lack of discrimination shown in the use of the word "discrimination".
Incidentally, do you know of a rational argument for why the GLBT festival should be cancelled? Everything I've heard either boils down to "homosexuality is a sin", or "I don't want my kids sexualised by this" (well don't take them to the festival, just like you wouldn't take them to one of Townsville's sex shops or brothels).
YFNA
I don't think "your" definition is really much different at all to "mine", so either way, I think my original point still stands. Gay people don't have to try and ban the bible to be bigots, they just have to act like everyone should see things their way, which a lot of them do - both towards heterosexuals who happen to be against homosexuality, AND towards homosexuals who don't share their political views.
Like I said in my post, it is about the attitude, not the actions.
As for the festival, I would be against any sex-based festival, homosexual or heterosexual. People say it's not about sex - of course it is! We don't go around throwing festivals celebrating heterosexual sexuality either. What you do is up to you, it shouldn't become a public spectacle in either case.
The festival is also different to a sex shop in that sex shops are privately-run businesses, and the festival would be a public matter supported by tax-payers' money (as far as I am aware).
Post a Comment