Queer

— 07.18.2016 07:42 AM

I am still uncomfortable with that word.

I know that many gays and lesbians use it all the time – essentially to take back the word, and strip of its formerly-negative connotation – but I’m not there yet. It still strikes me as a profound insult, a put-down designed to place a person outside the mainstream. So too the “N” word (which has been embraced by rappers, with relish, for three decades, and which I still cannot even say aloud).

“Retard” and “gimp” and “gyp,” meanwhile, have gone in the opposite direction on the popular lexicon, moving from popular use to being seen (appropriately) as cruel and/or discriminatory.

Language moves around, all the time. What was once off-limits can become less so, and vice-versa. But, on queer, I’m a hold out. It still hits like an affront.

So, between shovelling pea gravel and lifting paving stones with Son two yesterday afternoon, I run across this essay in the New York Times Magazine. Here’s a snippet worth considering

The word “queer” has always contained the shimmer of multitudes; even etymologists can’t settle on one origin story. One popular theory is that it descends from quer, an old German word meaning oblique — neither parallel nor at a right angle, but in between. From birth, queer has resisted straightness. By the 1800s, this inscrutability had taken on a negative cast in English usage, and queer marked something as dubious or unseemly: “Queering the pitch” meant to spoil something — a business transaction, say; being on “queer street” meant financial ruin. Eventually, the word came to apply to people with ambiguous peculiarities. A “queer fellow,” in 19th-century English, is decidedly odd, as is someone who is “queer in the head.”

The word became linked to sexual behavior in the early 1900s, as a derogatory term for men deemed effeminate and others who upended traditional gender roles and appearances. As homosexuality was classified as a mental illness and made punishable by law, the word snowballed into a full-blown slur, heard everywhere from the playground (“smear the queer”) to intellectual duels (William F. Buckley Jr. to Gore Vidal: “Now listen, you queer”).

Maybe we are relying on a single word, a single idea, a single identity, to do too much.This halo of negativity began to dim somewhat in the 1970s, when the word was reclaimed by activists and academics. Not only did its deliberate looseness make it a welcome alternative to the rigidity of “gay” and “lesbian,” it also turned the alienating force of the slur into a point of pride. (Though it is still considered offensive by some.) A manifesto distributed at New York City’s Pride parade in 1990 by Queer Nation, a prominent and controversial gay-rights group, put it this way: “When a lot of lesbians and gay men wake up in the morning, we feel angry and disgusted, not gay. So we’ve chosen to call ourselves queer. Using ‘queer’ is a way of reminding us how we are perceived by the rest of the world.” It was a radical word for a radical time. Protesters and advocacy groups — particularly communities of color — took it up to gather support for the fight against the AIDS crisis and for gay rights. “We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it” became a popular chant.

Anyway, I remain unconvinced – I feel queer about it, you might say. What do you think, O Wise Readers?


Comments (8)

Louisiana, where the inmates run the asylum

— 07.18.2016 07:16 AM

If you are heading to Louisiana, here are some things you need to know:

  • You need to be 18 to consume alcohol
  • You need to be 18 to get a marriage licence
  • You need a parent’s consent to get a tattoo
  • You can’t really get an abortion at any age
  • You can get an assault rifle, and carry it around openly, at 17

Abby-aged-8-from-Louisian-002

At age 8, Louisiana resident Abby is a bit too young to carry her gun around outside.
But when she hits 17, watch out, [insert despised minority here] people!


Comments (22)

In dangerous times: What do you say? What do you do?

— 07.15.2016 09:01 AM

Hours after last night’s horror in Nice, France, I don’t know what to say or do. 

I’m just a guy with a web site and a newspaper column. I don’t have any power and I don’t have much in the way of influence, either. What can I do to stop the sort of relentless, genocidal cult that murders innocents almost every week – in Paris, Brussels, San Bernardino, Baghdad, Dahka, Orlando, Kabul, Jakarta and on and on and on?

Last night didn’t make me feel afraid – it made me feel powerless. I want to do something to help stop it. But what?

In a democracy, there are two things we can do, perhaps. Ensure we elect leaders who are informed about this horrible new kind of war – and have a plan to deal with it. Secondly, we – as citizens – need to refuse to do the very things the terrorists seek most of all: prejudice, isolationism, autocracy, fear. We must do the opposite. 

A few hours before Nice, I wrote the following for next week’s Hill Times and Troy Media. Maybe it’s relevant, this morning after. 

Prior to becoming Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau was the most pacifistic leader his party had seen in a generation. He mocked our military effort against the Islamic State, likening it to “trying to whip out our CF-18s and show how big they are.” He promised to withdraw from the international coalition fighting the IS. He refused to acknowledge that the IS was engaged in genocide on a massive scale.

This, despite the fact that the United Nations had provided convincing proof that IS was, indeed, engaged in genocide. This, despite the fact that that IS had revealed itself to be a well-funded, well-organized malevolent cult – a murderous force arguably unlike any since Hitler’s regime. This, despite the fact that IS itself had proudly documented beheadings, crucifixions, mass rapes, enslavements, torture, and the murder of Canadian citizens. 

This, too, despite the historical fact that it was the Liberal Party of Canada that had deployed Canadian Forces in the fight against the aforementioned Hitler regime in World War II – and, later, sent our troops overseas to prevent genocide in Bosnia, and to contain terror in Afghanistan. This, despite the fact Trudeau’s anti-combat rhetoric had alienated many, many senior Liberals – like Irwin Cotler, and Bob Rae, Lloyd Axworthy, Romeo Dallaire (and much-lesser Grits, like this writer, who decided against running under the Liberal banner as a result).

That’s the most critical part. I end the column, however, doing something else entirely – by paying tribute to Trudeau. I point out that the man he was before the election is not the same man he is after it. 

He has become increasingly tough and resolute, and he clearly now recognizes the homicidal threat we collectively face. He has been transformed, I think, by the terrible events of the past few months. 

There isn’t much I feel I can do on my own, this morning. But I am proud, at least, to say that Justin Trudeau is my Prime Minister in these dangerous times. 


Comments (46)