Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: A new low in political correctness

  1. #1
    Inactive Member LAKE's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 17th, 2001
    Posts
    653
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Unhappy

    My take on this garbage is that's never OK to talk about ?heteronormative? relationships because a few might feel uncomfortable, but it's always OK to talk about homosexual relationships where many would be offended. These are some crazy times!!

    Pinkett Smith?s Remarks Debated
    BGLTSA calls comments ?heteronormative,? pledges to work with Foundation

    By ANNA M. FRIEDMAN
    Contributing Writer

    After some students were offended by Jada Pinkett Smith?s comments at Saturday?s Cultural Rhythms show, the Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, and Supporters Alliance (BGLTSA) and the Harvard Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations have begun working together to increase sensitivity toward issues of sexuality at Harvard.
    Students said that some of Pinkett Smith?s remarks concerning appropriate gender roles were specific to heterosexual relationships.

    In a press release circulated yesterday by the BGLTSA?and developed in coordination with the Foundation?the BGLTSA called for an apology from the Foundation and encouraged future discussion of the issue.

    According to the Foundation?s Student Advisory Committee (SAC) Co-Chair Yannis M. Paulus ?05, the two groups have already planned concrete ways to address the concerns that Pinkett Smith?s speech rose.

    The BGLTSA release acknowledged that the Foundation was not responsible for Pinkett Smith?s comments. But the Foundation has pledged to ?take responsibility to inform future speakers that they will be speaking to an audience diverse in race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, gender and class,? according to the release.

    Pinkett Smith was honored as the Foundation?s ?Artist of the Year? at its 20th annual Cultural Rhythms show, which she also hosted.

    BGLTSA Co-Chair Jordan B. Woods ?06 said that, while many BGLTSA members thought Pinkett Smith?s speech was ?motivational,? some were insulted because they thought she narrowly defined the roles of men and women in relationships.

    ?Some of the content was extremely heteronormative, and made BGLTSA members feel uncomfortable,? he said.

    Calling the comments heteronormative, according to Woods, means they implied that standard sexual relationships are only between males and females.

    ?Our position is that the comments weren?t homophobic, but the content was specific to male-female relationships,? Woods said.

    Margaret C. D. Barusch ?06, the other BGLTSA co-chair, said the comments might have seemed insensitive in effect, if not in intent.

    ?I think the comments had a very strong focus for an extended period of time on how to effectively be in a relationship?a heterosexual relationship,? Barusch said. ?I don?t think she meant to be offensive but I just don?t think she was that thoughtful.?

    In order to discuss these concerns and ensure that such a misunderstanding doesn?t occur again, Paulus said the BGLTSA and the Foundation are planning a joint breakfast later this week as well as a general discussion forum for all of the SAC member groups.

    Paulus added that the Foundation will issue a letter later this week apologizing for any offense the show might have caused and encouraging concerned students to attend the planned discussions.

    According to Paulus, the letter will acknowledge that ?Pinkett Smith was just giving the story of her life. She just told things from her perspective, and her perspective was a heterosexual perspective. She wasn?t trying to be offensive. But some felt she was taking a narrow view, and some people felt left out.?

    Barusch said the dialogue with the Foundation has been ?productive.?

    ?Both groups have really talked about issues of intercultural relationships and sexuality and the way that student groups can talk about these topics in sensitive ways,? she said.

    Barusch also referred to a ?minor controversy? that occurred earlier this year, in which some members of SAC questioned the BGLTSA?s role in the Foundation.

    ?They weren?t sure how the BGLTSA would fit into the Foundation...There was some conversation about the relevance of queer issues,? she said.

    But Barusch emphasized that the Foundation has been very supportive of the BGLTSA?s efforts to address this weekend?s comments, stressing that the two incidents are unrelated.

    ?We?re not blaming the Foundation. It?s not about blame. It?s about how we all need to think more about what we?re saying,? she said.

    Ofole U. ?Fofie? Mgbako ?08, a performer in the Cultural Rhythms show who watched Pinkett Smith?s speech, said he thought the speech was ?insightful.?

    ?You can never appeal to every single group,? he said. ?You?ll always in some way be exclusive. I thought her message was clear. I thought it was sincere.?
    <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Source.

    <font color="#FFFFAA" size="1">[ March 03, 2005 07:26 PM: Message edited by: LAKE ]</font>

  2. #2
    Inactive Member Dulcinea's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13th, 2001
    Posts
    1,016
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Post

    Originally posted by LAKE:


    </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Pinkett Smith?s Remarks Debated
    ....Calling the comments heteronormative, according to Woods, means they implied that standard sexual relationships are only between males and females.....

    <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Source.

    <font color="#FFFFAA"><font size="1">[ March 03, 2005 07:26 PM: Message edited by: LAKE ]</font></font>
    </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In the absence of the original comments, it is hard to discuss this.

    However, it is hard to debate against "the "standard" sexual relationships are between male and female."

    And there are non-standard relationships. They are valid also.

    We may prefer that all people were like us in their preferences and opinions, but this is not the case. Those with other viewpoints and orientations are just....different from us.

    It is harder on them, and I am sure it is not "chosen" lightly. They are more aware than anyone the cost that is paid for being non-norm.

  3. #3
    Inactive Member cincygreg's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 17th, 2001
    Posts
    7,366
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1 Post(s)

    Post

    As a heterosexual, I take offense to the fact that the homosexual community has to nitpick every single thing we heterosexuals say looking for something they can twist around so they can use it to be angry.

    This is beyond stupid.

    A heterosexual woman talking about her own life is going to speak as a heterosexual. That's not insensitive, that's her persepective on her own life.

    Yes, you would have to read or hear the context of the comments to get the full affect of what they are talking about, but I can almost guarantee that it amounts to absolutely nothing. It's just another group of people looking for something to get pissed off about.
    Always nitpicking everything until they can find something that they can twist around into being something that they decide is insesitive or offensive.

    I really reaaly doubt that Jada Pinkett Smith would intentionally say something that was actually insesitive like they are suggesting she did.

    <font color="#FFFFAA" size="1">[ March 03, 2005 10:43 PM: Message edited by: cincygreg ]</font>

  4. #4
    Senior Hostboard Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13th, 2001
    Posts
    4,009
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Post

    My take on this garbage is that's never OK to talk about ?heteronormative? relationships because a few might feel uncomfortable, but it's always OK to talk about homosexual relationships where many would be offended. These are some crazy times!!
    <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I respectfully disagree with the assertion that it's "never" OK to talk about "heteronormative" relationships and "always" ok to talk about homosexual relationships. The absolute nature of "never" and "always" gets the thread off to a bad start.

    Add to the mix that we don't know what was said, nor do we know what the hell a "Cultural Rhythms" show is. It should also be considered that we are talking about Harvard here, a place that is academically and intellectually unique, and abides by a standard - right or wrong - with which most of us are unfamiliar.

    Generally speaking, heteronormative relationships are standard fare in our television shows, talk radio, etc.

    <font color="#FFFFAA" size="1">[ March 04, 2005 01:28 PM: Message edited by: Sarcazmo ]</font>

  5. #5
    Sheriff jumper69's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13th, 2001
    Posts
    1,950
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1 Post(s)

    Post

    Like sarcazmo said, without knowing what was said exactly it's hard to critique. That being said however, it seems to me that the students are Harvard are just slightly over sensitive.

  6. #6
    Inactive Member travelinman's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 19th, 2001
    Posts
    2,440
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Post

    I don?t care who a person sleeps with as long and they are both over 18. All I ask is that they keep it to themselves. My wife and I could enjoy having sex with pumpkins and cucumbers, but that does not give us the right to force none vegasexuals to recognize it.

    There is way to much shit going on about such a small segment of the population.

    Composite U.S. Demographics
    Introduction
    This table lists some major demographic groupings in the United States. Race, gender, ethnicity, religion, and other factors are factors in personal and group identity. This table is unusual in that it presents a merged list of these factors. This more accurately reflects actual American society, in which most people belong to more than one group. All individuals can be classified into multiple groupings below. This list is not comprehensive. Please write to suggest additional groups.
    Group Number Percent ofU.S. population
    Total 1 284,800,000 100.0%
    English-at-home speakers 6 245,497,600 86.2%
    Christian 2 217,872,000 76.5%
    White 1 211,460,626 75.1 %
    Protestant 18 150,944,000 53 %
    Female 1 145,532,800 51.1%
    Male 1 139,267,200 48.9%
    "born-again" or "evangelical" 9 125,312,000 44 %
    Republican 8 90,950,000 33 %
    Democrat 8 85,440,000 31 %
    Catholic 2 69,776,000 24.5 %
    Non-English speakers 6 38,087,127 13.8%
    Nonreligious 2 37,593,600 13.2%
    Hispanic/Latino 1 35,305,818 12.5%
    Black 1 34,658,190 12.3%
    Baptist 18 34,176,000 12 %
    Evangelical (theologically) 16 22,049,360 8.0%
    Methodist 2 19,366,400 6.8%
    Spanish speakers 6 20,744,986 7.5%
    Southern Baptist 3 15,800,000 5.6%
    Lutheran 2 13,100,800 4.6%
    vegetarian 19 12,000,000 4.2%
    Asian 1 10,242,998 3.6%
    United Methodist Church 20 8,251,042 2.9%
    Presbyterian 2 7,689,600 2.7%
    Multiracial 1 6,826,228 2.4%
    Pentecostal 2 5,980,800 2.1%
    Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) 15 5,503,192 1.93%
    Evangelical Lutheran Church in America 3, 20 5,038,066 1.8%
    Episcopalian 2 4,841,600 1.7%
    GLBT (gay, lesbian or bisexual)5 4,300,000 1.51%
    Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) 3, 20 3,595,259 1.3%
    Judaism 2, 21 3,702,400 1.3%
    Eastern Orthodox 9 2,756,170 1 %
    Assemblies of God 11 2,575,000 0.93%
    Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod 3, 20 2,512,714 0.9%
    Native American 1 2,475,956 0.9%
    Buddhist 13 2,400,000 0.87%
    Episcopal Church 20 2,333,628 0.82%
    French speakers 6 2,308,795 0.8%
    gay men5 2,000,000 0.70%
    Non-denominational 11 2,000,000 0.7%
    prison population 2,000,000 0.7%
    German speakers 6 1,851,418 0.7%
    Megachurch attendance 14 1,800,000 0.64%
    Jehovah's Witnesses 2 1,708,800 0.6%
    Chinese speakers 6 1,578,099 0.6%
    Italian speakers 6 1,565,165 0.6%
    Mennonite Church USA 11 1,525,000 0.55%
    Churches of Christ (non-instrumental / Corsicana, TX) 20 1,500,000 0.53%
    American Baptist Church in the U.S.A. 20 1,484,291 0.52%
    African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church 20 1,430,795 0.50%
    Muslim 2 1,424,000 0.5%
    agnostic 2 1,424,000 0.5%
    bisexual5 1,400,000 0.49%
    United Church of Christ 20 1,330,985 0.47%
    Baptist Bible Fellowship International 20 1,200,000 0.42%
    atheists 2, 10 1,139,200 0.4%
    Tagolog speakers 6 1,008,542 0.4%
    Independent Christian Church, Churches of Christ (instrumental / Joplin, MO) 20 1,071,616 0.39%
    Hindu 13 1,000,000 0.36%
    Church of God (Cleveland, TN) 20 944,857 0.33%
    Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) 11 910,000 0.33%
    lesbians5 900,000 0.32%
    Polish speakers 6 865,298 0.3%
    Unitarian Universalist 2 854,400 0.3%
    Seventh-day Adventists 11 809,000 0.29%
    Neo-pagan (incl. Wiccans) 12 768,400 0.28%
    Korean speakers 6 749,278 0.3%
    Church of the Nazarene 11 608,000 0.11%
    Vietnamese speakers 6 606,463 0.2%
    Portuguese speakers 6 515,017 0.2%
    Japanese speakers 6 511,485 0.2%
    Pacific Islander 1 398,835 0.1%
    Reformed Church in America (RCA) 11 304,000 0.11%
    Libertarian party members 7 200,000 0.07%
    Baha'i 11 142,000 0.05%
    Native American Religionist 2 103,000 0.04%

    Sources
    1. U.S. Census Bureau. Year 2000 Census. URL: http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-1.pdf

  7. #7
    Senior Hostboard Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13th, 2001
    Posts
    4,009
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Post

    I can pretty much guarantee that there are more than 4.3mm GLBT people in the United States.

    It's a pretty difficult thing to measure, particularly with the stigma still attached to it. I find the bisexual number particularly dubious.

  8. #8
    Senior Hostboard Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13th, 2001
    Posts
    4,009
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Post

    Originally posted by Jumper69:
    Like sarcazmo said, without knowing what was said exactly it's hard to critique. That being said however, it seems to me that the students are Harvard are just slightly over sensitive.
    <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Years ago I went to the Stonewall dinner, and part of the proceedings was a fashion show. A man and a woman walked down the runway together, sporting their clothes. Afterward, some expressed anger that a man and woman were featured, and not same sex couples.

    To outsiders, I suppose this seems overly sensitive, but considering the venue, a guy and a guy or a gal and a gal would've been more appropriate.

    For some people, this type of thing is really a hot button. I'm thinking that it depends on one's level of being "fed up."

    <font color="#FFFFAA" size="1">[ March 04, 2005 01:25 PM: Message edited by: Sarcazmo ]</font>

  9. #9
    Sheriff jumper69's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13th, 2001
    Posts
    1,950
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1 Post(s)

    Post

    I've never heard of the Stonewall Dinner but I have heard of Harvard.

    Perhaps at the Stonewall Dinner your assertation that a guy/guy or gal/gal fashion show would have been more appropriate is true.

    At Harvard I think they have a chip on their shoulder and are hiding behind the university to voice it.

  10. #10
    HB Forum Owner gae's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 16th, 2001
    Posts
    2,552
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Post

    Years ago I went to the Stonewall dinner, and part of the proceedings was a fashion show. A man and a woman walked down the runway together, sporting their clothes. Afterward, some expressed anger that a man and woman were featured, and not same sex couples.
    <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This makes sense to me. If it had been two women, the men might have been pissed off. Two men and the women are pissed off.

    A man and a woman, though? It's a stroke of genius, because then everyone gets pissed off.

    Still chuckling at the thought of our very own Sarcazmo attending a fashion show.

    For some people, this type of thing is really a hot button. I'm thinking that it depends on one's level of being "fed up."
    <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I've said this before, and I'm sure I'll say it again, but I DON'T understand this. What's to be fed up about?

    I often wonder if the most vocal activists ever look in the mirror and realize that the person staring back is a complete and total asshole. Not because he/she is black, gay, green or orange. But just because he/she JUST IS.

    Or if people of other colors or persuasions ever think that the asshat treating him/her poorly is just that -- an asshat, and not a bigot or homophobe.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •