Chris Moyles is, like, soooo gay
I have quite a few friends who are gay or bi. In fact, for a goodly chunk of my late teens / early twenties my closest friend was gay (the bassist in the band I mentioned in a previous post as it happens). So despite being straight myself, I’ve been on a number of Gay Pride marches and I’ve always been pretty sensitive to homophobia, whether in the media or the world around me.
At the same time, however, I believe there’s sometimes an over-sensitivity to perceived prejudice, whether it’s racism, sexism, ageism or homophobia. This is completely understandable, and I am not levelling criticism here. Groups within society who are on the receiving end of genuine prejudice will inevitably develop heightened sensitivities towards the language used to speak about them. It is a natural defence mechanism, and to expect any different is unrealistic.
So when BBC dj Chris Moyles used the word “gay” on air to mean “rubbish”, there was a predictable backlash. Now, far be it for me to defend Chris Moyles. The little I know about the man suggests that he’s an arsehole. His on-air persona is infused with the “humour” of FHM and Heat magazine. New-laddism (also known as “wankerism”). This isn’t surprising; he’s obviously aiming at the same (depressingly large) demographic. And while fans of the free market will praise him to the roof for supplying the content to meet a demand. Me? I just see it as another nail in the coffin of western culture. Plus, a couple of years back he crossed a picket-line at the BBC. And that’s guaranteed to get my hackles up.
You just don’t cross picket lines. Ever*.
But leaving aside the separate issue of Moyles’ arseholeishness; was his use of the word “gay” homophobic? And here I have to agree with the BBC’s board of governors who dismissed the allegation. I don’t believe it was.
Language changes. And in the modern world of mass-mediation this process has accelerated so that it now occurs at a dizzying rate. There’s an entire generation alive today for whom the word “gay” meant “happy” for a significant portion of their life. And this isn’t a trivial point, because if you look at where this most recent redefinition of the word (gay = rubbish) comes from, it’s the schoolyards. It’s a generational thing. Shifts in language often are. It was the youth of the 50s who shifted “cool” from being a description of temperature into an expression of approval. In the 60s “heavy” changed meaning rather dramatically as did many other words (“gay” among them).
And as the language of youth evolved, so necessarily does the language of those speaking to the youth (dj’s and what have you).
It is clearly true that the root of this switch (gay = rubbish) derives from anti-homosexual sentiment. But the homophobia of the schoolyard is different to that in the world at large. I’m not saying it’s harmless (it isn’t!) but it is different. When I was in primary school, a common insult was “Your mother is a lezzer!” As a nine year old I used the phrase myself (I was bullied at school, the way quiet over-intelligent kids often are, and would respond – usually while blinking away tears – with whatever taunts were doing the rounds at the time). In truth though, I hadn’t the faintest idea what “a lezzer” was. Could I possibly have been being homophobic despite not knowing what homosexuality was?
Similarly, I am convinced that today’s kids – whilst infinitely more sophisticated than I was at their age – do not see any connotations of homosexuality when they describe another kid’s trainers as “gay”. They probably understand homosexuality to a degree, and are aware what “gay” means in that context, but will see it as an entirely separate usage of the word when using it to describe trainers or a car or whatever.
Lame:
1. Disabled so that movement, especially walking, is difficult or impossible: Lame from the accident, he walked with a cane. A lame wing kept the bird from flying.
2. Marked by pain or rigidness: a lame back.
3. Weak and ineffectual; unsatisfactory: a lame attempt to apologize; lame excuses for not arriving on time.
Right now the dictionary definition of “gay” does not include an analogue to definition 3 (above). But I suspect one day soon it will do. There can be little doubt that when “lame” began to be used to mean “weak” or “rubbish” (as it often is nowadays) it was connected to disability. But how many people today – straight or gay – if using the phrase “that’s just so lame!” are being consciously prejudiced against the disabled?
Good post with some good points in it.
gay = rubbish is something that has existed since I was in Primary school, and it was never homophobic; it’s to the point now where I’ve only stopped using it in that sense as my general language usage has developed; I can think of more descriptive ways of putting something down than calling it gay (In the past I’ve caught myself using gay=rubbish while discussing something with gay friends, I suddenly get a fright thinking I’m insulting them, then I realise that they grew up at the same time as me, heard the same slags as kids and know what I mean).
One point I’d like to raise about Lame; that seems to be an un-PC word to use about disabled people now, and maybe lame=rubbish existed before that change happened, but I don’t think so; still, it’s a fair point to make on the evolution of terminology.
Finally, a point from the devil’s advocate; while gay=rubbish is likely to have come from a homophobic concept (while not subsequently being delivered in such a way), perhaps those using it simply skipped the mid-meaning for the word and referenced it directly from the original (gay=happy/good). The reason I say that is because the upcoming generation seem to be using words like ill/sick (unwell), bum (anus, to scab), dope (idiot), fat (overweight) etc. in the complete opposite context of what I’ve just described; being sick or ill is good, things are well bum… that song is dope and his hairstyle is fat.
I think the mistake is trying to explain or reason with these changes… it seems to be a way of making the language your own, and it always happens.
June 11th, 2006 | 11:55pm
by Adam
I’ve had this issue come up several times with my family. My brother has two children, aged 9 and 14. They use ‘gay’ in the sense of pathetic/sissy/inept. My brother’s picked it up from them.
I think my brother knew he was on a hiding to nothing when he tried to defend it to me. He told me there are no alternative words, so I listed some.
When he said it was just kids messing about, I asked how he thought the gay kids in the class would feel. He told me that they probably wouldn’t know they were gay yet. This came in the same conversation that he’d given me details of his daughter’s first boyfriend. Presumably being straight is the normal thing that kids do first and homosexuality is some later variant.
There are gay kids out there feeling very isolated, scared and confused. When you’re an adolescent, knowing that you have an uncommon characteristic is bad enough. Having it be a term of abuse makes matters far worse. It impedes the path to self-acceptance and keeps them feeling fucked-up deeper and longer.
When I was at school, ‘yid’ and ‘jew’ meant tightwad. A person doing something unsanitary was a ‘dirty Arab’. Despite not being consciously aimed as racist comments, they are using racist stereotypes and so perpetuate racism.
By the reasoning you give above, these are just mutations in meaning coming from the new generation and so are acceptable.
June 12th, 2006 | 1:01am
by Merrick
I’m really not sure Merrick. I’m not saying that it is “right” to use the word “gay” to mean rubbish. I’m merely questioning the claim that those who use it in that way are being automatically homophobic.
Have you ever used the word “lame” in the context of “a lame excuse”? Were you being prejudiced against people in wheelchairs? (Whether or not “lame” is no longer PC in that context – as Adam states above – it is nonetheless what the word means first and foremost… the other definitions followed on from that)
And can you answer my question… when I used “lezzer” (i.e. lesbian) as an insult – as I did when I was 9 years old – was I being homophobic? Bear in mind I hadn’t the faintest idea what homosexuality was at the time (I was pretty sheltered until my early teens).
Clearly the derivation of that usage is homophobic, but my intent simply couldn’t have been.
Similarly I’ve heard right-on, educated English folks say that something was “Irish” (meaning stupid). I pointed out that their usage of the word had racist connotations, but I don’t believe that they were being racist, and certainly don’t believe they meant any offence to me – of any other Irish person.
It is a complex issue, but when I hear a kid on public transport (as I did several weeks ago) describe a TV show as “gay”, I am 100% certain that the kid is not being homophobic. It may be a regrettable usage of the word. And perhaps it should be discouraged. But those who use it are not – 95% of the time – being homophobic in my view.
As for a gay kid who goes through school feeling alienated and under siege, I honestly don’t feel that there’s much can be done about that. Kids are vicious and nasty and will pick on anyone different. That’s how I remember it (as someone on the sharp end of bullying… I wasn’t gay, but I was different enough to be a target) and that’s how I see it today. This isn’t to condone it or justify it, merely to state a fact (and unless you have some very compelling evidence, any claim that “kids won’t be cruel if we only raised them in a particular way” won’t cut it with me). I’d argue that any attempt to impose a change in their language (“Don’t use the word ‘gay’ to mean ‘crap’ because it alienates those kids who are coming terms with their sexuality”) will backfire badly, in the same way that Joey Deacon’s presence on Blue Peter had the opposite effect than the one intended.
Once again, it’s a complex issue, but I feel it’s vital to distinguish between homophobic language with intent, and innocently used slang which has a homophobic derivation. In my blog post I don’t deny (indeed I make it very clear) that the new usage has a homophobic derivation, but I do question whether the people using it are being homophobic.
June 12th, 2006 | 1:42am
by Jim
I don’t think I have ever used the word “homophobic”. I refuse to use words like that. People are people. My neighbours are classical musicians. I hate them for playing their fucking violins all day in the summer with the windows open. If they were gay I’d still hate them.
I’m fed up of hearing people and words described as “homophobic”. So what if they are? Words is words. People use them and mean what they mean by them. I don’t care if someone uses the word “gay” to mean “lame” AND is “homophobic” into the bargain. What am I, his psychotherapist?
June 12th, 2006 | 12:40pm
by Joel
Jim, I don’t think anyone thinks you were being homophobic when you said “lezzer” aged nine. The whole thing’s about Chris Moyles using it when he’s forty, or whatever. I’ve not seen anyone in the Moyles backlash saying they think using “gay” as “rubbish” should be actively curbed among kids (though no doubt such people exist!).
And Joel, I’m assuming you would use the word “homophobic” to describe a violent assault motivated by hatred of gays. Obviously a different issue from insulting language, but the word refers to something in reality, even if the word is in your eyes abused. And… why on earth should people being gay stop you from hating them for other reasons?! I’m not sure we’ve stooped here to the point where hating gay people for any reason is seen as bad, so I’m not sure why you use that example of your neighbours.
I wonder if “lame” came to be acceptable because it’s hard to dispute that being lame (in the physical sense) is a bad deal, to some degree at least. In and of itself. Who wants to be lame? Hence, it seems valid for its meaning to expand, even if there are people who think that the obvious downside to physical disability somehow extends to the value of disabled people, as people.
Of course, the only downside to being gay is that loads of people think it’s not a good thing. Hence, I think, the controversy over its drift in meaning.
Naturally language evolves. At the same time, we have some input into it. Not control – input. I certainly don’t think it should be left to evolve willy-nilly; nor should we labour under the illusion that we’ve got some sort of final say in the matter. Negotiating between these two involves thought, effort, struggle – presumably why people go for one pole or the other.
I think Joel’s being (uncharacteristically!) optimistic about people by saying, “Words is words. People use them and mean what they mean by them.” I don’t think most people do know what they’re saying when they use many words. We should strive for more awareness.
That said, it’s going to be hard to control “gay = ineffectual” because it expresses our culture’s basic prejudice against male homosexuality, i.e. that it’s feminine, shows weakness, passivity, etc. The roots of all this are in our fucked up perception of femininity (and hence masculinity and the whole shebang). Something to be dissolved, of course – but does prohibition of symptoms help, even if it can be done? Not sure.
June 12th, 2006 | 2:23pm
by Gyrus
If I have a phobia of spiders — arachnophobia horror films have educated me to believe this is called — am I going to go and bash them to bits with a bit of wood with a nail in it? No, I am going to back away and get as far away from the spiders as I can, because I have a phobia of them, you see. Do we call youths who enjoy beating up old ladies gerontophobia? Why should gays have a special word?
Besides, if someone wants to explain why they hate gays it is a bit self-defeating to make him stop straight away by saying he is homophobic at the first sign he may have “an issue” (another word I don’t use) about guys who behave in an effeminate manner (as one manifestation). Maybe he might have been able to explain, if not so rudely denounced as homophobic at the drop of a hat, that it’s all about a certain kind of giggling cissy behaviour that he never liked at school and he still doesn’t like now, but he couldn’t give a toss about the rest of it. Why should he be lumped in with a bunch of violent predators?
Are we not allowed to have opinions about how people conduct themselves in public, for instance, without being branded by a word far too big for its boots — oooh watch out, the homophobia police are coming.
“Striving for more awareness” is one thing, but really I think it is better to recognise things in ourselves and question what they amount to. There were two gay blokes trying to look at the same bit of a bookshelf as me in a bookshop the other day. One I thought was fine the other I thought was a poofy cunt. I took a dislike to him because I thought he was a rather rude fellow. Though I wouldn’t have called him a poofy cunt to his face I nonetheless thought it. Does “more awareness” really boil down to policing what I think? In which case, I will think that fellow a poofy cunt all the more, because I don’t like being told what to think. So sent me for re-education.
June 12th, 2006 | 2:59pm
by Joel
The whole thing’s about Chris Moyles using it when he’s forty, or whatever.
But as I said above, Gyrus, Chris Moyles is a Radio 1 DJ. It’s his job to speak directly to kids, and I suspect it’s part of his job description to use language – as far as possible – that they relate to. It’s a lot like Tim Westwood… few things make me cringe more than watching him prance around like a tit while “keeping it real” with his oh-so-up-to-date street slang. But that’s the job of a youth DJ.
As I say, I think Moyles is an arsehole. I just don’t think he was being homophobic when he used the word “gay”. And that’s what he was accused of.
Also, Joel, I believe you may be deliberately missing the point here. You ask “Why should gays have a special word?” as though prejudice against homosexuality was the only prejudice with its own word. I think it’s an odd choice of word, granted, but it’s no different to racism or sexism or ageism. Homoism, gayism… perhaps they’d be better words, but they’re not the one that’s gained currency.
Homophobia is the word applied to general prejudice against gay people (usually gay men, though not exclusively). We can deconstruct the word to death, but that’s missing the point; it refers to a very real problem. My friend Pete and his boyfriend were hospitalised by a group of meatheads. It wasn’t because they played their violins all summer. It was because they decided to have a snog outside a club one night. They were beaten severely for this act in a way that a heterosexual couple (or – I wager – a lesbian couple) would not have been.
June 12th, 2006 | 3:45pm
by Jim
So has a gay person never used the word gay to describe some other gay as being so fucking gay it was lame? So far, there has been a certain assumption of the etymology based on do-gooders thinking for the rest of us.
The kind of people who attack others generally need little provocation. There is some truth, I think, to the idea that people who have been attacked have in some way presented themselves as a victim. If we live in a world where wearing certain clothes is more likely to make us a victim, then we should be aware of that and either not dress like that or accept the risk. It is generally pointless complaining about how mean the bad men are and how they shouldn’t do that. A violent man who is a so-called homophobe is on another day a racist and on another a sexist, and who knows how the wind will blow when he decides to make his move.
June 12th, 2006 | 5:17pm
by Joel
I’m not convinced intention is the main thing, though. My wife grew up saying ‘what a jew’ to mean ‘what a ripoff’; she’s not anti-semitic & had no idea, until I pointed it out, that there was anything potentially offensive about the phrase. But it is a racist usage, even if it’s not being used by a racist or with racist intent.
I think ‘gay’ as a pejorative is similar. Certainly the parallel with ‘jew’ is a lot closer than the parallel with ‘lame’. To say that a person or an animal is lame is, in the most literal sense of the word, to say that they can’t walk unaided; to say that an argument is lame is to say that it can’t support itself. By contrast, there’s nothing intrinsically pejorative about ‘jew’ or ‘gay’; there’s no reason to give those words a negative meaning, except the history of discrimination against those groups.
Like Merrick, I wonder what it would be like to come out as gay after growing up hearing the word ‘gay’ used to mean ‘feeble’/’pathetic’/’useless’/’crap’. I don’t think it would make it any easier.
June 12th, 2006 | 10:06pm
by Phil
I agree with Merrick. The point here isn’t so much about meaning in the sense of intention as meaning in the sense of use. Going around using a term which also picks out some feature of individuals and constructing an association between it and inadequacy and being the suitable target of derision dehumanises those individuals who have that feature. It doesn’t really matter, in terms of assessing the practice, whether people do it innocently or not: it’s a bad practice, because it has those features. And it’s not like ‘lame’, for two fairly obvious reasons: we don’t refer to disabled people as ‘lame’ people, and even if we did, the association between the disvalued features and the people would be much less obviously constructed, in the sense of being non-naturalistic: someone who is disabled can’t do some things which we typically assume that people can, whereas nothing about being gay implied anything about any other properties – there’s no warrant of convenient shorthand for anything other than legitimising homophobia as there is in the lame case. It really doesn’t help that Chris Moyles is a total fucking tool.
June 12th, 2006 | 10:22pm
by Rob
Joel, as I said right after the “more awareness”, no, thought policing isn’t on my agenda. The idea of increasing awareness may have become perversely identified with censorship (of self or others) by some people. Maybe they should take up meditation?
And it has always struck me as odd that homophobia, taken literally, implies fear, not necessarily hatred. There’s a kind of implicit psychological theory in how the word’s come to be used – and probably not a bad one, as far as psychology on this level goes.
As it is, the word is in common usage, and if I want to express the idea that someone has some sort of hateful problem with homosexuality, it’ll come naturally to mind. Stopping every time and searching for some other combination of words that hopefully no one will object to seems to be too much effort for too little gain.
Hang on, how did a post about whether Chris Moyles should use the word gay to mean rubbish become a conversation about whether we should use the word homophobic to mean… er… homophobic? Ain’t blog comments great? đ
June 13th, 2006 | 12:51am
by Gyrus
Perhaps the most amusing aspect of this is what Chris Moyles actually described as gay: a ringtone. The BBC governors apparently decided was the equivalent of saying the ringtone was rubbish. But the thing is, rubbish in what way? Is, say, a naff ringtone different to a gay ringtone?
The word “naff”, incidentally, comes from Polari, a 1950s London gay slang, and originally meant “Not Available For Fucking” (ie heterosexual).
And so the world turns.
June 13th, 2006 | 1:42am
by Joel
Jim, I certainly agree that a six year old is not being homophobic, but they are using a characteristic as a perjorative. It’s exactly the same as the use of jew and yid when I was at school.
You might’ve been too young to know what lezzer meant. Moyles, on the other hand, is somewhat older and it’s safe to presume he has a more complete concept of human sexuality. Unlike your childhood self, he chooses to use a word for homosexual as a perjorative in the full knowledge of homosexuality and discrimination.
Whilst I see your point that it’s not homophobic in the sense that it attacks homsexuality directly, I also see that by knowingly using the term that is based in bigoted stereotypes it can be called homophobic. To bang on more with the comparison, if he used ‘jew’ to mean tightwad, would he be being racist?
He knows he uses a prejudiced vocabulary, he just doesn’t care. (He has been reprimanded for using a sexist term).
You’re right that a gay kid at school will always feel isolated and that such things will never be eliminated. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t act to limit them.
What I’m saying is that the use of gay as a perjorative will only serve to isolate them futher. If we think such isolation is a bad thing, surely we should be seeking to minimise it. Teachers at my school certainly came down on the use of Jew and I think they were right to.
This use of ‘gay’ shouldn’t be accepted any more than that use of ‘Irish’ or ‘Jew’. It prejudices perceptions, and I would’ve thought that’d be all the more among those too young to have had any counterbalancing personal experience of what someone actually gay, Jewish or Irish is like.
Joel, I agree with (what I think is) your point that ‘homophobia’ is a bad linguistic construction. ‘Sexism’ and ‘racism’ are clearer, and also allow for the discrimination to cut in any direction (it appears we have no word for discrimination against heterosexuals).
However, I’m not sure anyone (apart from maybe you) is saying that the only accusations of homophobia are concerned with rudely interrupting people. Personally I’m more than willing to hear people air their prejudices and then explain why I think they’re wrong.
Your man in the bookshop was rather rude. Calling him something that criticises his rudeness would be appropriate. Calling him a name that attacks him for some irrelevant quality that is not of his choosing and does no harm to anyone is bigoted. If you were in traffic and a car pulled out driven by a black woman, woud you call her a fucking nigger?
Criticising people for things that are their fault seems a lot wiser than criticising them for things that aren’t.
‘people who have been attacked have in some way presented themselves as a victim. If we live in a world where wearing certain clothes is more likely to make us a victim, then we should be aware of that and either not dress like that or accept the risk.’
How do gay people choose the equivalent of ‘not dressing like that’?
People who’ve done no harm to anyone should hide what they are because of the violence of bigots, people who you say ‘need little provocation’?
Stephen Lawrence should’ve worn a white mask, then. Women who are clearly female are presumably asking to be raped. Small children who get sexually abused should’ve stayed indoors until they were big enough to defend themselves.
Presenting themselves as victims, the lot of them.
June 13th, 2006 | 1:52am
by Merrick
Merrick — When I wrote that I thought there was some truth in the idea that people who are attacked tend to present themselves as victims, I don’t believe I was saying anything controversial, merely noting that the human world is part of the animal kingdom, and that the lion tends to attack the most defenseless gazelle that should have learnt to run faster and stay with the herd. But play your cheap shots if they make you feel better. Most arguments with people who are “earnest and committed” are fucking pointless, just write me off as a foil for your stunning gifts of rhetoric and we’ll call it a day eh?
As for calling the guy in the bookshop “a name that attacks him for some irrelevant quality that is not of his choosing and does no harm to anyone is bigoted”. Well, I thought I explained that I did not call him this, but rather this was what my spontaneous thought processes placed in my mind. Whether you regard it as a kick-back to childhood and the schoolyard or simply my rather refreshing honestly with myself, is up to you. If my spontaneous mind chooses to expose me to an inherent bigotry that still remains, fine, I still have my intellect to judge it with, and I judged it as a harmless reflection of my annoyance with the prat. Had I voiced it to him, then that would have been a different matter, but I didn’t, as I wrote, but you chose not to take in, seeing instead another exciting quarry to go after. I gather your own spontaneous mind is so refined it never throws up material out-of-kilter with your cherished beliefs. Well good for you, nice to know there’s someone out their who can act as moral conscience for the rest of us imperfect beings.
June 13th, 2006 | 2:34am
by Joel
I try to just ignore the whole gay=rubbish thing. It would bug me if I let it but I generally ignore it. It does make you think about kids picking up terms without having a clue what they’re about though.
A couple of days ago I was fixing my neighbour’s kid’s laptop. Somewhere in the middle of this, neighbour and his kid got bantering, until the kid came out with “get bent,” at which point there was a subtle pause. I’m pretty sure he must realise by now I’m gay, so it was kinda uncomfortable for a second (for him, not me) đ
June 13th, 2006 | 8:11am
by JB
Joel – nobody knows where ‘naff’ comes from; the best explanation I know is that it’s back-slang for ‘fanny’. It’s highly unlikely to be from an acronym; explanations involving street acronyms are almost(?) always urban-legendary.
Merrick –
If you were in traffic and a car pulled out driven by a black woman, woud you call her a fucking nigger?
The biggest / hardest / coolest / most arrogant / most-likely-to-be-the-first-to-do-anything guy in my class at school was Fijian. One year some of us (self not included) started calling him ‘the Nig’ – not, as somebody explained to me, because they were racist, just because it really wound him up. The 1970s, how I miss them.
I know there are gay and bisexual people out there who are quite happy to hear the word ‘gay’ used as a general-purpose slag-off. Doesn’t make it all right. Again harking back to the seventies, I remember my mother telling me about a West Indian woman she worked with who made a point of bringing ‘black’ metaphors into the conversation, to show that she wasn’t offended, oh no; on one occasion she even used the phrase ‘nigger in the woodpile’. However happy people may be to make those adjustments (and I find it hard to believe there isn’t any strain involved) they’re not good adjustments to have to make.
June 13th, 2006 | 9:03am
by Phil
Phil — we can all read the internet for our research. I don’t think you are in a position to say (of naff): “It’s highly unlikely to be from an acronym; explanations involving street acronyms are almost(?) always urban-legendary.”
This is just an opinion, but feel free to back it up if you care to from your own personal knowledge as a slang linguist.
As with any word, there are always variant etymologies. I accept that. And sometimes words have one origin and then take on another in the popular imagination. “Naff” could have come from the Romany or backslang or whatever, and then some bright spark may have said one day “Not Available For Fucking” and it took on that life in people’s minds. Unless we’ve spent our lives researching such things, we only pick up the scraps from other people’s bins when it comes to pronouncing on these matters. A little less certainty is always good. Similarly, for the actual origin of “gay” as a non-sexual-orientation pejorative. I don’t think it is settled beyond question that it is simply a matter of equating gay with rubbish due to homophobia. This is the simpleton’s explanation.
June 13th, 2006 | 12:51pm
by Joel
Hi Joel
“Phil — we can all read the internet for our research.”
Quite.
We can also use books. Does that count for more or less?
“I don’t think you are in a position to say (of naff): “It’s highly unlikely to be from an acronym; explanations involving street acronyms are almost(?) always urban-legendary.”Â
How about using Eric Partridge’s “Dictionary Of Historical Slang”…? Which august tome lists “naf(f)” as being derived from backslang for the female pudend…or fanny. Then again, the Concise OED says “origin unknown”.
“As with any word, there are always variant etymologies. I accept that. And sometimes words have one origin and then take on another in the popular imagination. “Naff” could have come from the Romany or backslang or whatever,”
The accepted historical research /seems/ to support the backslang origin… but everything is deniable, after all…
Anyhow… back to the gay issue. Moyles is using the term in the way that ver kids apparently use it – as a term indicating something less than good. “Gay” is a term which is used to indicate homosexuality. Where is the difficulty in understanding that someone describing a thing (a ringtone if you will ) as “gay” is drifting willy-nilly (look it up – it might not mean what you think – I think it means “whether you want to or not”) into homophobia by the simple equation of “lameness” with gayness (=homosexuality)?
To simplify: Your phone ringtone is rubbish. I say it is “gay”. Gay=queer. So if queer=gay, therefore queer=rubbish. It’s really not that difficult a step, is it?
I’m not trying to be over-rude to someone who I have never met, but I think you are trying to defend the indefensible here.
June 13th, 2006 | 11:37pm
by tango-mango
I love reading this blog and the comments, but spend so little time actually putting my own thoughts down that I won’t pretend to be able to think that i can put them across (or spell them) as well as the rest of you. I broadly agree with Jim, but also see exactly what Merrick is saying.
Here’s a couple of examples from my own recent experience.
A colleague I have know for about 10 years and who, in my opinion, is certainly not prejudiced in any way used the phrase “play the white man” whilst talking to me the other day. He wanted me to make him a coffe whilst i was doing my own. The phrase implies that a black man would not do the decent thing and make him a drink. Was he being racist whilst talking to me? I think not, he was just using a phrase he picked up from his father, who he admits was racist.
My wife (a ward sister at a Liverpool hospital) showed me a memo that had been sent to the cleaning staff from the “Head of Housekeeping” for the hospital. It was thanking them for working well as a team through a period of under-staffing and other difficulties. This manager, in print, used the phrase “you’ve all worked like blacks”. Of course many of the recipients were not white. This woman clearly did do something wrong. Far worse than Chris Moyles.
June 14th, 2006 | 1:07pm
by RA
Phil, not so much defending the indefensible as attempting to point out that there is something very thick-skinned about the kind of right-on-ness that makes the equation of “gay” with “rubbish” and says that “therefore” the introduction of the new meaning for gay is ipso facto “homophobic”. Personally, I think the way language develops is more subtle than that and allows in all sorts of charm and innocence that is painfully missed by the new PC-brigade whose standing-up-for-the-oppressed often seems to me to be nauseatingly condescending.
June 17th, 2006 | 12:34pm
by Joel
That last comment should have been addressed to “tando-mango”, not Phil.
June 17th, 2006 | 12:36pm
by Joel