Monday, May 28, 2007
Hens and Bucks?
So I got up this morning and heard something on the radio that made me stop what I was doing. “I’m sorry to say it but most of the lesbians are more aggressive than homosexual men.” My disclaimer is that I couldn’t get the transcript of this interview from the BBC website so I’m quoting from memory and I am not entirely sure if the guy said heterosexual or homosexual men, but either way it made me stop and say WTF. As it turns out a pub in Australia has won the right to exclude patrons based on their sexuality. The claim is that the heterosexual men and lesbians were creating an environment uncomfortable to the gay men by treating them like entertainment or as if they were “zoo animals”. This pub is the only one (out of 2000) in Melbourne geared toward gay men. So the pub owner/manager would like to limit the number of heterosexuals and lesbians to help keep a safe balance. I do sympathize with the notion of creating an establishment where gay men can feel comfortable as apposed to a freak show. However, I don’t see why the owner couldn’t have implemented a policy of asking groups of people to leave when they start making other patrons uncomfortable. It would be as if a group of men hung out in Victoria’s Secret to ogle the women while they picked out thongs. A manager would be perfectly justified in asking the group to leave without getting a court to declare that the store can exclude men. It seems to me that this is how it will have to be enforced anyway. I can’t image the pub prohibiting gay men from bringing straight and lesbian friends, or asking men if they are gay or straight before entering. So why did the owner feel it was necessary to take the matter all the way to The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal? It seems to me that the pub has put itself in a position of favoring discriminatory practices, even if it is with good intentions, as well as set a legal precedent for discrimination in the future. Or, maybe it was necessary to take legal action to effectively protect the rights of a group being discriminated against and harassed. Any thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Yeah that is totally dumb. I mean, how the hell will the bouncer know what orientation you are? Will we be asked to produce our official HOMO card upon entrance? And then what if you don't happen to be lisping that day, will you be asked to prove your gayness? Will you have to blow someone right there on the spot to be allowed to have a beer? And what about lipstick lesbians? They're not aggressive and plus they're super-cute. They should be allowed in. But how will you tell them apart from a straight hot chick?
Some Australians I have known (who shall remain nameless - Dave, this is your cue to roll you eyes) have told me that it's essentially 1950 in Australia. Apparently, homophobia is WAY bigger there than even in America. So even though this whole "ban the breeders" thing seems kinda reactionary, I have to imagine that being gay in Australia is very, very hard - harder than in most places. As an example, the Australian brother of an ex was "discovered" to be gay over Christmas, and it was a HUGE blow-up. I mean, he goes to NYU and his parents threatened to "take him out of school" (can you do that to a 21-year-old??).
Wow, I didn't realize Australia was that way. It seems odd to me that other homosexuals were doing a major part of the harassing. You would think lesbians would be just as frowned upon, and not want to perpetuate the hate.
Post a Comment