clovenhooves The Personal Is Political General Discussion Gay Mens Misogyny and Homophobia

Discussion Gay Mens Misogyny and Homophobia

Discussion Gay Mens Misogyny and Homophobia

 
Pages (3): 1 2 3 Next
29
Feb 26 2025, 10:00 AM
#1
As I'm sure many of us have experienced, gay men are unfortunately not immune to being misogynistic towards women, though often times, liberal society and mainstream feminism doesn't care to acknowledge this and they are often given a green flag to do and say whatever they want to/about women with little to no repercussions. If anything, when I've called it out, I've typically been immediately pinned at the bad person in the situation without a second thought about the misogyny the man I was calling out was spewing at me.

The only time I've really seen this issue discussed much is in radfem leaning spaces and Ovarit. When it comes to Ovarit in particular, (though maybe some of you have witnessed it in other spaces too) sometimes it felt quite uncomfortable with the direction a lot of their criticizing went. Sometimes it felt like the discussions and comments start leaning away from discussing the actual misogyny at hand and instead starts going in the direction of just general homophobia towards gay men, which especially as a bisexual woman, I cannot condone. I'm so incredibly tired of homophobia and biphobia.

However I find myself having a hard time figuring out where the line is. Sometimes I'm not sure if I think something comes off homophobic because I'm sensitive to that kind of talk not being a straight woman, but its actually a fair criticism and judgement about a gay man or gay men in general, and im just stifling feminist discourse when it comes to more controversial, uncomfortable topics that mainstream 'feminism' doesn't want to touch on. On the other hand, im not really interested in accepting or furthering homophobic language to make a point or hurting any LGB people, regardless of their sex. 

An example of this is the surragacy issue. I'm against surrogacy regardless of who is the recipient of the child because I don't support anything that exploits women and children or treats women and children like consumer goods. But so often, when the surrogacy topic comes up and its a gay male couple adopting, a number of women in a few of these spaces will inevitably wind up suggesting that gay men just want to adopt boys to molest them. And that really rubs me the wrong way and feels very homophobic and bothers the hell out of me. I think one can be against surrogacy on principle and not make gay men out to be some kind of pedos or perverts. They simply don't have any sort of a right to use a woman's body to create a child. No one does. 

This is just one example, I seen this come up quite often and I'd like to see what you all think here since the women here have way more measured responses and no one sounds like a right wing nut job here to me, unlike certain other sites. Where is the line? Is it blurry or are right wing women blurring a line that was originally perfectly clear? What are your thoughts on this?
Edited Feb 26 2025, 10:02 AM by skunk. Edit Reason: Adding prefix
skunk
Feb 26 2025, 10:00 AM #1

As I'm sure many of us have experienced, gay men are unfortunately not immune to being misogynistic towards women, though often times, liberal society and mainstream feminism doesn't care to acknowledge this and they are often given a green flag to do and say whatever they want to/about women with little to no repercussions. If anything, when I've called it out, I've typically been immediately pinned at the bad person in the situation without a second thought about the misogyny the man I was calling out was spewing at me.

The only time I've really seen this issue discussed much is in radfem leaning spaces and Ovarit. When it comes to Ovarit in particular, (though maybe some of you have witnessed it in other spaces too) sometimes it felt quite uncomfortable with the direction a lot of their criticizing went. Sometimes it felt like the discussions and comments start leaning away from discussing the actual misogyny at hand and instead starts going in the direction of just general homophobia towards gay men, which especially as a bisexual woman, I cannot condone. I'm so incredibly tired of homophobia and biphobia.

However I find myself having a hard time figuring out where the line is. Sometimes I'm not sure if I think something comes off homophobic because I'm sensitive to that kind of talk not being a straight woman, but its actually a fair criticism and judgement about a gay man or gay men in general, and im just stifling feminist discourse when it comes to more controversial, uncomfortable topics that mainstream 'feminism' doesn't want to touch on. On the other hand, im not really interested in accepting or furthering homophobic language to make a point or hurting any LGB people, regardless of their sex. 

An example of this is the surragacy issue. I'm against surrogacy regardless of who is the recipient of the child because I don't support anything that exploits women and children or treats women and children like consumer goods. But so often, when the surrogacy topic comes up and its a gay male couple adopting, a number of women in a few of these spaces will inevitably wind up suggesting that gay men just want to adopt boys to molest them. And that really rubs me the wrong way and feels very homophobic and bothers the hell out of me. I think one can be against surrogacy on principle and not make gay men out to be some kind of pedos or perverts. They simply don't have any sort of a right to use a woman's body to create a child. No one does. 

This is just one example, I seen this come up quite often and I'd like to see what you all think here since the women here have way more measured responses and no one sounds like a right wing nut job here to me, unlike certain other sites. Where is the line? Is it blurry or are right wing women blurring a line that was originally perfectly clear? What are your thoughts on this?

Possum
angry lesbian 🌈
86
Feb 26 2025, 10:39 AM
#2
The women of Ovarit are falling into the same trap as leftwing women where the men on "their side" are good and the men on the "other side" are bad. Leftwing women will only criticize trad men for being rapists and give gay/trans males a pass. Rightwing women will only criticize gay/trans males while pretending not to notice the rampant rape and abuse trad men engage in.

For me I think that's where the line is. Yes, please criticize gay male misogyny. But are you also criticizing straight male misogyny? Or are you positioning the gay male as the "real misogynist" to deflect criticism from your MAGA Nigel? Are we criticizing ALL MEN (including gay men) or are we exclusively criticizing gay men in a way that deflects criticism from trad men? Take surrogacy for example. The overwhelming majority of surrogacy (and abusive/coercive adoption practices, which frankly is no better than surrogacy) is done by straight couples or singles because gay men are such a tiny minority of the population. If we banned all gay male surrogacy tomorrow, the surrogacy industry would still be thriving. So I think women who exclusively focus on the gay male surrogacy aspect are just being homophobic. If you're genuinely critical of surrogacy outside of homophobic pearl-clutching, you need to talk about the straight couples and single people too.

I also think there's a line between criticism and dehumanization, but that's murkier for me and harder to articulate. I've seen comments on Ovarit in the past about how the AIDs crisis was 'deserved' because gay men are 'promiscuous'. For me that's crossing into dehumanization and sadistic hatred. An entire group of people don't deserve to die just because you disagree with them. It makes me uncomfortable as a lesbian because I think that mindset is motivated by sadism and hatred of the 'other', and once you convince society that one 'other' group deserves to die it's very easy to expand that to all 'other' groups (including lesbians, WOC, immigrant women, etc.). There are certain lines in political discourse that shouldn't be crossed imo, and calling for the death of an entire group is one of them. Sincerely calling for the death of an entire group I should say, I don't care about "kill all men" memes because they're just memes but there's a difference between "kill all men" memes and like the very real and sincere desire of the rightwing during the AIDs crisis for the "sinners" to be eradicated.
Edited Feb 26 2025, 10:39 AM by Possum.
Possum
angry lesbian 🌈
Feb 26 2025, 10:39 AM #2

The women of Ovarit are falling into the same trap as leftwing women where the men on "their side" are good and the men on the "other side" are bad. Leftwing women will only criticize trad men for being rapists and give gay/trans males a pass. Rightwing women will only criticize gay/trans males while pretending not to notice the rampant rape and abuse trad men engage in.

For me I think that's where the line is. Yes, please criticize gay male misogyny. But are you also criticizing straight male misogyny? Or are you positioning the gay male as the "real misogynist" to deflect criticism from your MAGA Nigel? Are we criticizing ALL MEN (including gay men) or are we exclusively criticizing gay men in a way that deflects criticism from trad men? Take surrogacy for example. The overwhelming majority of surrogacy (and abusive/coercive adoption practices, which frankly is no better than surrogacy) is done by straight couples or singles because gay men are such a tiny minority of the population. If we banned all gay male surrogacy tomorrow, the surrogacy industry would still be thriving. So I think women who exclusively focus on the gay male surrogacy aspect are just being homophobic. If you're genuinely critical of surrogacy outside of homophobic pearl-clutching, you need to talk about the straight couples and single people too.

I also think there's a line between criticism and dehumanization, but that's murkier for me and harder to articulate. I've seen comments on Ovarit in the past about how the AIDs crisis was 'deserved' because gay men are 'promiscuous'. For me that's crossing into dehumanization and sadistic hatred. An entire group of people don't deserve to die just because you disagree with them. It makes me uncomfortable as a lesbian because I think that mindset is motivated by sadism and hatred of the 'other', and once you convince society that one 'other' group deserves to die it's very easy to expand that to all 'other' groups (including lesbians, WOC, immigrant women, etc.). There are certain lines in political discourse that shouldn't be crossed imo, and calling for the death of an entire group is one of them. Sincerely calling for the death of an entire group I should say, I don't care about "kill all men" memes because they're just memes but there's a difference between "kill all men" memes and like the very real and sincere desire of the rightwing during the AIDs crisis for the "sinners" to be eradicated.

Feb 26 2025, 11:13 AM
#3
Possum, you make a good point. Some of it is homophobia but some of it is political othering. It's not a surprise that Sam Altman was being dragged for using surrogacy for a baby, when he happens to be beefing with Elon Musk, who MAGA loves and whose irresponsible reproducing and parenting they don't seem upset by. I'm sure the right-wing sources those women read were full of anti-Altman-surrogacy talking points.

Also not a surprise that nobody brought up Peter Thiel's school-age children, who I'm pretty sure he and his husband didn't gestate or give birth to. It's only a problem if you're a non-trump-musk-supporting gay man, looks like.

I'd rather none of them had kids, and not because they're gay. Mostly because I don't trust any of those tech billionaire men to raise a kid properly. Why is Grimes having to post on xwitter to get her deadbeat baby daddy's attention for a medical issue with one of their kids?
Elsacat
Feb 26 2025, 11:13 AM #3

Possum, you make a good point. Some of it is homophobia but some of it is political othering. It's not a surprise that Sam Altman was being dragged for using surrogacy for a baby, when he happens to be beefing with Elon Musk, who MAGA loves and whose irresponsible reproducing and parenting they don't seem upset by. I'm sure the right-wing sources those women read were full of anti-Altman-surrogacy talking points.

Also not a surprise that nobody brought up Peter Thiel's school-age children, who I'm pretty sure he and his husband didn't gestate or give birth to. It's only a problem if you're a non-trump-musk-supporting gay man, looks like.

I'd rather none of them had kids, and not because they're gay. Mostly because I don't trust any of those tech billionaire men to raise a kid properly. Why is Grimes having to post on xwitter to get her deadbeat baby daddy's attention for a medical issue with one of their kids?

Feb 26 2025, 11:33 AM
#4
I agree with you 100% on what you mentioned about homophobia and ovarit. The way they talk about gay men is disgusting. The only reason they don’t do it (much) with lesbians is because they know there’s still a significant number of lesbian users on the site.

When it comes to the topic at hand, I think some gay men are of course misogynistic because they are men but in my experience, gay men understand lesbians way more than the general population does. I have gay male friends and I have not heard them say anything denigrating toward women ever. Some of them I’d even qualify as feminist allies. It’s just my experience though.

Like everything else, nothing is black and white. Some men can be alright even if as a whole, they are unaware and uncaring toward women’s lives and they ARE the oppressor class - whether they want/know it or not.

And when it comes to the gender critical movement, I think we need gay men on our side. Painting every gay man as a pedophile misogynistic pervert doesn’t do much for anyone.
lesbiansherlock
Feb 26 2025, 11:33 AM #4

I agree with you 100% on what you mentioned about homophobia and ovarit. The way they talk about gay men is disgusting. The only reason they don’t do it (much) with lesbians is because they know there’s still a significant number of lesbian users on the site.

When it comes to the topic at hand, I think some gay men are of course misogynistic because they are men but in my experience, gay men understand lesbians way more than the general population does. I have gay male friends and I have not heard them say anything denigrating toward women ever. Some of them I’d even qualify as feminist allies. It’s just my experience though.

Like everything else, nothing is black and white. Some men can be alright even if as a whole, they are unaware and uncaring toward women’s lives and they ARE the oppressor class - whether they want/know it or not.

And when it comes to the gender critical movement, I think we need gay men on our side. Painting every gay man as a pedophile misogynistic pervert doesn’t do much for anyone.

Clover
Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐
719
Feb 26 2025, 12:35 PM
#5
@skunk To me the line is "clear" — criticism of gay men should be based on said gay men's misogynistic views. The biggest misogynistic view of gay men as a group in the modern day is their commodification of women: how they view women as incubators to produce children for them. And before that took off, drag culture seems to have a lot of gay men in it and there is a lot of misogyny in drag. Drag culture has created misogynistic terms like "fishes" and "serving cunt." These are valid things to criticize. Gay men can be misogynistic just like any other group of men. As somebody who came from a liberal/leftist place, it took longer for me to realize that gay men are criticizable for their misogyny, which they do have. Just because they are oppressed because of their sexuality in a heteronormative society does not mean they do not oppress women in a patriarchal society. They are not immune to criticism for their sexism just because they are gay.

Where the line is crossed is when it becomes either dehumanization or just standard homophobia, as @Possum wrote about. And I think one of the most controversial claims that seems to get a constant run-in in radfem spaces, that I find to be homophobic, is that gay men cannot raise children/should be barred from having children. This, I think is the fracture point which then splits between criticism of gay men for their misogyny and just regular homophobia. The issue is that some women will say some valid sounding points about sexual abuse rates of children by gay men, they'll share news articles about gay men trafficking babies for pedophilia, etc. It's hard to argue against such things, because they are obviously horrible things, and I feel like pointing out that maybe there is bias in those studies or that maybe those articles are from clickbait right-wing media sources is not taken well. Because it's a highly emotional topic; it's scary to think about children being abused by people who adopt them, which does happen and it's depressing. So there is this rift, and I think the rift is caused by blackpill feminists who believe men are innately terrible and conservatives who are homophobic, intersecting at a point where their arguments align in that blackpill feminists say men should not be around children and homophobic conservatives say gay men should not be around children, ending up with a mishmash of reasons why gay men shouldn't raise children, that to me, just sounds like a mix of biological essentialism from the black pill feminists and homophobia from the conservatives. Radfems are caught in the middle of this, as radical feminism attracts both blackpill feminists and right-wingers. And of course the conservatives win if they fracture the left, so I think radfem spaces generally avoid this discussion topic and try to delicately walk around it like an elephant in the room. I felt the need to bring this up because it's probably worth noting that there were some women who applied to this forum that had views that gay men should not be allowed to parent children at all. And I was somewhat lenient towards these applications since that was generally the only thing that stood out, and I decided to give them the benefit of the doubt, that their issue with that was because gay men are men (leaning towards blackpill, which I have some more sympathy towards) not because they are gay (leaning towards right-wingery, which I have little tolerance for). Regardless, I still personally find this viewpoint to be homophobic, as it essentially generalizes an entire group of people as pedophiles because of their sex and sexuality.

lesbiansherlock I have gay male friends and I have not heard them say anything denigrating toward women ever. Some of them I’d even qualify as feminist allies. It’s just my experience though.
Like everything else, nothing is black and white. Some men can be alright even if as a whole, they are unaware and uncaring toward women’s lives and they ARE the oppressor class - whether they want/know it or not.
Shout out to Mr. Menno, a gay man who has publicly spoke out against transgenderism and defended women's sex-based rights. He seems like a good ally.

lesbiansherlock And when it comes to the gender critical movement, I think we need gay men on our side. Painting every gay man as a pedophile misogynistic pervert doesn’t do much for anyone.
Definitely agree with this. That last sentence is pretty much a good way to summarize that big rambling paragraph I wrote above.

Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐
Clover
Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐
Feb 26 2025, 12:35 PM #5

@skunk To me the line is "clear" — criticism of gay men should be based on said gay men's misogynistic views. The biggest misogynistic view of gay men as a group in the modern day is their commodification of women: how they view women as incubators to produce children for them. And before that took off, drag culture seems to have a lot of gay men in it and there is a lot of misogyny in drag. Drag culture has created misogynistic terms like "fishes" and "serving cunt." These are valid things to criticize. Gay men can be misogynistic just like any other group of men. As somebody who came from a liberal/leftist place, it took longer for me to realize that gay men are criticizable for their misogyny, which they do have. Just because they are oppressed because of their sexuality in a heteronormative society does not mean they do not oppress women in a patriarchal society. They are not immune to criticism for their sexism just because they are gay.

Where the line is crossed is when it becomes either dehumanization or just standard homophobia, as @Possum wrote about. And I think one of the most controversial claims that seems to get a constant run-in in radfem spaces, that I find to be homophobic, is that gay men cannot raise children/should be barred from having children. This, I think is the fracture point which then splits between criticism of gay men for their misogyny and just regular homophobia. The issue is that some women will say some valid sounding points about sexual abuse rates of children by gay men, they'll share news articles about gay men trafficking babies for pedophilia, etc. It's hard to argue against such things, because they are obviously horrible things, and I feel like pointing out that maybe there is bias in those studies or that maybe those articles are from clickbait right-wing media sources is not taken well. Because it's a highly emotional topic; it's scary to think about children being abused by people who adopt them, which does happen and it's depressing. So there is this rift, and I think the rift is caused by blackpill feminists who believe men are innately terrible and conservatives who are homophobic, intersecting at a point where their arguments align in that blackpill feminists say men should not be around children and homophobic conservatives say gay men should not be around children, ending up with a mishmash of reasons why gay men shouldn't raise children, that to me, just sounds like a mix of biological essentialism from the black pill feminists and homophobia from the conservatives. Radfems are caught in the middle of this, as radical feminism attracts both blackpill feminists and right-wingers. And of course the conservatives win if they fracture the left, so I think radfem spaces generally avoid this discussion topic and try to delicately walk around it like an elephant in the room. I felt the need to bring this up because it's probably worth noting that there were some women who applied to this forum that had views that gay men should not be allowed to parent children at all. And I was somewhat lenient towards these applications since that was generally the only thing that stood out, and I decided to give them the benefit of the doubt, that their issue with that was because gay men are men (leaning towards blackpill, which I have some more sympathy towards) not because they are gay (leaning towards right-wingery, which I have little tolerance for). Regardless, I still personally find this viewpoint to be homophobic, as it essentially generalizes an entire group of people as pedophiles because of their sex and sexuality.

lesbiansherlock I have gay male friends and I have not heard them say anything denigrating toward women ever. Some of them I’d even qualify as feminist allies. It’s just my experience though.
Like everything else, nothing is black and white. Some men can be alright even if as a whole, they are unaware and uncaring toward women’s lives and they ARE the oppressor class - whether they want/know it or not.
Shout out to Mr. Menno, a gay man who has publicly spoke out against transgenderism and defended women's sex-based rights. He seems like a good ally.

lesbiansherlock And when it comes to the gender critical movement, I think we need gay men on our side. Painting every gay man as a pedophile misogynistic pervert doesn’t do much for anyone.
Definitely agree with this. That last sentence is pretty much a good way to summarize that big rambling paragraph I wrote above.


Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐

Possum
angry lesbian 🌈
86
Feb 26 2025, 2:47 PM
#6
(Feb 26 2025, 12:35 PM)Clover So there is this rift, and I think the rift is caused by blackpill feminists who believe men are innately terrible and conservatives who are homophobic, intersecting at a point where their arguments align in that blackpill feminists say men should not be around children and homophobic conservatives say gay men should not be around children, ending up with a mishmash of reasons why gay men shouldn't raise children, that to me, just sounds like a mix of biological essentialism from the black pill feminists and homophobia from the conservatives.
This is a really good observation and I'm kicking myself for not seeing it sooner, lol. I think this happens with all rightwing "feminist" talking points. Blackpills say "all men are violent". Rightwingers say "all immigrants are violent". So they compromise with "all immigrant men are violent".

And the immigrant women/children who get caught in the middle are acceptable collateral damage for the 'greater good', because asking MAGA women to maybe not support sending immigrant women/children to Gitmo is demanding that they be 'activism nannies' 🙄. I think there's another intersection of blackpill/rightwing there. Blackpill says women should be as angry and aggressive as possible and refuse to 'coddle' other groups because there is No War but the Sex Wars, rightwing compromises with blackpill by directing that anger toward whichever minority is being scapegoated this week.
Possum
angry lesbian 🌈
Feb 26 2025, 2:47 PM #6

(Feb 26 2025, 12:35 PM)Clover So there is this rift, and I think the rift is caused by blackpill feminists who believe men are innately terrible and conservatives who are homophobic, intersecting at a point where their arguments align in that blackpill feminists say men should not be around children and homophobic conservatives say gay men should not be around children, ending up with a mishmash of reasons why gay men shouldn't raise children, that to me, just sounds like a mix of biological essentialism from the black pill feminists and homophobia from the conservatives.
This is a really good observation and I'm kicking myself for not seeing it sooner, lol. I think this happens with all rightwing "feminist" talking points. Blackpills say "all men are violent". Rightwingers say "all immigrants are violent". So they compromise with "all immigrant men are violent".

And the immigrant women/children who get caught in the middle are acceptable collateral damage for the 'greater good', because asking MAGA women to maybe not support sending immigrant women/children to Gitmo is demanding that they be 'activism nannies' 🙄. I think there's another intersection of blackpill/rightwing there. Blackpill says women should be as angry and aggressive as possible and refuse to 'coddle' other groups because there is No War but the Sex Wars, rightwing compromises with blackpill by directing that anger toward whichever minority is being scapegoated this week.

Mar 26 2025, 6:15 PM
#7
(Feb 26 2025, 10:39 AM)Possum The women of Ovarit are falling into the same trap as leftwing women where the men on "their side" are good and the men on the "other side" are bad. Leftwing women will only criticize trad men for being rapists and give gay/trans males a pass. Rightwing women will only criticize gay/trans males while pretending not to notice the rampant rape and abuse trad men engage in.

For me I think that's where the line is. Yes, please criticize gay male misogyny. But are you also criticizing straight male misogyny? Or are you positioning the gay male as the "real misogynist" to deflect criticism from your MAGA Nigel? Are we criticizing ALL MEN (including gay men) or are we exclusively criticizing gay men in a way that deflects criticism from trad men? Take surrogacy for example. The overwhelming majority of surrogacy (and abusive/coercive adoption practices, which frankly is no better than surrogacy) is done by straight couples or singles because gay men are such a tiny minority of the population. If we banned all gay male surrogacy tomorrow, the surrogacy industry would still be thriving. So I think women who exclusively focus on the gay male surrogacy aspect are just being homophobic. If you're genuinely critical of surrogacy outside of homophobic pearl-clutching, you need to talk about the straight couples and single people too.

I also think there's a line between criticism and dehumanization, but that's murkier for me and harder to articulate. I've seen comments on Ovarit in the past about how the AIDs crisis was 'deserved' because gay men are 'promiscuous'. For me that's crossing into dehumanization and sadistic hatred. An entire group of people don't deserve to die just because you disagree with them. It makes me uncomfortable as a lesbian because I think that mindset is motivated by sadism and hatred of the 'other', and once you convince society that one 'other' group deserves to die it's very easy to expand that to all 'other' groups (including lesbians, WOC, immigrant women, etc.). There are certain lines in political discourse that shouldn't be crossed imo, and calling for the death of an entire group is one of them. Sincerely calling for the death of an entire group I should say, I don't care about "kill all men" memes because they're just memes but there's a difference between "kill all men" memes and like the very real and sincere desire of the rightwing during the AIDs crisis for the "sinners" to be eradicated.

Some people laser focus on gay men who use surrogates because they are often how people who support surrogacy sell it on. They say if surrogacy is banned-- what about gay men? People say that being against surrogacy is homophobic towards gay men. 

And I have seen more hate towards celeb women who have used surrogacy from radical feminist than gay men in general on Ovarit and radical feminist spaces. 

As far as attacking gay men about HIV/AIDs-- that is horrific. And I have never personally seen anything like that on Ovarit. But I must ask-- why be defensive over homophobia towards gay men(I mean homophobia is wrong of course)?? I mean lesbians don't hold back in attacking/diminishing heterosexual men. Could it be said that some lesbians are "no my gay male nigel-ing=---- as much as you accuse heterosexual women of "nigel-ing" their boyfriends/husbands?
Edited Mar 26 2025, 6:21 PM by Fortherecord.
Fortherecord
Mar 26 2025, 6:15 PM #7

(Feb 26 2025, 10:39 AM)Possum The women of Ovarit are falling into the same trap as leftwing women where the men on "their side" are good and the men on the "other side" are bad. Leftwing women will only criticize trad men for being rapists and give gay/trans males a pass. Rightwing women will only criticize gay/trans males while pretending not to notice the rampant rape and abuse trad men engage in.

For me I think that's where the line is. Yes, please criticize gay male misogyny. But are you also criticizing straight male misogyny? Or are you positioning the gay male as the "real misogynist" to deflect criticism from your MAGA Nigel? Are we criticizing ALL MEN (including gay men) or are we exclusively criticizing gay men in a way that deflects criticism from trad men? Take surrogacy for example. The overwhelming majority of surrogacy (and abusive/coercive adoption practices, which frankly is no better than surrogacy) is done by straight couples or singles because gay men are such a tiny minority of the population. If we banned all gay male surrogacy tomorrow, the surrogacy industry would still be thriving. So I think women who exclusively focus on the gay male surrogacy aspect are just being homophobic. If you're genuinely critical of surrogacy outside of homophobic pearl-clutching, you need to talk about the straight couples and single people too.

I also think there's a line between criticism and dehumanization, but that's murkier for me and harder to articulate. I've seen comments on Ovarit in the past about how the AIDs crisis was 'deserved' because gay men are 'promiscuous'. For me that's crossing into dehumanization and sadistic hatred. An entire group of people don't deserve to die just because you disagree with them. It makes me uncomfortable as a lesbian because I think that mindset is motivated by sadism and hatred of the 'other', and once you convince society that one 'other' group deserves to die it's very easy to expand that to all 'other' groups (including lesbians, WOC, immigrant women, etc.). There are certain lines in political discourse that shouldn't be crossed imo, and calling for the death of an entire group is one of them. Sincerely calling for the death of an entire group I should say, I don't care about "kill all men" memes because they're just memes but there's a difference between "kill all men" memes and like the very real and sincere desire of the rightwing during the AIDs crisis for the "sinners" to be eradicated.

Some people laser focus on gay men who use surrogates because they are often how people who support surrogacy sell it on. They say if surrogacy is banned-- what about gay men? People say that being against surrogacy is homophobic towards gay men. 

And I have seen more hate towards celeb women who have used surrogacy from radical feminist than gay men in general on Ovarit and radical feminist spaces. 

As far as attacking gay men about HIV/AIDs-- that is horrific. And I have never personally seen anything like that on Ovarit. But I must ask-- why be defensive over homophobia towards gay men(I mean homophobia is wrong of course)?? I mean lesbians don't hold back in attacking/diminishing heterosexual men. Could it be said that some lesbians are "no my gay male nigel-ing=---- as much as you accuse heterosexual women of "nigel-ing" their boyfriends/husbands?

komorebi
“I am not free while any woman is unfree, even when her shackles are very different from my own.” – Audre Lorde
316
Mar 27 2025, 11:58 AM
#8
(Mar 26 2025, 6:15 PM)Fortherecord But I must ask-- why be defensive over homophobia towards gay men(I mean homophobia is wrong of course)?? I mean lesbians don't hold back in attacking/diminishing heterosexual men. Could it be said that some lesbians are "no my gay male nigel-ing=---- as much as you accuse heterosexual women of "nigel-ing" their boyfriends/husbands?

I think I don't understand your point here. You say yourself that homophobia is wrong, so what do you mean "why be defensive over homophobia towards gay men"? Because...it's wrong?
komorebi
“I am not free while any woman is unfree, even when her shackles are very different from my own.” – Audre Lorde
Mar 27 2025, 11:58 AM #8

(Mar 26 2025, 6:15 PM)Fortherecord But I must ask-- why be defensive over homophobia towards gay men(I mean homophobia is wrong of course)?? I mean lesbians don't hold back in attacking/diminishing heterosexual men. Could it be said that some lesbians are "no my gay male nigel-ing=---- as much as you accuse heterosexual women of "nigel-ing" their boyfriends/husbands?

I think I don't understand your point here. You say yourself that homophobia is wrong, so what do you mean "why be defensive over homophobia towards gay men"? Because...it's wrong?

Mar 27 2025, 6:35 PM
#9
Quote:I think I don't understand your point here. You say yourself that homophobia is wrong, so what do you mean "why be defensive over homophobia towards gay men"? Because...it's wrong?
As a NotMyNigel expert, I can provide some clarification: their point was why lesbians seem irrationally defensive over gay men in the same way straight women are of men in their lives - centering men and naively believing they are not misogynistic all the while said men extend very little regard and concern towards women in return and usually profit off of exploiting women in their lives.
Edited Mar 28 2025, 8:21 AM by YesYourNigel.
YesYourNigel
Mar 27 2025, 6:35 PM #9

Quote:I think I don't understand your point here. You say yourself that homophobia is wrong, so what do you mean "why be defensive over homophobia towards gay men"? Because...it's wrong?
As a NotMyNigel expert, I can provide some clarification: their point was why lesbians seem irrationally defensive over gay men in the same way straight women are of men in their lives - centering men and naively believing they are not misogynistic all the while said men extend very little regard and concern towards women in return and usually profit off of exploiting women in their lives.

komorebi
“I am not free while any woman is unfree, even when her shackles are very different from my own.” – Audre Lorde
316
Mar 27 2025, 7:50 PM
#10
Well, my take on it is that it's not irrational for lesbians to be angry about homophobia directed at gay men, because homophobia also affects them (lesbians).
komorebi
“I am not free while any woman is unfree, even when her shackles are very different from my own.” – Audre Lorde
Mar 27 2025, 7:50 PM #10

Well, my take on it is that it's not irrational for lesbians to be angry about homophobia directed at gay men, because homophobia also affects them (lesbians).

Pages (3): 1 2 3 Next
Recently Browsing
 1 Guest(s)
Recently Browsing
 1 Guest(s)