So, the other thread was rather annoying to me, as it basically consisted of a large number of straight people saying how homophobia wasn't a problem.

The statement 'I have the right not to be offended by homophobic abuse' coming out of the mouth of a straight person is meaningless. Of course you have the right to not be offended - why would you be? Just as a white person wouldn't be offended by the use of the N word towards them, just as men are not offended by misogyny, so straight people are not hurt by homophobia.

Sexism, Racism, Homophobia, Transphobia & Ableism are all vile. They seek to take a characteristic of one person and use that against them, to isolate them from everyone else by flagging up one part of them that is seen as 'unnatural', 'wrong' or somehow to be valued less. This only works because society is built on a set of unquestioned assumptions about how people are, and how they behave.

It's for that reason we can's just ignore it. 'Can't we all just get along and not care' is a way of excusing the priveliged position some people find themselves in. If we don't talk about sexuality, people will consistently assume that I'm straight. My sexual identity becomes something I have to hide or conserve because nobody questions the assumptions held by the vast majority of society.

I understand that for many people this seems like a fuss over nothing, and that Zak's use of 'F****t' wasn't a problem. Please take some time to appreciate how well off you are, that abuse like that isn't directed at you, explicitly and implicitly, on a daily basis. That your sexuality is considered the norm in society, that no-one will abuse you in the street simply for holding your partners hand.

The video below is about race & gender, but the point it makes is equally applicable to the problem of straight privelige and heteronormativity we see in society today.

[urlhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgaOK74HqiA[/url

[uPrivilege is invisible to those who have it. [/u

OK.

Oh great, another thread.

Good job on posting this. Though i would slightly dispute the idea that white people aren't 'offended' by racism and men aren't 'offended' by misogyny. I am a white man and get offended by both when i hear them. I assume you mean more 'are not personally impacted by...'

But all this 'played like a girl' / 'don't be a woman about it' stuff that is said in sports and a lot on here on the other thread is just as bad as it is implying that it is unacceptable to display such qualities.

The job i do, 86% of its members are female and if i said on here what the job was, i suspect a decent sample would say things like 'get a proper job', or 'that's not a man's job' or those sorts of things.

It is essentially insecure members of a 'ruling majority' (whether that be white vs ethnic minorities, hetero vs homosexual, able bodied vs not) feeling threatened in some way about their own deficiencies so then try and belittle those in a smaller group to make them feel better about themselves.

Well said.

good post, agree with a lot of it.

Well said.

Brilliant post. Well said.

How do you the people on their were straight? Did everyone announce their sexuality when posting?

Who actually said homophobia isn't a problem? No one I can recall, a big difference between one RL incident and the whole world wide issue of homophobia?

Or does not thinking one particular incident is as big an issue as others have made out make me or others homophobic? Before you answer that I'll note that on the various threads on this subject just one poster have announced himself as bisexual. He admitted that whilst he would be offended if someone called him a faggot, the Hardaker incident didn't bother him at all. Does this make this openly bisexual man a homophobe?



I certainly didn't say "I have the right to not be offended by homophobic abuse." I did however say "I have the right to feel however I want about the situation."

Big difference to the way your trying to present myself and others who aren't up in arms about the incident as ignorant homophobes. Trying to label as such based on what's been written on these threads without knowing anything else about me or who I know in my personal life......what does that make you? Ignorance does seem an appropriate word indeed.



I agree, they are vile. That's why I'm offended and disgusted by many incidents of homophobia and the other others listed above. But because I don't think a RL player calling another RL player a faggot in the heat of the moment is worthy of such IMO OTT reactions does this make me a bad person? If it does then so is the bisexual man I mentioned above surely.



You started your post off by assuming everyone was straight? "Privileged position".....I don't consider myself being straight as a privilege, nor someone being gay as not being "privileged" so I find that comment ridiculous.



I admit Hardaker using that word was a problem, I think most have. It's the varying levels that seem to be the issue. For some it's a massive problem, others a minor problem. And that's not because we are "homophobic" or just don't care. That you point out, a gay man can be abused in the street for holding his partners hand (some countries jailed). Some people are against gay marriage and allowing gay couple to adopt. Gay people may be overlooked for jobs/promotions due to their sexuality. Gay people may be physical attacked because of their sexuality. All the above I hate and find to be the real ones to worry about, the ones that stop them living their lives with the freedom everyone is entitled to.....a RL player calling another a fag I view in the grand schemes of things to be not that big a deal.

of course you don't. You have never known anything but that privilege. You have never been a Gay man subjected to homophobic abuse, you have never been a gay child working things out whilst their peers use Gay to describe anything and everything a bit rubbish, you have never sat there whilst other casually used those words as if they were no big deal to dismiss you and probably the people you love. Yet you feel able to dismiss concerns as no big deal, reactions as OTT, to question whether children asked how they felt actually felt that way or if they were just trying to make a splash.

That is your privilege.

But it's not, is it?

When Zak chose to use the F word, what he decided was that he could substitute 'gay' for 'bad'. That, in a nutshell, is the essence of homophobia that needs to be countered.

Words matter - they are the means through which interact with other people, that we understand our society and at the end of the day, ourselves. The turning of being other than heterosexual into something people should be upset about is incredibly damaging, both to the non-straight people who have to live in that society, and to the kids who haven't yet realised their own sexuality.

That's why the use of any homophobic term (and yes, it's homophobic even if Zak himself isn't a homophobe) needs to be stamped out. I understand that 'it was in the heat of the moment' and that, all things considered Zak didn't mean it and regrets the choice of words.

I also don't think that's an excuse. It should [unever[/u be acceptable to abuse people on grounds of their sexuality, even if it's become a habit and even in stressful situations.

Consider, for instance, that someone called Bailey the N word during a match. Even if he apologised, said he knew it was wrong and convinced us he wasn't a racist, we wouldn't think it was ok, or that he shouldn't be punished for it.

We also (and I think this goes for other teams fans too) would completely forgive Bailey for beating the living daylights out of him.

So it doesn't matter what the situation was, the fact he used those words is enough. And though Zak using that word is less bad than many problems LGBTQ people face globally, [uthat is also not an excuse for the RFL, and the entire Rugby League family, not to act.[/u

I'm a Leeds Rhinos fan. I think Zak Hardaker isn't a homophobe, he's someone who made a mistake and now regrets it. I think him being banned would be bad for Leeds' chances of doing well this season, meaning I'm likely to spend money watching us get beat.

But I think the RFL should throw the book at him.

i agree with everything you put before. But i would question again whether 'punishment' is the best option. I would much rather see some positive engagement and education.

'Punishment' sometimes draws battle lines which are best avoided.

This, exactly.

Privilege isn't having loads of cool stuff, it's not having lots of ty stuff.

You never had to worry whether introducing a partner to your parents would get you kicked out of the family home.

You never had to worry whether bringing said partner to the work christmas party would stop you getting promoted.

You never had to grow up in a world where your making love to someone was seen as grotesque.



These are all things that LGBTQ people have had to go through, and still do on a daily basis. The fact that you haven't had them is your privelige. Your sexuality is invisible to you, because everyone assumes it & treats it as normal.
[u
Your privelige isn't having a really cool world. Your privelige is being able not to care. [/u

Maybe. I think the best outcome here would be the maximum (8 game) ban, Zak releases another statement accepting the punishment as right & proper, spends those 8 weeks training, helping with RFL anti-homophobia initiatives and doing coaching for Manachester Canalsiders / Pink Rhinos etc.

Also just a continuous drumbeat from the RFL of zero-tolerance to homophobia, in any situation, being good.

No I just don't define myself by my sexuality or race. So if you're a white heterosexual male, you're privileged?

What if that guy was born with a disability, or has a mental illness or attracts a life threatening disease.

Still privileged then is he just because he's straight?

I don't judge someone as privileged/not privileged just based on one aspect of their life, I look at a whole person. I don't look at Kallum Watkins and see a black RL player......I just see a RL player. I didnt look at Gareth Thomas and see a gay RL player.....I just saw a RL player.

This is exactly the point. *Please* watch the video on the original comment, it explains it better than I can.

You don't define yourself by your ethnicity because the majority of society is white. For people for whom that is not the case, ethnicity becomes important.

As for your question, someone is not either privileged or un-privileged. They can have some privilege (e.g. white privilege) and not others (i.e. be disabled).

[uWhether you are privileged on one axis of identity is irrelevant to whether you are privileged on others. [/u

I think disability's potential a great way of getting your head around the idea. So many people who have severe spinal injuries that restrict them to wheelchairs say 'I never knew how difficult going about everyday life was for people in wheelchairs until I found myself in one' - being able-bodied had given them an ability that little things like getting to the first floor of a building, or into a car, simply weren't important. Only once that was taken away did they realise how easy they'd had it.

Those things aren't special things people with able-privilege get to do. They're just things that they don't have to think about, that for others can be incredibly important.

It has nothing to do with how you define yourself. It has to do with your experiences.

Nobody said that person was privileged or that person isnt. There is A privilege. It is A privilege that you arent subjected to the things homosexuals are. It is A privilege to not be disabled or suffer from mental illness. It is A privilege to be a relatively rich white man living in a western democracy in a country with a high standard of living. It is A privilege not to suffer the things Worlds Apart lists.

You are speaking from a position of having those privileges, dismissing the concerns and offence of those who dont.

Really? You don't know anything about me apart I'm a rugby fan and you're going to tell me what privileges I have. Do you even know the colour of my skin?

Whilst you just see it as me dismissing the concerns and offence of those who are gay, once again I shared the same opinion as a bisexual man on the Hardaker incident.

For all the talk about dismissing opinions and labelling people and giving people abuse, then a fair bit of "homophobic", "ignorant" and "privileged" has been banded about by people who don't even really know the poster they're replying too.

To argue about gays being treated equal but then turn around and say my opinion on the subject isn't as valid/ is ignorant because I'm not gay. Hmmmm.

Did i mention the colour of your skin? Literally the only privilege I attributed to you was the one you already stated. That you arent a homosexual and havent been subjected to homophobic bullying.

Cod'ead isnt the norths Gay spokesman or the arbiter of Gay offence.
Yes, your opinion on being a victim of homophobic bullying isnt as valid because you arent gay and a victim of homophobic bullying. My opinions of being in labor arent as valid as my mums because I'm not a woman and have no experience of it, and my views on the difficulties of having a severe disability are pretty worthless because i am fortunate enough, to have the privilege of being a healthy able bodied man.

Evidently Leeds are lining themselves up on Hardaker's side. The club took the, correctly, strong internal view on him after the World Cup antics; this is the worse of the two incidents but I suspect they are now helping him out as best they can given he's not signed a further extension to his contract yet, not that it's imminently expiring.

As far as I'm concerned a 5-8 match ban would be appropriate from the RFL. Leeds should follow up whatever threats were made to him last year. At the very least, the fine he got then should be doubled; if he was on a final warning about future behaviour his contract should be terminated. Leeds RLFC should have little tolerance for the sort of chavvy and braindead antics that Hardaker too often involves himself in. If we lose a very good player, so be it.

"It is A privilege to be a relatively rich WHITE man living in a western democracy"

"You are speaking from a position of having those privileges"

See, right there, clear as day.



No never said he is, but neither is Worlds Apart but hasn't stop you agreeing with him and thinking his view is correct.




Maybe it's isn't as valid.....wrong choice of words there. But it's clear that myself and others have had the "ignorant" word thrown at us, and quite lazily IMO just because the view is different.

Well said.



Not so well said.

When you are having to shunt two different sentences together to get what you want it to say. It didnt say it.

So because Cod'ead isnt the Gay Spokesman for the north or the arbiter of Gay offence, I'm not allowed to agree with Worlds Apart? Seems weird.

No, its not because your view is different, but because it is devoid of any experience.

"Nobody said that person was privileged or that person isnt. There is A privilege. It is A privilege that you arent subjected to the things homosexuals are. It is A privilege to not be disabled or suffer from mental illness. It is A privilege to be a relatively rich white man living in a western democracy in a country with a high standard of living. It is A privilege not to suffer the things Worlds Apart lists.

You are speaking from a position of having those privileges, dismissing the concerns and offence of those who dont."

Ok there you go, that I cut out "it's a privilege not to suffer the things Worlds Apart list" doesn't stop from what you said.

You can try and scramble your way out of it but it's clear as day and you'll only make a fool of yourself trying to do so. Maybe take a leaf out of Hardaker's book and just admit it.



You can, but apparently when I agree with Cod'ead you try to dismiss it. Hypocrisy.



What the hell do you know about my experiences? Basing it on the my view of the Hardaker incident? Whose ignorant again?

i was clearly speaking in abstract terms, hence one of those was listed as a privilege you had, the rest as simply abstract privileges. Frankly im not really bothered whether you think i was saying you had those privileges listed. Its of no importance. You can keep trying to use it to score points but you will be doing it on your own.

No, i have never dismissed you agreeing with Cod'ead, you can agree with whoever you want. What i dismiss is your repeated attempts to add legitimacy to your argument because you think Cod'ead agrees with your. Having one bisexual man sort of agree with you doesnt add anything to your argument. I dont agree with Worlds Apart to add legitimacy to what i say. I dont think im any more right because he agrees. You have repeatedly tried to add in the fact 'well a bisexual man agrees with me' as if it somehow adds something. it doesnt. Thats what is being dismissed

Also, just a note, it seems crazy that you are hiding behind what you believe to be Cod'eads agreement with you because he is bisexual, yet have chosen to argue against the opposite viewpoint put forward by a gay man who has told you why they are offended by it. What sense does that make?

Its ok, you told us. Numerous times. You are a straight man. You telling us you are a straight man led me to believe you werent a gay man.