Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Fagged Identity Politics
Of all the possible reactions to the momentarily famous Oui interview, the last one I would have predicted is that Arnold would be accused, by activists and even newspaper columnists like the Los Angeles Times' Steve Lopez, of committing (in Lopez' words) "slurs against gays."
Huh? Here is where the alleged slurs occur:
OUI: Do you get freaked out by being in such close contact with men in the gym?
ARNOLD: Not at all. When I was playing soccer at the age of 14, the first thing we'd do before going out onto the field would be to climb up on one another's thighs and massage the legs; it was a regular thing. None of us had a thought of being gay, absolutely not, and it's the same with most bodybuilders. Men shouldn't feel like fags just because they want to have nice-looking bodies. Another thing: Recently I posed for a gay magazine, which caused much comment. But it doesn't bother me. Gay people are fighting the same kind of stereotyping that bodybuilders are: People have certain misconceptions about them just as they do about us. Well, I have absolutely no hang-ups about the fag business; though it may bother some bodybuilders, it doesn't bother me at all.
To sum up: He professes easy-going tolerance and comfort, argues that homosexuals are unfairly stereotyped, and risks ridicule by posing for a gay magazine. In 1977. But, since he uses the word "fag," and (maybe!) because he's not a Democrat, this apparently makes him a homophobe. From a San Francisco Chronicle story:
"I think he's got a problem, bordering on a fixation" about gays, said Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco.
Michael Andraychak, president of Los Angeles' Stonewall Democratic Club, which opposes the recall, called on the actor to apologize, saying gays react to "fag" much as African Americans react to "the n-- word."
Well, at least they're not trying -- yet! -- to out him, like Democrats (including a lesbian politican) tried to do with Ralph Nader.
|8.29.03 @ 8:11AM|#
The Chronicle has been worse than usual in its sliming of Arnold. They're the ones who had the story about how he's not a Republican anymore because he said he would be an "independent" voice in Sacramento.
Franklin Harris|8.29.03 @ 8:30AM|#
Just think. If by "fag" he'd meant "cigarette" he'd be in even more trouble.
Franklin Harris|8.29.03 @ 8:36AM|#
Oh, and of course Arnold's critics have to latch onto Arnold's "homophobia." Post-Clinton, they can't very well make an issue of the pot smoking and womanizing, now can they?
Andrew Lynch|8.29.03 @ 9:29AM|#
As a fag, I had no idea Arnie had made these comments, since I
am avoiding scandal-mongering articles. But reading this excerpt
actually SOFTENS my stance toward him. I mean, the man is not a
diplomat, and the content of his message is far more meaningful
than his word choice.
Think about it. During an interview, when he was at the prime of
his bodybuilding career, he equates stereotypes about bodybuilders
with stereotypes about gays. That doesn't sound like the venal
commentary of a thoughtless man.
Still not sure I can bring myself to vote for a Republican (it
would be the first time in my life), but I'll take Arnie anyday
over Bustamove. Uh oh, did I just accidentally heap slurs on
Hispanics? Better write me up.
Steve Smith|8.29.03 @ 11:09AM|#
I don't intend to cut A.S. much slack anywhere else, but in this instance, he deserves a pass, for much the same reason we cut Mark Twain some slack when he used the n-word. The context of the passage, the fact that the article was over a quarter-century ago, both indicate to me that he was making a slur about anyone. Let's just stick to the gang-banging, please.
John|8.30.03 @ 1:07AM|#
Yeah, Arnold may or may not be a homophobe. That's
insignificant.
But Arnold freely admits to being *gasp* a SOCCER PLAYER!!!!!
Everybody knows that soccer is not a sport for real Americans. Only
Commie Homos play soccer.
|8.30.03 @ 2:14AM|#
"Well, I have absolutely no hang-ups about the fag
business."
Sounds like an alarming and resounding endorsement of big tobacco
if I ever had heard one.
Andy|8.30.03 @ 3:14AM|#
Mo, first of all, there was a radio interview he did the day
before not recalling the 30-year-old magazine interview where he
seemed to at least know that he'd said some unpolitic things. Also,
I'd have thought that he'd have gone over things like this before
they came out... he knew people would be digging around his past,
you'd think he'd have prepared for it ahead of time... and I think
he did... he planned to deny even remembering the interview.
So unless he, sometime soon, says something a little bit more
senesible about that old interview, I'll believe that he's just
being another damned dirty deceptive politician.
|8.30.03 @ 7:16AM|#
When did using a word in an entirely non-offensive manor, with a
blindingly obvious positive, affirmitive, accepting attitude become
something akin to being a slave owner 150+ years ago - if that word
is presently consider to be a "bad word"?
It's as if one is not capable of thinking "Well, that word usually
is meant to demean...but he clearly isn't using it that way", but
rather "Well, that word usually is meant to demean, so no matter
how he uses it, by God, he must mean it that way!"
You know there is something wrong when even supposed liberal
scholars are puritanical prudes.
It's not that humans need to be saved from their selves - we have
to be saved from each other. Sheesh.
J. Goard|8.30.03 @ 10:05AM|#
Also, consider the two cited uses, "Men shouldn't feel like fags" and "the fag business". Both are quite reasonably interpreted as adopting other people's perspective. For the confused athletes as well as those marketing a stereotype, "fag" seems to reflect their thought processes perfectly, even or especially today. Perhaps hearing Arnold's intonation would help that shift of perspective come across better. I feel like I, today, would have little problem using the word in a similar way. It's a far cry from a literal use, e.g. "My neighbors are fags."
Jean Bart|8.30.03 @ 10:05AM|#
I wonder if Arnie watches "Queer As Folk?"
I think its time we all go down to the pool!!!! Let's get soaking
wet!!!!
|8.30.03 @ 10:09AM|#
What does Jesus say about this issue?
1. Jesus praises the Centurion as a man of very strong faith
2. The Centurion was trying to save his boy slave
3. Centurion's used boy slaves for sex
Richard Swan|8.30.03 @ 11:16AM|#
They are also trying to paint him as insensitive to women. Seems
when he and his friends took that women upstairs for the gang bang,
according to Gloria Allred that might have been rape. And there are
other instances in the article where he might not have displayed
the "proper sensitivity" toward women as well. He may have just
used them for sex. They were objects to Arnold, not people.
I got this from an article linked to by Drudge. Personally, based
on this article, and his response to its recent re-release would
make me more likely to vote for him than less. Too bad I don't live
in California.
Richard Swan
Andy|8.30.03 @ 11:26AM|#
I'm starting to think that Arnold wants to encourage the idea
that he's similar to Ronald Reagan... did you hear his response to
questions about the interview? He said that he has no recollection
of any magazine interviews he might have done 30 years ago.
Anyway, this is the only sticking point I have about this whole
"issue", since I believe he's lying about not knowing what the
questioners were talking about.
Mo|8.30.03 @ 12:54PM|#
Why is it so unbelieveable that he doesn't remember a 30 year old interview? I can't remember conversations I had 5 years ago. I've had people approach me that I "knew" 10 years ago and not had the foggiest clue who they were. I don't have a bad memory (it's actually quite good), it just that one doesn't remember ever event in their entire lives.
Jean Bart|8.31.03 @ 3:23AM|#
I think other politicians have bigger problems right now. Such
as South Dakota Congressman (and self-described speeder) William
Janklow, who ran a stop sign and plowed over, killed a motorcyclist
in the process, and is now charged with felony manslaughter.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A64736-2003Aug29?language=printer
....
Janklow has gotten more than a dozen speeding tickets in recent
years, state records show, and has been involved in at least eight
accidents in the past 10 years. In the past, he has made light of
his driving habits. His penchant for speed, in a state of vast
distances and empty country roads, has been part of his political
mystique.
But since the death on Aug. 16 of Scott -- a military veteran,
firefighter and father of two -- nobody is laughing anymore about
Janklow's driving. Talk shows and letters-to-the-editor columns
have been filled with angry denunciations of the hard-charging,
blunt-talking politician.
Lanita Melton of Sioux Falls expressed an often-stated viewpoint in
a letter this week to the Sioux Falls Argus Leader. "Janklow should
just confess, step down from politics, serve his time in jail, and
pray to God for forgiveness," Melton wrote. "I know I wouldn't
forgive him. I believe the only reason he shows remorse is because
he got caught and his career is in jeopardy."
....
Janklow is scheduled to appear in court on the charges on Tuesday,
the same day the House of Representatives is to reconvene after its
summer recess. Lawyers have speculated that he might plead guilty
to some charges if he could avoid a prison term. As a former state
attorney general and governor, Janklow would presumably encounter
many enemies in a South Dakota prison.
....
Give the fucker a shiv.
Alex|8.31.03 @ 5:12AM|#
Jean Bart, for who but yourself does that Waldheim stuff have
any traction? From your article:
"the Wiesenthal Center�s Rabbi Marvin Hier told the Jerusalem Post.
�He probably did not have any clue as to the seriousness of the
allegations against Waldheim at that time [i.e., 1986]. To suggest
that Arnold�s an anti-Semite is preposterous. He�s done more to
further the cause of Holocaust awareness than almost any other
Hollywood star.�"
|8.31.03 @ 7:05AM|#
I'm no on recall, yes on (with clothespin) Bustsamant, but as the poster above said, I'm giving A.S. a pass on the "fag" part of the story. Years ago, I read an interview of Christopher Isherwood in the SF Chronicle in which he said he didn't like the use of the word "gay" for homosexuals. He said something like "sometimes I'm gay, and sometimes I'm sad, but I'm always a fag." So unless something has happened in the interim, I don't see the problem.
Jean Bart|8.31.03 @ 7:07AM|#
Alex,
Arnie has a hard time repudiating his old friend it seems. I guess
he believes in "tolerance." :)
Andy Williams|8.31.03 @ 7:40AM|#
It is? Well, maybe that's because ...
I'm as restless as a willow in a windstorm.
I'm as jumpy as a kitten on string.
I haven't seen a crocus or a rosebud,
Or a robin on the wing,
But I feel so gay
In a melancholy way,
That it might as well be spring.
It might as well be spring.
Mona|8.31.03 @ 7:47AM|#
As a lifelong fag hag who has usually had a coterie of gay men I
hang with, I understand what might have happened with Arnold here.
Among my gay buds,we use words like "fag" and "queer" all the time.
I am considered to have a license to do so.
Where it gets tricky is when I'm outside of that milieu. Gay people
who don't know my views and assocations might take offense, and
homophobes might assume support.
G. Patton|8.31.03 @ 8:44AM|#
Really!?
Well, if that happens, you can say goodbye to American military
supremacy.
Centurion|8.31.03 @ 8:45AM|#
Why should that matter?
The Roman Army had a "Please ask, and do tell" policy, and Rome
reigned supreme for 500 years.
Hal E.|8.31.03 @ 10:27AM|#
I agree that the substance of these comments show Arnold to be
more tolerant than homophobic. But let's stop kidding ourselves. If
he had expressed tolerance toward Jews by saying, "I've got no
problems with the kikes," or racial tolerance with "Those niggers
don't bother me," or gender equality with "I love bitches and hos,"
would everyone be so quick to shrug it off as harmless?
If you want to give him a pass because the interview was 30 years
ago and he was a young, stupid bodybuilder who didn't think he'd be
running for governor, fine. But let's at least admit that the
comments can legitimately be called insensitive and offensive, if
not worse.
|8.31.03 @ 11:07AM|#
"I'm Robin Hood, and these are my merry men!"
"Are you...vagelish?"
"Hm...oh, no! Just merry!"
Jake|9.1.03 @ 1:35AM|#
Okay, I'm a fag. I don't have a problem if you want to call me
gay or a fag. I actually prefer fag over gay - it actually sounds
more masculine. To hear Arnold use it and in the way that he used,
non-derogatory, pleased me to no end. I'm tired of words that I am
trying to take the negative connotations a way from being delegated
to "bad" words.
Case in point. The Stonewall Democratic Club states that. "saying
gays react to 'fag' much as African Americans react to 'the n--
word.'" That statement says it all. First Michael Andraychak
doesn't want the word "FAG" used but he does use it - then he
refuses to use the "N" word because African Americans would be
upset.
He's basically delegating that word as to a "our not yours" word
like African Americans that creates a stigma. What is missed is
that Arnold not only tolerates homosexuals but sympathizes with
homosexuals and this makes him a homophobe.
No, it's the left that supports a political party rather than a
person that supports a minority. This continues to reek of
political muck raking for the democrats yet the democrats truly
have yet to do anything except galvinize political hatred and not
allow voters to choose for themselves the better candidate.
They use actors as political muscle but God forbid one, who is a
citizen of America, runs for office. Then it becomes actors should
stay out of politics. Citing no political experience to be governor
is also wrong. All Americans that vote have political experience
and should be allowed to run for any office they choose. It's the
American way of life. Profession should never come into play at
all.
Does it sound like I don't like the left? Well, I don't vote for
the right or left. I'm a libertarian who's for freedom in all it's
forms. And it sounds like Arnold feels the same. He didn't start
the recall to run for governor but given the choices California has
he appears to be the better candidate. And I'm a fag. Get over
it.
|9.1.03 @ 5:14AM|#
To be fair to Arnold, we must remember that English is his
second language and that in 1977 he did not speak it as fluently as
he does today. Back then he might not have been able to pronounce
the word "homosexual" and he may have been completely unaware of
the negative connotations of the word "fag".
Communication is a two-party process and BOTH parties bear part of
the burden for its success. The speaker needs to choose his words
carefully to clearly convey his message. The listener has a duty to
listen to the words and interpret them in a way that reflects the
speaker's intended message. Arnold's critics condemn him for a word
choice that some MIGHT find offensive. Yet, no listener could, in
good faith, interpret what Arnold said as being intentionally
offensive. His critics are acting in bad faith. I doubt any of them
would feel fairly dealt with if they were held to a similar
standard when giving an interview in a second language.
Jim|9.2.03 @ 1:05AM|#
BTW, my irony detector is screaming right now over this:
AS says postive comments about gays, but in a non-PC way 25 years
ago in pre-gay PC America, and gets slammed for it.
A certain Mississippi senator makes positive reference to Strom
Thurmond's 1948 segregationist presidental campaign, probably just
trying to say something nice about an old man, and is widely
villified across the political spectrum and forced to resign from
his position.
Strom Thurmond, who ACTUALLY RAN FOR PRESIDENT ON A SEGREGATIONIST
PLATFORM, is still in office, and popular with his constituents,
even the black ones.
I guess it's all how you spin it....
Stephanie Armendaros|9.2.03 @ 2:29AM|#
David Walser, you shine! You help make this website be worthy of
its name (reason) -- for you certainly know how to use your mind to
reason sensibly.
I love the way you think!
Thanks for having contributed. I copied your repartee (if you don't
mind) and will show it to friends and associates around the
neighborhood and at the office. You simply can't find clear
thinking like this in newspapers, at least not often.
Again, thank you!
Jim|9.2.03 @ 2:57AM|#
Maybe I should be as well. I forgot about that.
Anyhow, point stands - Mr. Thurmond largely escaped political
suicide from backing what are now hugely unpopular and recognizably
morally wrong policies, up until his recent retirement and death.
Yet Mr. Lott committed political suicide by accidentally (in my
opinion) giving praise to those policies. Back when that whole
scandal was unfolding, I remember one poster stating here that the
best evidence he didn't mean what was implied by the comment was
the very fact that he said it. Racist or not, it's just fucking
dumb for a politician to do that. Yet Strom apparently atoned
enough for his sins to get re-elected in more elightened times. So,
given the much less serious nature of the remarks made by Arnold,
it would be much easier, methinks, to appologize for the
'offensive' portion, emphasize the true intent, and move on.
Pretending it didn't happen, for good or ill, doesn't work.
tim|9.2.03 @ 3:30AM|#
But let's stop kidding ourselves. If he had expressed
tolerance toward Jews by saying, "I've got no problems with the
kikes," or racial tolerance with "Those niggers don't bother me,"
or gender equality with "I love bitches and hos," would everyone be
so quick to shrug it off as harmless?
Like most "if you said the same thing about X" arguments, this one
does not, I think, stand up to scrutiny. When Churchill called
Gandhi a "naked little fakir," that was offensive, because
the comment had negative policy motives attached to it. Here the
word was used in the context of supporting the group in question;
to remove it from that context is to engage in pointless language
policing. (I'm sure Cruz Bustamante, for example, hoped for a
similar benefit of the doubt when he said the n-word in a
speech to the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists a few years
back.)
I'm not a great supporter of contextual leeway, but it really is
true that this kind of talk was very much taken for granted in the
seventies-an era that is more distant from us than most people want
to believe. I saw a rerun of WKRP In Cincinnati a while
back in which the awesomely ba-a-a-a-d and cool Dr. Johnny Fever
does an outtro for a song: "That was "Lonesome Loser" by the Little
River Band, and speaking of losers: Hey, Village People! When are
you gonna give it up, etc, etc" a flurry of abuse of the VP
follows, closing with, "Take my advice, lose the Indian." Even in
those heady days of Death Before Disco (itself a largely homophobic
and to a lesser degree anti-black phenomenon) such a diatribe only
worked because the Village People were openly gay. And this was Dr.
Johnny Fever, the coolest of the cool! What resonates now isn't so
much the homophobia as the amazing idea that anybody could have
thought the fucking Little River Band was worth praising
at the expense of one of the most brilliant, inventive and beloved
disco acts of all time.
If you really want to stick Arnold with a homophobia charge, you'd
do better with the scene where Conan beats up the priest of Thulsa
Doom, and it's clear the audience is supposed to be psyched and
amused because the priest is a fey and breathless homosexual. But
that's really the fault of the screenwriter, and John Milius isn't
running for anything (that I know of).
joe|9.2.03 @ 3:32AM|#
I don't think those "more enlightened times" have reached all
areas of the country yet, Jim. As Senate Majority Leader, Lott
stood before a national audience. Thurmond only had to convince
voters in South Carolina to vote for him.
James Inhofe, Republican Senator from Oklahoma, once told a black
subordinate at the DA's office that he needed to be careful how he
spoke to white people. If he were nomiated to be Majority Leader,
he'd be crucified by the national press. But he keeps getting
re-elected in his home state.
Yeah, yeah, yeah - blue state elitist snob.
|9.2.03 @ 4:35AM|#
Nah, nothing homoerotic at all about heavily muscled men in speedos oiling up each other in a locker room. Happens every day. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Jim|9.2.03 @ 12:51PM|#
I do think you have to consider it in the historical context. By
1977, it would have been considered taboo to refer to anyone as
'kikes' or 'niggers' or 'broads' (bitches and ho's being a recent
invention). As another poster stated earlier, we can forgive Mark
Twain because at the time it was not uncommon for anyone to refer
to African Americans in that manner, derogatory or otherwise. On
the other hand, although 'fag' often has a negative connotation
(depending on use), it isn't really clear (from the reponses I've
seen from some gay posters) that it's uniformly considered
offensive by gays.
As David Wasler said above, meaning is the important thing.
|5.26.04 @ 12:29PM|#
Calling Arnold homophobic is like saying Mel Gibson is
anti-semitic---if it's true, then he's in the wrong business!
However, the Republicans should watch what they say, they are no
strangers to false accusations. I'm glad the Democrats are starting
to do it too, it is apparently the only way we can compete.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245