First, bearishness does not correlate perfectly with European ancestry. As a tool of racism against men of West Asian, South Asian, or African ancestry, let alone as a tool of anti-Semitism, the bear community would fail spectacularly.
Second, even if we assume away my first point, racism does not mean preference for particular characteristics in one's potential sex partners. Dictionary definitions of racism typically read like this:
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others * * * hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.May we please agree that preferring a particular physical characteristic differs from making a blanket assessment of cultural and individual achievement and from wanting to rule people lacking that physical characteristic? Otherwise, we should have to conclude that simply being a gay man makes one a misogynist. Moreover, anyone who equates a lack of sexual interest with hatred or intolerance has issues more serious than whether the bear community is racist.
Third, if we know each tree by its fruits, it is relevant that at least where I live, the most racially integrated gay bars have larger than usual bear followings.
Then again, it seems more and more that some people view the bear community as racist because they view everything as racist. If all you have is a hammer ....
Of course, I am not so sheltered as to deny the existence of real racism among gay men (or any other group of people). Nonetheless, blatant race-card-playing cheapens the issue of genuine racism.
17 comments:
Thanks for this posting. I really agree and appreciate it.
Whew, glad that's all settled, I feel so much better. Thanks for clearing up that non-issue for all us gay people of color.
If you can find faults in my statements of fact or logic, feel free. So far, however, all you've given me is an appeal to ridicule.
With all due respect, I suggest that if you yourself were a gay person of color, you might well have a different point of view. Facts derived from life experience are probably more useful than dictionary definitions and book logic. Why not try to talk to one of us sometime?
Why don't I try to talk to one of you sometime? What makes you so sure I don't? My gay friends of color don't seem to think that the bear community is racist; in fact, some of them participate enthusiastically in that community. Facts derived from life experience are probably more useful than assertion and speculation.
With that sampling frame, you've obviously done your research and can speak to the subject with authority. Kudos to our new spokesperson!
It appears that it's the straw men who have a new spokesperson. If you can't be bothered to formulate a real argument, don't expect me to feed the troll any further.
Bears are just obese otters and cubs are just fat twinks ;)
The bear community says they are quite accepting and their original movement stemmed from a criticism on gay twinks and jocks with perfect bods, as well as the AIDS epidemic, where the skinnier a person was, the more stereotyped they were of probably having AIDS. Now it has fetishized obesity as a sexy trait. Not only this, they've also gone from a bear as a "mentality" to "big, fat, hairy, balding" white guys. I also have issues with the bear community and their definition of masculinity, in which they define themselves (naturally masculine) from secondary sexual characteristics such as facial hair, muscle, etc. But there is behavioural dissonance when it comes to their look and their behaviour (once they get tired of acting str8, they are typically fems; you can only sustain a butch demeanour for so long before a limp wrist slips.
I have a link for you. It is about racial sexual preference. Its a generalization and they do include the term "bear" once, however with the gay community it applies throughout. You may have friends of colour who don't think the bear community is racist, perhaps they are far too accommodating to know any better. As such, they gain the membership of associating with "bears" however they give up a part of their identity as a tradeoff. If you're ready, here is the link I mentioned above.
http://eshusplayground.tumblr.com/post/28405025462/dear-gay-men-let-me-explain-what-sexual-racism-is-and
-Itsalwaysbeenme
You've done a good job of staking out the moral high ground from the first sentence in your comments. Anyway, here goes:
Appeal to condescension: check.
Overly broad generalization and speculation: check.
"Knowing" the inner lives of people whom you have likely never met better than they themselves know their inner lives: check.
Double standard (citing a post that harps on a dictionary definition after I've been criticized for relying on one): check.
You might be mistaken for trying to debase my response on appeal to condescension, however I'm taking a critical stance on the subject you've addressed in your original post.
I suppose your original quote:
"Yet again, I've heard the allegation that the very idea of a bear community is racist."
It is a misunderstanding of the original issue. I don't think people will argue that the concept of the bear community is racist. I don't have issues with that statement. Like I said in my previous post, they "used" to stand for those who did not want to conform to societal norms of what twink and jock stereotypes. I commend them for taking a critical stance on that issue.
Your entire argument is quite complete in that the concept of the bear community is not racist, however, the "misunderstanding" comes into play that individuals in the bear community can be racist, is where the contention is at.
You've already admitted in your quote:
"Of course, I am not so sheltered as to deny the existence of real racism among gay men (or any other group of people). Nonetheless, blatant race-card-playing cheapens the issue of genuine racism."
What makes it so difficult to realize that bears are gay men, and so its possible for your statement to apply to members of the bear community? Are they somehow immune?
You mention the race-card-playing, which implies a certain level of over-sensitiveness to socially accepted phrases that can be subtle forms of bullying not only to other races, depending on the phrases made, but to socioeconomic status or physiological attributes to the individual. However, if you haven't experienced oppression or any manner of it, then its difficult to describe to you what it is like to be the oppressed. Socially acceptable racism is still racism. And before you try to get me on the idea of oppression, there's also the idea of "soft oppression" and "soft racism".
Now, going back to my previous response, perhaps now you see where my argument lies. My previous response was not a rebuttal to your "idea of a bear community is racist", because you've proved in your post that it isn't (if one believes your argument).
You mention overly broad generalization and speculation on my part. For brevity's sake, I do not have the time nor is there enough space to go through each individual case (which is the way to break stereotypes, is to treat each case individually, as opposed to grouping and generalization).
You also mention "knowing the inner lives", goes hand in hand with the statement above
You also mention a double standard in me redirecting you to other definitions of racism. 2 things. 1, if we use your "textbook" definition of what racism is, then I find its actually quite narrow and doesn't address the subtle complexities that occur during interactions between different members. 2. For your post, you create a straw man in terms of "the very idea of a bear community is racist", because that is not even the real issue, hence any definition anybody provides is irrelevant.
You've done well in beginning to be critical about this issue, however you've missed the point of how racial dynamics influence the members of the bear community.
"I don't think people will argue that the concept of the bear community is racist."
I think you'll find that that premise is inaccurate. Your argument is thus moot, but let me address a few other points:
"What makes it so difficult to realize that bears are gay men, and so its possible for your statement to apply to members of the bear community? Are they somehow immune?"
Which one of us is setting up a straw man? Where did I say that individuals in the bear community cannot be racist?
"However, if you haven't experienced oppression or any manner of it, then its difficult to describe to you what it is like to be the oppressed."
The key word there is "if."
Regarding definitions, how do you determine which one is the correct one? Please tell me in a way that does not make your logic circular.
This blogger has done no research and is ignorant of the empirical evidence. Ignore this fool.
Thanks anonymous, I'll take your advice.
"I don't think people will argue that the concept of the bear community is racist."
I think you'll find that that premise is inaccurate. Your argument is thus moot, but let me address a few other points:"
"I've heard the allegation that the very idea of a bear community is racist."
You stated the above, is your blog entry moot as well?
I have given your entire blog a looksy, and I was reminded of a zen koan:
1. A Cup of Tea
Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.
Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor's cup full, and then kept on pouring.
The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. "It is overfull. No more will go in!"
"Like this cup," Nan-in said, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"
Here are a few interpretations of the above koan:
"You cannot learn anything if you already feel that you know."
"Preconceived ideas and prejudices always prevent us from seeing the truth."
"You should open your mind before you open your mouth."
I should hope that not ALL lawyers are full of opinions and speculations like you, there leaves no room for understanding your clients or anybody else for that matter.
Anyway, I hope you contemplate the above koan and grasp at least some of its wisdom. This will be my last response.
-Itsalwaysbeenme
Itsalwaysbeenme: Well said! It is heartening to know that reasonable and rational folk still exist.
"You stated the above, is your blog entry moot as well?"
That's a nice little non sequitur.
"I should hope that not ALL lawyers are full of opinions and speculations like you,"
The irony, it burns!
"there leaves no room for understanding your clients or anybody else for that matter."
Who is in a better position to decide that: you or my clients?
"bearishness does not correlate perfectly with European ancestry>> true but it is often seen as such by may white "bears" who argue that anyone who is not racialised as white (especially Asians) can not be bears per se.
racism does not mean preference forparticular characteristics in one's potential sex partners>> yes it does if these characteristics are racially determined or more or less racially determined.if i say "only into blonds, I exclude a large number of white people and by default anyone not racialised as white.
Also a lot of people view it as non-racist because the idea that they are complicite to racist standards causes cognitive dissonance and the unwillingess to do something about it because they are not at the receiving end of this matter. It's the same thing as only accepting people in a club who are married to a person of the other sex. It's not homophobic, because there is no hatred involved and it does not say the club does not accept gay people.It just only accepts people wo are married with people of the "opposite"sex.
Race is not a card played, it's a learned response that people seek to bring to the surface to be discussed.
'"bearishness does not correlate perfectly with European ancestry>> true but it is often seen as such by may white "bears" who argue that anyone who is not racialised as white (especially Asians) can not be bears per se.'
I've never heard that argument, and I've met many white bears who express the contrary view.
'racism does not mean preference forparticular characteristics in one's potential sex partners>> yes it does if these characteristics are racially determined or more or less racially determined.if i say "only into blonds, I exclude a large number of white people and by default anyone not racialised as white.'
I've already covered that.
'Also a lot of people view it as non-racist because the idea that they are complicite to racist standards causes cognitive dissonance and the unwillingess to do something about it because they are not at the receiving end of this matter.'
You can provide evidence for your assertion about other people's mental states, I trust.
'It's the same thing as only accepting people in a club who are married to a person of the other sex. It's not homophobic, because there is no hatred involved and it does not say the club does not accept gay people.It just only accepts people wo are married with people of the "opposite"sex.'
Please see my comment about whether simply being a gay man makes on a misogynist.
'Race is not a card played, it's a learned response that people seek to bring to the surface to be discussed.'
That's a false dichotomy.
Post a Comment