 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / May 2009Prejudice
This is a first rate article on prejudice from the Australian, it reminds me that, 'Homophobia' means fear of men ⋁ fear of things that are the same, like twins: http://tinyurl.com/q6la5c In our last episode, <e4f78c63-fa7f-41c0-a0cf-f7498b52447d@r13g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, the lovely and talented Peter Brooks broadcast on alt.usage.english: > This is a first rate article on prejudice from the Australian, it > reminds me that, 'Homophobia' means fear of men ??? fear of things that > are the same, like twins: http://tinyurl.com/q6la5c The author seem to be unable to use a dictionary to discover that the suffix "-phobia" and the noun "phobia" are two different things, or to have quite grasp the point that etymology is not definition.  SignatureLars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> usenet@larseighner.com 112 days since Rick Warren prayed over Bush's third term. Obama: No hope, no change, more of the same. Yes, he can, but no, he won't.Newsgroups: uk.philosophy.humanism,soc.culture.south-africa,alt.usage.english > In our last episode, > <e4f78c63-fa7f-41c0-a0cf-f7498b524...@r13g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the suffix "-phobia" and the noun "phobia" are two different things, or to > have quite grasp the point that etymology is not definition. No, indeed, etymology is not definition, if it were, the mistaken etymology, based on the misunderstanding that 'homosexual' meant 'sex with men' rather than 'sex with others of the same sex', that led to the silly misunderstanding encapsulated 'homophobia' would never have happened. It's amazing, really, that you don't have people claiming that 'hydrophobia' is a fear of Health Spas. Just a matter of time, I suppose… In our last episode, <a48ec272-0f7f-464c-839b-2ee4fd7fa006@r36g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, the lovely and talented Peter Brooks broadcast on alt.usage.english: >> In our last episode, >> <e4f78c63-fa7f-41c0-a0cf-f7498b524...@r13g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > etymology, based on the misunderstanding that 'homosexual' meant 'sex > with men' rather than 'sex with others of the same sex', that led to As this was a late 19th century barbarism, part of the blame belongs to the person who coined it. > the silly misunderstanding encapsulated 'homophobia' would never have > happened. The usual misreading is on the '-phobia' part. Francophobia is a much older word, but no one claimes it means fear of the French. > It's amazing, really, that you don't have people claiming that > 'hydrophobia' is a fear of Health Spas. Just a matter of time, I > suppose? SignatureLars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> usenet@larseighner.com 112 days since Rick Warren prayed over Bush's third term. Obama: No hope, no change, more of the same. Yes, he can, but no, he won't. > In our last episode, > <a48ec272-0f7f-464c-839b-2ee4fd7fa...@r36g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, the [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > The usual misreading is on the '-phobia' part. Francophobia is a much older > word, but no one claimes it means fear of the French. An early use of "-phobia" for hatred is the related "Buonaparte- phobia", as in the 1815 book by one William Hone reviewed in /The Monthly Repository of Theology and General Literature/: "...an ingenious writer has collected under the title of Buonaparte- Phobia, or the Art of Cursing made Easy; all the disgraceful terms and the foul language which is so gratuitously and daily lavished upon the enemy." http://books.google.com/books?id=SuIaAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA327 The actual book is at http://books.google.com/books?id=SVoTHQAACAAJ&dq=%22Buonaparte-phobia%22+date:0- 1850&lr=&ei=kwkLSuMGh-qTBOGMrbAO but with no preview, only bibliographic data. I don't know how old "Francophobia" is--1789? -- Jerry Friedman > sunderstanding encapsulated 'homophobia' would never have > > > happened. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the foul language which is so gratuitously and daily lavished upon the > enemy." The author of the article refers to still has a valid point, though. This attempt to smear those who dislike things through a sort of medicalisation of their dislike is dishonest. In our last episode, <29d8d12d-7610-4082-93cd-f166c5fee94e@21g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>, the lovely and talented Peter Brooks broadcast on alt.usage.english: >> sunderstanding encapsulated 'homophobia' would never have >> > > happened. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > This attempt to smear those who dislike things through a sort of > medicalisation of their dislike is dishonest. This is a step too far in Rightpondian understatement. When someone says "No carrots for me, please!" I think it is safe say that the person dislikes carrots. When someone is pistol whipping carrots or planting pipebombs at the greengrocer's in order to destroy carrots, perhaps it would be in order to say such a person is a carrotphobe. SignatureLars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> usenet@larseighner.com 113 days since Rick Warren prayed over Bush's third term. Obama: No hope, no change, more of the same. Yes, he can, but no, he won't. > In our last episode, > <29d8d12d-7610-4082-93cd-f166c5fee...@21g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>, the [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > planting pipebombs at the greengrocer's in order to destroy carrots, perhaps > it would be in order to say such a person is a carrotphobe. I can't disagree with your sentiment. I'd say, though, that he's showing hatred, rather than fear, of carrots. If somebody emigrated to Antarctica to avoid the possibility of being near, let alone seeing, a carrot, then he'd be a carrotophobe. Attacking them when you fear them is brave, certainly, but to argue that all attacks are motivated by such bravery seems to me to be perverse. This line of argument would seek to deny people anger or hatred. Titus Andronicus was a brave man, as he proved as a soldier, I think he, as a sensible and prudent man feared as well as respected and honoured his Emperor, unworthy though the Emperor undoubtably was. I think though that there's ample evidence that serving a mother her children in a pie is indicative of a certain crossness if not actually fully expressed hatred. Telling her that you've done it just after she's eaten the pie is, I think, only explicable by the word 'hate'. The Greek for 'hate' is 'έχθρα' and 'hatred' is 'μίσους', transliterated as 'mísos' and 'ékhthra'. From which we get sensible words like 'misanthropy' and 'misogyny'. If the poor psychologist who made the unfortunate coinage 'homophobic' had had a better education, he'd have coined a more appropriate word, such as, say, misosodomy or, if more modern, misoarsenokoites ( from αρσενοκοιτης homosexual). And we'd have the more accurate, I fear [sorry], misoxeno rather than xenophobe. [oderint dum metuant] > The Greek for 'hate' is '?????' and 'hatred' is '??????', > transliterated as 'mísos' and 'ékhthra'. Or, of course, the reverse. You seem to have a superfluous upsilon in your Greek for "misos". The genitive, perhaps? > which we get sensible > words like 'misanthropy' and 'misogyny'. If the poor psychologist > who > made the unfortunate coinage 'homophobic' had had a better > education, > he'd have coined a more appropriate word, such as, say, misosodomy You mean "misosodomite", Shirley? The difficulty here, if you're coining the word to mean "fear and hatred of (male?) homosexuals or homosexuality, is that sodomy, however defined, can be and is committed by men upon women and by women upon men (sometimes with the aid of prostheses). > or, > if more modern, misoarsenokoites ( from ???????????? homosexual). Well, literally "one who lies with a man", but it still seems better than the other attempt, except for its awkward length and obscurity. I wonder if it's from biblical rather than classical Greek (NTTAWWBG). > And we'd have the more accurate, I fear [sorry], misoxeno rather > than xenophobe. "Misoxene", I think. Don't you? > > which we get sensible > > words like 'misanthropy' and 'misogyny'. If the poor psychologist [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > committed by men upon women and by women upon men (sometimes with the > aid of prostheses). I was assuming, probably in my naive way, that a direction of hatred might be the sodomy itself, independent of the sex of the sodomites, which is why I expressed the possible coinage that way. If people hate specifically male homosexuals, but have no problems with followers of Sappho, then another word would be needed. 'Homosexual' covers both men and women, whilst lesbian covers only women [ha ha]. I think you have to say 'male homosexual'. Odd that there isn't a word for it. > > or, > > if more modern, misoarsenokoites ( from ???????????? homosexual). > > Well, literally "one who lies with a man", but it still seems better > than the other attempt, except for its awkward length and obscurity. > I wonder if it's from biblical rather than classical Greek (NTTAWWBG). I believe that it is biblical. > > And we'd have the more accurate, I fear [sorry], misoxeno rather > > than xenophobe. > > "Misoxene", I think. Don't you? I do indeed, though I fear people'd pronounce it as if it was an album by Jean Michel Jarre. >>> which we get sensible >>> words like 'misanthropy' and 'misogyny'. If the poor psychologist >>> who >>> made the unfortunate coinage 'homophobic' had had a better >>> education, >>> he'd have coined a more appropriate word, such as, say, misosodomy >> You mean "misosodomite", Shirley? The difficulty here, if you're >> coining the word to mean "fear and hatred of (male?) homosexuals or >> homosexuality, is that sodomy, however defined, can be and is >> committed by men upon women and by women upon men (sometimes with >> the aid of prostheses). > I was assuming, probably in my naive way, that a direction of hatred > might be the sodomy itself, independent of the sex of the sodomites, > which is why I expressed the possible coinage that way. Well, but you were looking for a word to replace "homophobia", which refers, as far as I can tell to a <negative emotion> associated with homosexuals. I'm not aware of uses of "sodomy" or "sodomite" that refer to female homosexuality, but maybe there are some. And your other, biblical, coinage, if it refers to homosexuals, can only refer to males. But what I said above was not to draw a distinction between male and female homosexual activity, but between homosexual and heterosexual activity. I was pointing out that the word "sodomy" has commonly been used, in some places, to mean any kind of sex that is disapproved of, without regard to the sexes of the participants: oral-genital, genito-anal, human-ovine, you name it; and therefore compounds based on it are a tricky prospect for coinages intended to relace "homophobia". > If people hate specifically male homosexuals, but have no problems > with followers of Sappho, then another word would be needed. > 'Homosexual' covers both men and women, whilst lesbian covers only > women [ha ha]. I think you have to say 'male homosexual'. Odd that > there isn't a word for it. I think there were some attempts to coin respectable terms, but they didn't catch on. >>> or, >>> if more modern, misoarsenokoites ( from ???????????? homosexual). >> Well, literally "one who lies with a man", but it still seems >> better than the other attempt, except for its awkward length and >> obscurity. I wonder if it's from biblical rather than classical >> Greek (NTTAWWBG). > I believe that it is biblical. >>> And we'd have the more accurate, I fear [sorry], misoxeno rather >>> than xenophobe. >> "Misoxene", I think. Don't you? > I do indeed, though I fear people'd pronounce it as if it was an > album by Jean Michel Jarre. There's a misenscène for you. This is a little jumbled, for which I apologise. I'm going to be late for an appointment if I spend any more time thinking. > >>> which we get sensible > >>> words like 'misanthropy' and 'misogyny'. If the poor psychologist [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > other, biblical, coinage, if it refers to homosexuals, can only refer > to males. The point is that 'sodomite' can refer to a heterosexual. > But what I said above was not to draw a distinction between male and > female homosexual activity, but between homosexual and heterosexual [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > on it are a tricky prospect for coinages intended to relace > "homophobia". Now this is another peculiar thing. As far as I'm aware this particular confusion about the word is specific to the US. I was much surprised when I first heard it. It is, though, true that the original story of Sodom was a little vague as to the detail of what happened to the angels. > > If people hate specifically male homosexuals, but have no problems > > with followers of Sappho, then another word would be needed. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I think there were some attempts to coin respectable terms, but they > didn't catch on. I wasn't concerned about the respectability too much. What terms were these? Catamite is certainly exclusive to homosexuals, but refers only to a subset. Some might even say that catamites are not always homosexual, but rather always venal. > >>> or, > >>> if more modern, misoarsenokoites ( from ???????????? homosexual). [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > apologise. I'm going to be late for an appointment if I spend any > more time thinking. Another time then. [>>>> Peter Brooks:] >>>>> which we get sensible >>>>> words like 'misanthropy' and 'misogyny'. If the poor [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>>>> he'd have coined a more appropriate word, such as, say, >>>>> misosodomy >>>> You mean "misosodomite", Shirley? The difficulty here, if you're >>>> coining the word to mean "fear and hatred of (male?) homosexuals >>>> or homosexuality, is that sodomy, however defined, can be and is >>>> committed by men upon women and by women upon men (sometimes with >>>> the aid of prostheses). >>> I was assuming, probably in my naive way, that a direction of >>> hatred might be the sodomy itself, independent of the sex of the >>> sodomites, which is why I expressed the possible coinage that way. >> Well, but you were looking for a word to replace "homophobia", >> which refers, as far as I can tell to a <negative emotion> >> associated with homosexuals. I'm not aware of uses of "sodomy" or >> "sodomite" that refer to female homosexuality, but maybe there are >> some. And your other, biblical, coinage, if it refers to >> homosexuals, can only refer to males. > The point is that 'sodomite' can refer to a heterosexual. Exactly. And my point was that the "homo" of "homophobia" can't. >> But what I said above was not to draw a distinction between male >> and female homosexual activity, but between homosexual and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> and therefore compounds based on it are a tricky prospect for >> coinages intended to relace "homophobia". > Now this is another peculiar thing. As far as I'm aware this > particular confusion about the word is specific to the US. I was > much surprised when I first heard it. It is, though, true that the > original story of Sodom was a little vague as to the detail of what > happened to the angels. And, as we are sometimes reminded, the majority of English-speakers are now in that country. That must be the majority of NESsies: I have recently heard it claimed that there are more English-speakers in India than in the US. >>> If people hate specifically male homosexuals, but have no problems >>> with followers of Sappho, then another word would be needed. >>> 'Homosexual' covers both men and women, whilst lesbian covers only >>> women [ha ha]. I think you have to say 'male homosexual'. Odd that >>> there isn't a word for it. >> I think there were some attempts to coin respectable terms, but >> they didn't catch on. > I wasn't concerned about the respectability too much. What terms > were these? There was the German "Urning" and what may have been an English gloss on it, "uranian", Both nineteenth-century; and (German again) "warme Brüder". I suppose the feminine form would be "warme Schwestern", and the neutral form "warme Geschwister", but I'm speculating wildly, and may have gotten the endings wrong anyway. The German dictionaries available to me seem to think I ought to know plurals without being told. I think there may have been more (besides the current one, "gay", which has already run into some trouble from the younger set), but it was many years ago that I read about these terms, and that's all I can remember for now. > Catamite is certainly exclusive to homosexuals, but refers only to a > subset. Some might even say that catamites are not always > homosexual, but rather always venal. Surely passivity is their defining characteristic. Having just looked the word up, I find that it's a "corruption [if I may] of "/Ganymedes/, the beloved cup-bearer of Jupiter", but that's just etymology. >>>>> or, >>>>> if more modern, misoarsenokoites ( from ???????????? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>>> obscurity. I wonder if it's from biblical rather than classical >>>> Greek (NTTAWWBG). >>> I believe that it is biblical. >>>>> And we'd have the more accurate, I fear [sorry], misoxeno rather >>>>> than xenophobe. >>>> "Misoxene", I think. Don't you? >>> I do indeed, though I fear people'd pronounce it as if it was an >>> album by Jean Michel Jarre. >> There's a misenscène for you. This is a little jumbled, for which I >> apologise. I'm going to be late for an appointment if I spend any >> more time thinking. > Another time then. Maybe not. I think I'm going to fold. There are some major unexamined assumptions in the discussion so far, made by both of us: for example, as to whether homosexuality is a matter of individual nature or a kind of behaviour; and I get restless when I have to leave a lot of previous material in because of unresolved points. > I was assuming, probably in my naive way, that a direction of hatred > might be the sodomy itself, independent of the sex of the sodomites, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > women [ha ha]. I think you have to say 'male homosexual'. Odd that > there isn't a word for it. Certainly, many countries that had prohibitions against male homosexuals had no provision for females. I suspect that this was because they couldn't believe it existed. SignatureRob Bannister > > I was assuming, probably in my naive way, that a direction of hatred > > might be the sodomy itself, independent of the sex of the sodomites, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > had no provision for females. I suspect that this was because they > couldn't believe it existed. That's the tale, of why Victoria didn't sign it into law in England. >[oderint dum metuant] > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >than the other attempt, except for its awkward length and obscurity. >I wonder if it's from biblical rather than classical Greek (NTTAWWBG). If people ignorantly interpret "homosexual" as "one who has sex with a man", there's an inherent risk that they might misinterpret "arsenokoites", construing it by folk etymology as a compound of "coitus" with an all-too-transparent first element. SignatureJames >If people ignorantly interpret "homosexual" as "one who has sex >with a man", there's an inherent risk that they might As opposed to bestiality? Of course the opposite of homophobia is xenophobia. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk [AUE only] >>If people ignorantly interpret "homosexual" as "one who has sex >>with a man", there's an inherent risk that they might > >As opposed to bestiality? > >Of course the opposite of homophobia is xenophobia. The opposite of homophobia is homophilia. The opposite of xenophobia is xenophilia. obWaxingPhilosphic: But is the opposite of love hate? Some argue the opposite of love is indifference. >[AUE only] >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >The opposite of homophobia is homophilia. The opposite of xenophobia is >xenophilia. And the opposite of haemophobia is haemophilia. Bleeding obvious, innit? I note there is also a useful term "aulophobia" meaning an "abnormal fear of flutes". How on earth do sufferers drink champagne? >obWaxingPhilosphic: But is the opposite of love hate? Some argue the >opposite of love is indifference. Who cares? SignatureJames >> [AUE only] >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Who cares? No, no, the proper answer is "I could care less". SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >>> [AUE only] >>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >No, no, the proper answer is "I could care less". Does that mean the same as "I could care more"? SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>>> [AUE only] >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Does that mean the same as "I could care more"? You should worry. SignatureMike. >>[AUE only] >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > "abnormal fear of flutes". How on earth do sufferers drink > champagne? What's a normal fear of flutes? SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu Nick filted: >> I note there is also a useful term "aulophobia" meaning an >> "abnormal fear of flutes". How on earth do sufferers drink >> champagne? > >What's a normal fear of flutes? Fans of Peter Schickele may skip the following: The piccolo was developed in a coastal region of Italy, where the songs of the local birds predisposed the locals to especially high-pitched sounds...over time there developed a ritual whereby the native population dig pits in the beach sand in which are placed huge copper bowls...a generous portion of good Italian olive oil is added to each bowl, under which a fire is lighted to heat the oil...when it reaches the desired temperature, flutes are placed into the oil and stirred; as the sizzling oil penetrates the bodies of the flutes, they shrivel to half their original size, producing an instrument pitched a full octave above its original range.... This ritual has gained renown as the Mediterranean Flute-Fry.... (If you're not afraid of flutes now, I can do nothing further for you)....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > Nick filted: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > (If you're not afraid of flutes now, I can do nothing further for you)....r That last sentence would work just as well with "to" instead of "for". -- Jerry Friedman > Of course the opposite of homophobia is xenophobia. Indeed it is - along that dimension anyway! Homophillia would be my first choice - a love of routine, regularity and reassuring familiarity. Wittgenstein was, I think, a homophilliac with his claim that he didn't mind what he ate, so long as it was the same. I wonder whether one's relationship with one's mother-in-law is better described as xeno- or homo- phobia. >> The usual misreading is on the '-phobia' part. Francophobia is a >> much older word, but no one claimes it means fear of the French. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the foul language which is so gratuitously and daily lavished upon the > enemy." Also, The disease with which Mr. Webster is afflicted is of rather a peculiar nature, and may he described as grammatico-phobia, while his hatred of the English language is so great that his friends declare he will murder it whenever he has the opportunity. _Puppet Show_, 4/29/1848 My Burtons mostly have Catholic-phobia; they hate it without knowing what it is, because their ancestors seceded from it at the time of the reformation. Isabel Burton, _The Life of Captain Sir Richard F. Burton_, 1893 SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Pious Jews have a category of 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |questions that can harmlessly be Palo Alto, CA 94304 |allowed to go without an answer |until the Messiah comes. I suspect kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |that this is one of them. (650)857-7572 | Joseph C. Fineman http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > My Burtons mostly have Catholic-phobia; they hate it without > knowing what it is, because their ancestors seceded from it at the > time of the reformation. Misocatholicism would make the point so much better. I can see a fear of nuns making sense, they can be somewhat sinister, and chaps in skirts disturb quite a few people, but it would be irrational to fear Catholicism itself, but to hate it, for, for example, blighting your youth (as in 'Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man') would be reasonable. Of course, just as people now tend to believe that 'gender' actually means 'sex' and talk of the 'gender' of inanimate objects - as in 'gender-bender' for a cross-over cable - so people no longer believe that 'homophobia' means a fear at all, but a hatred. So I suppose they think that Claustrophobia and Agoraphobia mean a hatred of being cooped up or going to the market, which is, not that far from the mark. >think that Claustrophobia and Agoraphobia mean a hatred of being >cooped up or going to the market, which is, not that far from the mark. I like it. I embrace agoraphobia. I flee from the contamination of the ideology built on the foundation of Ronnie Reagan and Maggie Thatcher, with Ayn Rand herself as the chief cornerstone. And they comprise an evil triumv... er, trumhomoate. SignatureTerms and conditions apply. Steve Hayes hayesmstw@hotmail.com > On Thu, 14 May 2009 01:16:17 -0700 (PDT), Peter Brooks > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Ronnie Reagan and Maggie Thatcher, with Ayn Rand herself as the chief > cornerstone. You flee from the corruption of the ideology - but not from the ideology itself? > Of course, just as people now tend to believe that 'gender' actually > means 'sex' The OED's first quote with this sense is from 1387. How long until it "actually means" this? (The grammatical sense is attested to before 1380.) > and talk of the 'gender' of inanimate objects - as in > 'gender-bender' for a cross-over cable A gender-bender is a converter that converts a male connector into a female one or vice-versa. I don't think I've heard it applied to a crossover cable. > - so people no longer believe that 'homophobia' means a fear at all, > but a hatred. So I suppose they think that Claustrophobia and > Agoraphobia mean a hatred of being cooped up or going to the market, > which is, not that far from the mark. Why do you suppose that? As near as I can tell, "X-phobia" when X is a group of people, is usually used in the sense of "hatred" rather than "fear", although there may often be a component of fear involved, while when X is a situation or an object, it pretty much always just means "fear". With the background of "xenophobia", "Anglophobia", "Francophobia", "Gallophobia", "Germanophobia", etc., it's not at all surprising that "homophobia" moved from a "clinical fear" into an "antipathy toward". SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |There are two types of people - 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |those who are one of the two types Palo Alto, CA 94304 |of people, and those who are not. | Leigh Blue Caldwell kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > > and talk of the 'gender' of inanimate objects - as in > > 'gender-bender' for a cross-over cable > > A gender-bender is a converter that converts a male connector into a > female one or vice-versa. I don't think I've heard it applied to a > crossover cable. Yes, you're right there - I was thinking of the cross-over from one sex to another, not the electrical cross-over. > > - so people no longer believe that 'homophobia' means a fear at all, > > but a hatred. So I suppose they think that Claustrophobia and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > surprising that "homophobia" moved from a "clinical fear" into an > "antipathy toward". I see, so you're saying that application to agents makes the difference. That's an interesting point. You're also suggesting that it's quite innocent to link fear and hatred in this way. I know Caligula did in 'Oderint dum metuant", though he wasn't so much suggesting that they were connected, rather that they should be connected. I'm not sure it's true that we hate people that we fear. I think there's a considerable difference between being shy and being a random mass killer, even if most of them are shy, most shy people don't hate others, but their reticence certainly includes an element of fear, if not of the people, of embarrassment or social inadequacy. I've also thought that xenophobia, in the sense of a natural fear of strangers is perfectly reasonable and common, even if statistics show you're more likely to be killed by people you know. Hating them is a very different matter. I think many people are, rather, fascinated by strangers - why else would they travel the world when on holiday? > Why do you suppose that? As near as I can tell, "X-phobia" when X is > a group of people, is usually used in the sense of "hatred" rather [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > surprising that "homophobia" moved from a "clinical fear" into an > "antipathy toward". Plus, when you get into irrational fears, the distinction in common use can be blurred. I'm pretty-well certain I've told people "I hate hights", when actually I'm terrified by them. SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu >> Why do you suppose that? As near as I can tell, "X-phobia" when X is >> a group of people, is usually used in the sense of "hatred" rather [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >can be blurred. I'm pretty-well certain I've told people "I hate >hights", when actually I'm terrified by them. To avoid having to choose between fearing and hating "heights" you can just tell people you're acrophobic. SignatureJames >> Plus, when you get into irrational fears, the distinction in common use >> can be blurred. I'm pretty-well certain I've told people "I hate >> hights", when actually I'm terrified by them. > > To avoid having to choose between fearing and hating "heights" > you can just tell people you're acrophobic. Frightened of Acros? I'd be more worried about the roof falling on my head. SignatureDavid Licken James Hogg filted: >>Plus, when you get into irrational fears, the distinction in common use >>can be blurred. I'm pretty-well certain I've told people "I hate >>hights", when actually I'm terrified by them. > >To avoid having to choose between fearing and hating "heights" >you can just tell people you're acrophobic. On tonight's episode of "The Simpsons", Homer explained his dislike for the influx of Norwegian-accented outsiders into Springfield by saying "I'm xylophobic"...Lisa corrected him, saying "xylophobic means you're afraid of xylophones"...moments later, the town had passed a resolution to ban both the outsiders *and* xylophones.... (As any fule kno, xylophobic actually describes the weakness of the original Green Lantern, Alan Scott; his Silver Age counterpart was xanthophobic)....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? >James Hogg filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >xylophones"...moments later, the town had passed a resolution to ban both the >outsiders *and* xylophones.... Homer wasn't wrong. He had just been listening to Rubber Soul. >(As any fule kno, xylophobic actually describes the weakness of the original >Green Lantern, Alan Scott; his Silver Age counterpart was xanthophobic)....r So he didn't like the Simpsons? SignaturePaul Paul Wolff filted: >>(As any fule kno, xylophobic actually describes the weakness of the original >>Green Lantern, Alan Scott; his Silver Age counterpart was xanthophobic)....r >> >So he didn't like the Simpsons? Not if he had to use his ring on them....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > James Hogg filted: >>> Plus, when you get into irrational fears, the distinction in common use [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > (As any fule kno, xylophobic actually describes the weakness of the original > Green Lantern, Alan Scott; his Silver Age counterpart was xanthophobic)....r I thought that last word referred to people who are afraid of Piers Anthony. SignatureRob Bannister >> In our last episode, >> <e4f78c63-fa7f-41c0-a0cf-f7498b524...@r13g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > the silly misunderstanding encapsulated 'homophobia' would never have > happened. I'm not sure what you're saying there. The man who coined "homophobia", psychologist George Weinberg, is on record as saying that he was refering people who had "a classic phobic revulsion" to being around homosexuals. "Homo" as short for "homosexual" is attested (1929) by the OED about forty years before that. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Pious Jews have a category of 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |questions that can harmlessly be Palo Alto, CA 94304 |allowed to go without an answer |until the Messiah comes. I suspect kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |that this is one of them. (650)857-7572 | Joseph C. Fineman http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > >> In our last episode, > >> <e4f78c63-fa7f-41c0-a0cf-f7498b524...@r13g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, the [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > being around homosexuals. "Homo" as short for "homosexual" is > attested (1929) by the OED about forty years before that. Ah, a shrink who coins clever words from slang. Interesting notion. Was he any good? > This is a first rate article on prejudice from the Australian, it > reminds me that, 'Homophobia' means fear of men ⋁ fear of things that > are the same, like twins:http://tinyurl.com/q6la5c I'm not sure that I agree with the argument that "Prejudices ... are more common in rural than urban areas, in outer than inner suburbs and among less rather than more educated people." Plenty of people with university degrees have been prejudiced. Being educated doesn't mean that one isn't ignorant. And a degree in law just means that you know lots about law - you could know sod-all about everything else. > > This is a first rate article on prejudice from the Australian, it > > reminds me that, 'Homophobia' means fear of men ⋁ fear of things that [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > just means that you know lots about law - you could know sod-all about > everything else. That can be true, depending on whether or not you've been subject to some sort of monocultural cramming rather than an education. I do agree that some, rather a lot these days, thanks to Mr Major, do manage to garner university degrees whilst avoiding education, but the point wasn't that people with degrees were not prejudiced, but, rather, that educated people tended to be less so, a rather different one. > > > This is a first rate article on prejudice from the Australian, it > > > reminds me that, 'Homophobia' means fear of men ⋁ fear of things that [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > That can be true, depending on whether or not you've been subject to > some sort of monocultural cramming rather than an education. I think it's generally true. Though the problem may be that we, the great we, confuse letters behind a name with general wisdom. Look at Chomsky - brilliant in his actual field, which is linguistics, but when it comes to, say, US foreign policy his views are not really that much better informed or considered than yours or mine. But because he's the brilliant Chomsky his views on just about anything get given great precedence. He's entitled to them, of course, but, as is the case with you or I, he's not actually opining on something he has significant expertise in. Verwoerd and Vorster were both degreed men, Vorster being an advocate. Didn't actually mean that they knew much about anything outside of their field of study or meant that they were automatically able to run an economy, come up with sound social policies etc etc... George W Bush has an MBA from an ivy league university. > I do agree that some, rather a lot these days, thanks to Mr Major, do > manage to garner university degrees whilst avoiding education, but the > point wasn't that people with degrees were not prejudiced, but, > rather, that educated people tended to be less so, a rather different > one. Well that's where I differ with the author. I know plenty of people who are well read and have good educations and who, as far as I can tell, are not lacking between the ears and yet they give voice to exactly the kind of bigotry that the author suggests is more common among the great unwashed. It's actually harder to discuss such things rationally with them because, after all, they have degrees and thousands of books in their home and what do I have? (the answers being no degrees and 100s of books but not 1000s). Not that I'm suggesting that a lack of education is a good thing, but it certainly doesn't seem to me to be the case that a degree makes one more sensible or means that one's opinions ipso facto have a sounder factual underpinning. > Look at Chomsky - brilliant in his actual field, which is linguistics, > but when it comes to, say, US foreign policy his views are not really [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > is the case with you or I, he's not actually opining on something he > has significant expertise in. I'm not sure I can agree with that example. You may disagree with Chomsky, of course, but his writing on the manufacturing of consent is most certainly not ill-informed or unconsidered, far from it. > Verwoerd and Vorster were both degreed men, Vorster being an advocate. > Didn't actually mean that they knew much about anything outside of > their field of study or meant that they were automatically able to run > an economy, come up with sound social policies etc etc... Verwoed's degree was rather fishy, if you look into it. Not actually from Oxford, where he did study for a while, but from a rather obscure and peculiar place in Germany. > George W Bush has an MBA from an ivy league university. The shrub was shown to adopt his inarticulacy late in his career. It's not clear if it was the result of a stroke or similar brain infarct or a cultivated mannerism. Evil is the word that comes to mind rather than stupid in his case - though his traitorous acts in bringing dishonour and criminality to his country were stupid things to do they were not done without thought. > > I do agree that some, rather a lot these days, thanks to Mr Major, do > > manage to garner university degrees whilst avoiding education, but the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > thousands of books in their home and what do I have? (the answers > being no degrees and 100s of books but not 1000s). This might be a matter of opinion, I'm not sure what facts there are to support this either way. I too have, of course, met clever and educated bigots. Whether they are in smaller proportion in the educated than the ill-educated is the question, not whether such creatures ever exist. The Brownshirts, as one example, were drawn from poorer and less well educated Germans, but these were just the ones who were most affected by the economic conditions at the time, so it may not be a reflection of a proportion of bigotry - besides, it's a fallacy to paint fascism as appealing only to bigots, many people voted New 'error of judgement' Labour in and clearly not all of them were bigots, at least I don't think so! > Not that I'm suggesting that a lack of education is a good thing, but > it certainly doesn't seem to me to be the case that a degree makes one > more sensible or means that one's opinions ipso facto have a sounder > factual underpinning. Not as thunder follows lightening, no, but there is, I think, a general rule that educated people are more likely to be sensible if only because they're likely to be cleverer and thus better able to come to sensible conclusions. >Not as thunder follows lightening, No e in lightning. >>Not as thunder follows lightening, > >No e in lightning. Particularly not with heavy thunder. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > >Not as thunder follows lightening, > > No e in lightning. Indeed not, thank you. >Look at Chomsky - brilliant in his actual field, which is linguistics, >but when it comes to, say, US foreign policy his views are not really [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >is the case with you or I, he's not actually opining on something he >has significant expertise in. Another example is Dawkins, of whom the same may be said. As one blogger wrote, under the heading "That fool Dawkins": "Rational debate about the existence/ non-existence of God, and the ethical implications thereof, is good. It belongs to human dignity to seek to discern what is true. There is an academic discipline which studies questions such as what constitutes a warranted belief, what religious language 'means', whether it has a possible reference and what it means for our conceptions of the good life. That discipline is philosophy. There is also an academic discipline whose remit of study includes the atrocities committed in the name of religion. That discipline is history. So why, when Channel Four want to air a programme about these issues do they give air-time to a biologist with no training whatsoever in either discipline? Moreover one whose previous pronouncements in this area have only been published because he has piggy-backed on his (justified) scientific reputation and which, considered in their own right, are unworthy of a moderately bright A-level student.. Yet another example of the ignoring of the humanities in mainstream culture and, in spite of the irrationalism of our age, the persistence of the Victorian cult of the polymath scientist. Boo, hiss." SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk > "Rational debate about the existence/ non-existence of God, and the ethical > implications thereof, is good. It belongs to human dignity to seek to discern > what is true. The two sentences are not connected. Yes, it is good to seek to discern what is true. It's not clear why there should be any ethical implications related to debating the existence of gods - unless you mean that it would be inethical to debate gods when a more important debate, say about improving the lot of humanity, could be had instead. I'd go along with that, but it seems strangely put. > There is an academic discipline which studies questions such as what > constitutes a warranted belief, what religious language 'means', whether it > has a possible reference and what it means for our conceptions of the good > life. That discipline is philosophy. No, that's wrong. The discipline you're looking for is theology. It is true that psychology investigates why people believe in things, so that's involved too, but not philosophy. What constitutes warranted belief is, I agree, a philosophical question, but the rest is nothing to do with it. > There is also an academic discipline > whose remit of study includes the atrocities committed in the name of > religion. That discipline is history. Or law, or jurisprudence. >> There is an academic discipline which studies questions such as >> what constitutes a warranted belief, what religious language >> 'means', whether it has a possible reference and what it means for >> our conceptions of the good life. That discipline is philosophy. >> > No, that's wrong. The discipline you're looking for is theology. Theology either starts with the presupposition that religion (and, typically, one particular religion) is basically true and tries to work out what follows from that or simply catalogs the different things that people believe. I don't think I've ever seen a non- question-begging theological approach to what constitutes a warranted belief or whether religious language has a possible referent. I'd say that the question of whether the things described by religious terms actually exist is pretty much the purview of physicists and biologists (the latter as the primary students of very complex systems). The question of the mechanisms that impel us to religious belief and the consequences for having them belongs to psychology. And the question of the role of religious belief and ritual on society belongs to anthropology. Having established all that, the question of "Is it worth it?" or "Which parts are worth it?" is in the realm of philosophy. > It is true that psychology investigates why people believe in > things, so that's involved too, but not philosophy. > > What constitutes warranted belief is, I agree, a philosophical > question, but the rest is nothing to do with it. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |It does me no injury for my neighbor 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |to say there are twenty gods, or no Palo Alto, CA 94304 |God. | Thomas Jefferson kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > >> There is an academic discipline which studies questions such as > >> what constitutes a warranted belief, what religious language [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > question-begging theological approach to what constitutes a warranted > belief or whether religious language has a possible referent. Augustine did his best. > I'd say that the question of whether the things described by religious > terms actually exist is pretty much the purview of physicists and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > "Is it worth it?" or "Which parts are worth it?" is in the realm of > philosophy. That's a reasonable division of labour too. >> Look at Chomsky - brilliant in his actual field, which is >> linguistics, but when it comes to, say, US foreign policy his views [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Another example is Dawkins, of whom the same may be said. [...sorry: had to snip somewhere...] This is wrong. Nobody of normal intelligence is better qualified than any other to decide whether or not there is a God. One believes though there is no objective evidence, disbelieves because there is no objective evidence, admits that no decision is possible because there is no objective evidence, wavers between any two or all three of the above, or concocts a view which is more or less metaphorical. But one can't /learn/ how to make a more informed decision: one can't become /skilled/ in a field of "whether-god-exists-or-not-ology". Dawkins in his book /The God Delusion/ sticks to a very cautious, even conservative, approach. He points out the bleeding obvious, which is that a God as described in our holy books cannot exist; and presumably all educated religious believers these days would agree. For his own part, though, he goes on to say why he thinks there "is almost certainly no God". It's interesting, perhaps, that in the blog Steve quoted (and I snipped) the author referred these problems to the /humanities/. So far have we travelled from the sensible medieval distinction between humanity and divinity. (And, actually, some of Chomsky's political views do deserve consideration even if you end up disagreeing.) SignatureMike. > I do agree that some, rather a lot these days, thanks to Mr Major, do > manage to garner university degrees whilst avoiding education, but the > point wasn't that people with degrees were not prejudiced, but, > rather, that educated people tended to be less so, a rather different > one. I wouldn't blame it all on Major. Whilst on holiday in the UK in 2007 I caught a rather interesting radio debate in which some don from Oxford pointed out that the A-level pass rates in England had increased every year for 25 straight years - which means that the malaise predates Major's tenure as Prime Minister. > > I do agree that some, rather a lot these days, thanks to Mr Major, do > > manage to garner university degrees whilst avoiding education, but the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > increased every year for 25 straight years - which means that the > malaise predates Major's tenure as Prime Minister. I have more time for Mr Major than a good many Prime Ministers, there was something rather more decent about him than most members of that tribe, at least so it seemed. His intentions in renaming universities, unfortunate as the consequences were, were well meaning. So I'm pleased that it wasn't only him. So it it's not politicians responsible for the 25 year decline, I wonder what is. > So it it's not politicians responsible for the 25 year decline, I > wonder what is. Well it's a succession of politicians rather than one individual politician. Promising that school marks will improve and that little Johnny will get a shot at a degree are handy fodder for the masses come election time. Of course you can't legislate that the country get smarter, but you can dumb down the examinations. The debate I was referring to arose when certain universities at Oxford started saying that A-levels were not good enough and that they wanted to set an entrance exam. They were sick of getting kids with A- levels who were to all practical purposes illiterate. I'd agree with you about Major in the round. He did have an air of decency about him. >> This is a first rate article on prejudice from the Australian, it >> reminds me that, 'Homophobia' means fear of men ⋁ fear of things that [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > just means that you know lots about law - you could know sod-all about > everything else. In addition, prejudices are hard to spot if you agree with them - a professor might find it relatively easy to notice that rural folk have prejudices against all kinds of people the professor knows and likes, but might not notice the prejudice in his own attitude toward rural people. Now, he could have presented data showing rural vs urban variations in attitudes toward homosexuals etc - but that wouldn't have shown whether the two groups had different levels of prejudice overall. It would merely have shown whether their levels of prejudice against certain targets was different. Cheryl (follow-up set to AUE, as my newsreader is demanding I set one) On 14 May 2009, Bob Dubery wrote > On May 13, 8:06 am, Peter Brooks <Peter.H.M.Bro...@gmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Plenty of people with university degrees have been prejudiced. But the statement makes no claim -- none at all -- that "educated/urban people are not prejudiced". It just says that there are correlations between education, location, and prejudice -- not that it's a one-to-one fit. Are you suggestinig that there's no correlation at all -- in the total population -- between education/location on the one hand, and prejudicial attitudes on the other? A lot of people would need to see evidence of "full population randomness" before accepting that. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > > This is a first rate article on prejudice from the Australian, it > > reminds me that, 'Homophobia' means fear of men ⋁ fear of things that [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > just means that you know lots about law - you could know sod-all about > everything else. I felt sure that the author was reporting the results of surveys (in Australia). If he wasn't, I feel seriously misled. Of course people with university degrees can have prejudices. Except me. -- Jerry Friedman On May 17, 5:38 pm, "CDB" <bellema...@sympatico.ca> wrote: > I think there may have been more (besides the current one, "gay", > which has already run into some trouble from the younger set), but it > was many years ago that I read about these terms, and that's all I can > remember for now. The evolution of 'gay' from 'cheerful' through prison slang to its current state is an interesting one. It's nice that it can be used in the 'pig with the gay tail' sense again. > > Catamite is certainly exclusive to homosexuals, but refers only to a > > subset. Some might even say that catamites are not always [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "/Ganymedes/, the beloved cup-bearer of Jupiter", but that's just > etymology. Not just etymology, also mythology. > >>>>> or, > >>>>> if more modern, misoarsenokoites ( from ???????????? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > nature or a kind of behaviour; and I get restless when I have to leave > a lot of previous material in because of unresolved points. The point has been addressed by the medical community in recent years by referring to a group of people who engage in particular behaviour that increases their risk of venereal disease as 'men who have sex with men'. This is a somewhat clumsy construction, but has the virtue of leaving questions of whether it's habitual, intrinsic, part, as you say, of individual nature, or simply an occasional whim. Of course, as Slick Willie demonstrated, some may not be quite clear as to what 'have sex with' means, but I think that doctors, being pragmatic types, expect most of their patients to be less slippery than Slick. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.