Mehring: Stop the Slurs
By Adam Mehring, Staff Columnist
Published on Friday, November 18, 2011
The word “faggot” is unforgivably offensive. The same goes for “fag.” You might think I’m stating the obvious here, but, much to my persistent dismay, not everyone — including many on this campus — seem able to grasp this concept.
Last week, someone within our community scrawled the word “fag” on a residence hall window. It was paired with additional hateful slurs that may have been targeting the adjacent gender-neutral program floor. No doubt the vandal was in some way out of sorts — perhaps angry or drunk, or at least drunk on miscalculated arrogance.
The community response has predictably been one of regret. After an initial lag in administrative action and student notification, news of the vandalism inspired many to speak out against such behavior. Campus rhetoric has framed the incident as an isolated occurrence unrepresentative of general community sentiments. This sort of thing doesn’t happen at Dartmouth, apparently. The real problem lies with our current communication channels, or administrative transparency or the transgressions of a single apostate.
The truth is that our problems are more fundamental. Most students would individually recognize that the word “fag” is hateful. But seldom do we function individually, separated from the influences and dynamics of our community and peers. And in certain spheres within our community, it is considered quite acceptable to use the word “fag” or “faggot.”
The use of these slurs is not only acceptable — it’s prevalent. I stopped counting the number of times I’ve heard “faggot” bandied about casually like a comment on the weather. Unsurprisingly, the most frequent site of violation has been the fraternity basement — that fabled locale where reckless indulgence pairs effortlessly with unbridled masculine rage.
Because despite what users of the word may claim, saying “faggot” always correlates with estimations of masculinity. An established mythos holds that “faggot” has taken on a new meaning that no longer invokes animosity toward gay men. Yet the slur is currently wielded as it has always been — spoken by men to put down other men, while reinforcing the user’s own sense of virility. Though it may not be directed explicitly toward gay men, and its casual use might aim instead to promote a misguided sense of masculine camaraderie, saying “faggot” inevitably draws upon social politics between gay and straight men and the different evaluations of masculinity between them.
“Faggot” in contemporary usage translates into everything a hateful society once considered gay men to be: pathetic, weak, cowardly — lesser human beings. That same hateful society allowed the word’s proliferation into increasingly acceptable use. Somewhere along the way, its syntactic applicability may have branched out to encompass broader circles of people, but its roots remain planted in exactly the same place — one of intolerance, discrimination and pain.
When “fag” or “faggot” is brandished so informally and without consideration to consequence (and often with a sense of complacency or pride), it’s only natural that the word should reflexively return to its original intent — that invoking “faggot” should be the obvious response to any scenario that infringes upon our sacred masculine ideals. It’s beyond troubling — and frankly, it’s disgusting — when someone, typically fueled by inebriation and male pack mentality, hurls the word “faggot” toward an individual perceived to be less manly, or two males conveying affection for one another, or an openly gay male student. It happens — I’ve seen it multiple times — and it needs to stop.
It needs to stop because it alienates a significant swath of our campus. It needs to stop because it stymies social progress, allowing harmful modes of behavior to flourish. Intention of use is irrelevant — there are complicated social and historical factors in play, and the impacts of use are the same. But it will not stop unless we hold one another accountable. Who has committed the greater offense, the haughty individual shouting homophobic slurs across a crowded fraternity basement, or the throngs of bystanders who say and do nothing in response? To those among us who use the word “fag” or “faggot,” knock it off! To the rest of us, do not hesitate to knock some sense into someone you hear using these words. If we do not change our behavior now or hold one another accountable, it will only be a matter of time before hateful vandalism is discovered once again.
“Knock some sense [into someone using offensive slurs]”? Rather than “do nothing”, the right answer to offensive speech in the “male pack” is an escalation to physical violence?
I really, really hope that isn’t what you mean.
By Alex on Nov 18 | 9:06 am
@Alex, It’s pretty obvious that’s not what Mehring means.
This is actually a very good article.
The only thing I would comment on Mehring’s choice of words that uttering “faggot” is “unforgivably offensive”. I think Mehring meant incredibly offensive, or something of that sort which is fine, but I think it is important that we do forgive those who have used that word and it is important that we condemn actions and not people. We will not change society’s view on the word if we are openly hostile to anyone who uses the word. People will not want to change their ways if they feel they are being attacked. We have to make sure that the dialogue we have over this is civil, which is why I think the rest of Mehring’s article strikes the right tone.
By Brian Giunta on Nov 18 | 2:52 pm
What about slurs aimed at people because of their intellect, the way they look, their religion, their ethnicity, their political persuasion? No mention here. Why would a writer make a special class of one out of one particular word or words? Why would they write how they are always offensive and then fill their column with those words. Is there some thrill they get from writing them over and over knowing that they will be in print, with their name at the top. There is something wrong here. Something wrong with deciding that these certain “slurs” (and no others are offensive by omission) and then just throwing “fag” and “faggot” into their column 17 times. Sounds to me like our columnist has a problem.
By Kim on Nov 19 | 10:06 am
Kim, you’re illogical, and you could stand to work on your punctuation.
By becca on Nov 19 | 9:32 pm
Adam thanks for writing a great article. You are absolutely right. Thanks for having the courage to say it.
By spot on on Nov 19 | 10:07 pm
@Kim – You’re kidding, right? The author is insinuating that all other slurs are acceptable simply because he doesn’t discuss them? That’s quite the logical fallacy. Rarely have I seen homophobia so vainly concealed. You really should be proud. The author writes about these words specifically because these words specifically are being written on buildings and are spoken with frequency by students at Dartmouth. Why is it that people get all up-in-arms whenever someone speaks out for the gays? No one is trying to create a “special class,” Kim. Just trying to protect a group of people being treated unfairly. People don’t become “special classes” because we like them so much better than everyone else. It’s because we as a society tend to like them WORSE, or treat them worse than others, and they might need certain protections and considerations that other people don’t in order to for them to exercise their rights and liberties. But really, Kim, your final thought really tops the rest of your comment. Obviously the author is the one with the problem, using the words at issue (appropriately) to explain passionately, logically, and quite elegantly a real social problem at Dartmouth. (The alternative would be censorship of substantive, informative, important, and scholastic material. I’ll equip your brand of reasoning to infer that book burning would be next in line, no?) Yup, HE’S the one with the problem—not those people vandalizing buildings with hateful graffiti or actively using slurs in everyday discourse. We should go ahead and declare those people a “special class,” too, just to make sure those pesky gays don’t accrue too many rights of their own.
By Timothy Brown on Nov 20 | 1:18 am
@becca. Nice comeback. Try making ANY sense next time. It really helps.
By Kim on Nov 20 | 10:39 pm
How does Adam know that it was someone “within our community”? It could have been anyone. Is that part of the campus inaccessible to anyone not “Within our community”? Whoever wrote this stuff may have been giving the usual suspects another in a long line of opportunities to attack the “Community” at large. It is reminiscent of the anonymous attacks on the fraternities a year or to ago, when sings were put out on their lawns calling them names and accusing them of bad deeds. That was the “sexual assault” drumbeat, this time it’s the gay drumbeat. It looks like the goal for Dartmouth College is a continuous self-flagellation and loathing of straight white men. According to the people running the school now, those were the bad old days and now we have moved forward into scape-goating that same group because it is the only politically safe group to continue to attack. I often wonder why the College Administrators don’t doesn’t just put themselves out of their misery and make Dartmouth an all women school. It looks like the men just don’t fit in anymore. That would solve everything wouldn’t it?
By Anonymous on Nov 21 | 2:01 pm