The other day I was involved in an animated conversation with half a dozen people and the subject briefly turned to the film, Brokeback Mountain. Someone at the group’s fringe, a person who had not seen the film, smirked and and uttered words to the effect that given their sexual orientation, the two gay male sheep herders in the film were undoubtedly comfortable around sheep.

Not quite believing I’d heard correctly — but knowing I had — I was discombobulated. I remained silent. After an awkward moment the conversation took a different turn and his homophobic slur passed into the ether of ordinary, everyday bigoty.

For the remainder of the day I was haunted by my failure to verbally engage that individual, plagued by the knowledge that I hadn’t measured up to my own minimum expectations of being a decent person. Had I been complicit in some perverse heterosexual bonding?

For multiple reasons, I should be extra sensitive and assertive in these circumstances. I have a daughter who’s a GLBT activist; I teach courses in this subject matter on a regular basis; and I like to think of myself as being fearless in expressing unpopular positions. But in that moment of truth, I let myself down. I remained silent. Why?

Was I terrified about a moment of tension with a stranger? Afraid of alienating others in the room or making them uncomfortable? Worried about being accused of hyper political correctness? Turning something light-hearted into something serious and “political?” Or did I worry that in the future, some people might think, “Oh, oh. Here’s comes Gary. We’d mind our p’s and q’s.”

Given the benefit of hindsight, I might have initiated a conversation. Perhaps, “I’m sorry, but I heard what you said and I’m gay. Did you mean to imply that I like to sleep with sheep?”  Of course, I don’t know how he would have responded  but let’s assume he apologized. Then I might have followed up with, “Actually, I’m not gay. But it’s instructive that when you thought I was gay you felt an apology was appropriate. Do you only say things like that when you think everyone is straight?  You must think all heterosexuals are homophobic because you obviously felt we’d all agree with your homophobic slur.  Otherwise why would you take the risk of saying it?” (This approach is gratefully adapted from Tim Wise’s invaluable new book on white privilege, White Like Me, 2005, paper).

What positive outcomes might have occurred? First, had I engaged this person in conversation, it might have given others courage to speak up in future settings. Second, having spoken up, it might be slightly easier for me to do so again. Finally, this individual might have done some critical reflection about his underlying prejudice. But I remained silent.

Yes, it was a minor incident in the larger scheme of structual injustices but my sin of omission was an act of collaboration with ugly bigotry. And it wasn’t the first time I’ve let homophobic, racist and sexist comments, gestures, and jokes slide by without challenge.

The aggregate total of these small failures of nerve is the construction of a wall of social bigotry. As journalist Doug Ireland recently reported in Znet, in settings like Iran it’s now a literal killing wall where a dozen gay men were recently executed.    

At a minimum each unchallenged homophobic slur contributes to a climate of anti-gay harrassment, bias, and abuse. This further marginalizes lesbians and gay people, leaving them invisible and more subject to discrimination and subtle coercive pressure to conform.

What to do? There are many anti-discrimination laws on the books. Some are even enforced. Beyond that, I strongly oppose speech codes as patronizing and > probably unconstitutional. They also tend to drive heterosexism underground rather than confronting it.

As Yale law professor Kenji Yoshino urges, lasting solutions reside beyond courtrooms and laws. They germinate in conversations that happen “…in public squares and prayer circles, in workplaces and on playgrounds. They should occur informally and intimately, in the everyday places where tolerance is made and unmade.”

I hope I find the courage to speak up next time. I need to do it for myself. Sadly, I know I’ll have many more opportunities.

Gary Olson is chair of the Political Science Department at Moravian
College in Bethlehem,PA. Contact: olson@moravian.edu


ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.

Donate
Donate

Gary Olson is Professor Emeritus at Moravian College, Bethlehem, PA.

Leave A Reply

Subscribe

All the latest from Z, directly to your inbox.

Institute for Social and Cultural Communications, Inc. is a 501(c)3 non-profit.

Our EIN# is #22-2959506. Your donation is tax-deductible to the extent allowable by law.

We do not accept funding from advertising or corporate sponsors.  We rely on donors like you to do our work.

ZNetwork: Left News, Analysis, Vision & Strategy

Subscribe

All the latest from Z, directly to your inbox.

This is your article this month.

We’re glad you keep coming back. If Z’s work has informed, challenged, or inspired you, that’s no accident: there are no paywalls, no ads, and no billionaire owners here, and there never will be. Independent media survives because readers choose to support it.

Billionaires fund their own media. We fund ours. Help us reach 1,000 sustaining donors:

Number of donors685
Our goal1,000

Sustainers at $9/month or more receive the digital Z Magazine.

Already a sustainer? Click here and we won’t ask again. Thank you!

Your reading count is stored only in your browser and is never sent to us.

Sound is muted by default.  Tap 🔊 for the full experience

CRITICAL ACTION

Critical Action is a longtime friend of Z and a music and storytelling project grounded in liberation, solidarity, and resistance to authoritarian power. Through music, narrative, and multimedia, the project engages the same political realities and movement traditions that guide and motivate Z’s work.

If this project resonates with you, you can learn more about it and find ways to support the work using the link below.

Independent media is not disappearing because the ideas are weak.

It is disappearing because platforms reward speed, outrage, and algorithmic visibility over thoughtful analysis.

More than 100,000 people read Z every month, free of paywalls, ads, and billionaire owners. It takes fewer than 1 in 100 of them to fund all of it: 1,000 donors who keep Z independent, for everyone, and build what comes next.

Number of donors685
Our goal1,000

Sustainers at $9/month or more receive the digital Z Magazine.

Subscribe

Join the Z Community – receive event invites, announcements, a Weekly Digest, and opportunities to engage.

Exit mobile version