BLOOPS: Ladies and gentlemen, your 1988 AL MVP
Posted by Andy on May 25, 2011
He continues to make us proud.
In all seriousness, if I weren't married already, I'd marry Lada Gaga in a second too, just because I really like the message of her new song--Born This Way. I'm not going to go off on a crazy tangent here, but what a great thing to tell today's youth--however you were born, whatever sexual orientation, you're perfect.
Rick Welts, CEO of the Phoenix Suns, recently revealed that he is gay, becoming the first high-profile person associated with a major American professional sports team to make such an announcement. The news brought me to tears. I am so amazed and impressed by his bravery, and so happy for him that he can now live his life openly. I salute him.
May 25th, 2011 at 10:50 am
Bravo to Mr. Welts.
Also bravo to Charles Barkley, who surprised me by saying publicly that he was certain he had played with gay teammates and had no problem with it. One of the money quotes:
"I've been a big proponent of gay marriage for a long time, because as a black person, I can't be in for any form of discrimination at all."
May 25th, 2011 at 10:52 am
JA, right there with you. That was the one thing Barkley said that really stuck with me as well.
May 25th, 2011 at 10:53 am
Meanwhile ... when I saw the headline about "your 1988 AL MVP," I assumed the subject was Mike Greenwell. 🙂
May 25th, 2011 at 11:05 am
Wasn't Glenn Burke open with his orientation during the latter part of his career?
May 25th, 2011 at 11:07 am
@4, Spartan Bill -- I believe that Burke's teammates knew he was gay and he did not actively try to hide his orientation, but he never publicly came out during his playing career.
http://ittakesateam.blogspot.com/2011/02/out-glenn-burke-story.html
May 25th, 2011 at 11:22 am
Is Gaga's song explicitly about sexual orientation? I can barely understand the lyrics and assumed it had more to do with just a general "be yourself" message. If it is the former, that is even better.
Barkely was recently interviewed by Bill Simmons and Chuck Klosterman on the BS Report. It was really interesting. While I applaud Barkely for the anti-discrimination stance he has taken, there were some, er, interesting aspects of his perspective. Klosterman pushed him at one point as to how Charles knew, and whether the guys were out in some form or he just had a hunch, though didn't push hard enough. Chuck's resposne seemed to indicate that he just sorta figured it out, which means he is either really intuitive or relying on stereotypes. He talked about the types of people his teammates hung out with, where they went, etc. as ways he knew. He also spoke at length about what "the gays" want, which was not to corrupt anyone or destroy marraige or rub it in people's faces (KUDOS!) but was ONLY health and legal rights (definitely an aspect, but not the ONLY part). Like I said, it was interesting.
At the end of the day, considering his age and the context in which he grew up, I applaud Barkely for coming to such a progressive perspective. However, I would caution that his expanded upon message, at least as presented on the BS Report, did still have some uncomfortable moments in it.
May 25th, 2011 at 11:22 am
What is this, Entertainment Tonight? Stick with baseball, BR.com
May 25th, 2011 at 11:28 am
Larry R-
I suppose we should never talk about another straight player's girlfriend, wife, breakup, infidelity, etc, etc, etc. Or are such issues only acceptable to talk about when they involve the heteros?
May 25th, 2011 at 11:37 am
Thank you for blogging on this issue, Andy.
Here in Toronto, we have another Burke, Brian Burke, actively campaigning for gay rights in professional sports and elsewhere, first in support of his son Brendan who was gay, and since his death in a car accident, in his honour and memory. I do not agree with Burke's style of hockey management, but I have tremendous respect for him as a person.
May 25th, 2011 at 11:49 am
BSK -- Thanks for the Barkley details. I don't expect Charles to be a perfect messenger. In fact, in some ways, I think his anti-discrimination message could be more effective because of coming "from the gut" without necessarily having a deep or coherent thought process behind it.
Some people are more open to a message from someone like Charles than to more articulate, cerebral types like Grant Hill or Steve Nash.
Larry R. -- What do you do when Entertainment Tonight isn't covering your favorite celebs? Do you call their office and complain? Or do you just change the channel?
May 25th, 2011 at 11:56 am
Bluejaysstatsgeek, I have heard Brian Burke talk about his son and agree very much with you. Brendan's death is a tragedy, but it does seem that a lot of good has been forged from a terrible situation, thanks in large part to Brian's efforts.
May 25th, 2011 at 1:00 pm
Agree. A worthwhile post on your part. Hopefully, if any players are thinking about coming out they will see the positive columns in support of them. Thanks.
May 25th, 2011 at 1:07 pm
JA-
Great point. I suppose I might have come across more critical than I intended. An honest message like Barkley's is often better than a canned sound bite. My larger point was that, as impressive as it is that someone like Charles Barkley, an African-American who had a religious upbringing in barely-post-segregation Alabama (not exactly the best combination for accepting homosexuality), we should hardly declare "Mission Accomplished". Barkley's message resonated with me, but if it was predicated upon stereotyping and assumptions, I still think there is work to be done. Obviously, we are all in different places of coming to understand these issues, both for ourselves and for the world around us, and I wouldn't criticize someone for not being all there (I'm not a fan of making the good the enemy of the perfect); I just think we should put Barkley's comments in the proper context. To be honest, I'm not sure we even have the proper context, as a 30-minute podcast with two hosts (Charles seemed confused at times as to who he was talking to, often addressing one host as the other) isn't the best avenue to fully articulate a position. I would have loved Klosterman to have pushed more and for Barkley to further articulate his position (I'm not sure how much leeway either host really had since Barkley is a company man I'm sure the higher ups wouldn't want to have been attacked for minor chinks in his armor).
In the end, the recent developments relating to the acceptance of homosexuality in sports (and society at large) is encouraging, yet inherently demonstrate the progress still needed.
May 25th, 2011 at 1:19 pm
When I think about equality and complete implicit acceptance of homosexuality, I think a lot about African Americans. Think about the 400-year history of African born people in this country. They were slaves (slaves!) for a couple hundred years and even for 100 years after they were free, laws were specifically written that addressed people of African ancestry differently from people of European ancestry. On a legal basis, African Americans attained true equality only when the laws were all thrown out and re-written so that they didn't include any mention of race. (Can you believe things used to exist like one person's vote being worth 3/5th of what another person's vote was worth?)
It's the same thing with homosexuality, at least at the legal level. There will only be true equality when all of the laws around everything from marriage to heathcare to family law get rewritten so that the gender of the people is written generically. I think that 50 years from now, all of this debate about gay marriage, civil union, and writing of laws that treats same-sex couples differently from opposite-sex couples will be thrown by the wayside, and will look as foolish as laws that used to have some votes count only 3/5ths.
Now, that's just the legal side. What's going on in people's hearts and minds is a separate issue.
May 25th, 2011 at 1:35 pm
Can you believe things used to exist like one person's vote being worth 3/5th of what another person's vote was worth?
They didn't have a vote at all. Slave population was counted at 3/5 for purposes of congressional representatives.
May 25th, 2011 at 1:36 pm
Weren't women's votes counted as 3/5th initially? Man I forget a lot of my US history. Women's equality has followed much the same path.
May 25th, 2011 at 1:37 pm
I guess my point is how ridiculous some of our laws look in retrospect...can you imagine if somebody proposed that any group of adult US citizens shouldn't have the right to vote? And yet in our country's history we've had all sorts of laws just like that.
May 25th, 2011 at 1:46 pm
Free blacks were technically allowed to vote. That right was not always able to be exercised, particularly in the Jim Crow south. But their votes were always counted as full. Same for women.
Don't worry, I forget a lot of my history too....
May 25th, 2011 at 2:00 pm
You mean like Convicted Felons?
May 25th, 2011 at 2:17 pm
"...how ridiculous some of our laws look in retrospect..."
________________
Chief Wiggum: Well, shut my mouth. It's also illegal to put squirrels down your pants for the purposes of gambling.
[Cut to Eddie with squirrels in his pants while the other cops watch and laugh, rolling dice.]
Chief Wiggum: Boys, knock it off!
[The cops grumble and disperse while Eddie shakes the squirrels out of his pants]
May 25th, 2011 at 2:36 pm
I, like #3, thought the subject was going to be Mike Greenwell. When does Jose give him the MVP?
May 25th, 2011 at 2:40 pm
My argument for a while has been: "When have we ever looked back on attempts to deny equal rights and said, 'Yea, that was the right side of the argument.'?"
May 25th, 2011 at 2:43 pm
Andy- thanks for starting such a thought-inducing thread..
May 25th, 2011 at 2:53 pm
@22,
That is very true.
I am amazed every time a state votes to ban gay marraige. It seems ridiculous to me.
Also regarding "...how ridiculous some of our laws look in retrospect..."
I loved Seth Meyers (SNL) comments on the "Right to bear arms"...(paraphrase) "It should only apply to guns that are equivalent to the ones that were around in the late 1700's when the law was enacted. I doubt the fore-fathers would have wanted everyone to have some of the automatic weapons that exist today." Obviously, his actual quote was worded better and funnier, and included a pantomime of someone trying to load a musket.
May 25th, 2011 at 3:21 pm
Great thread, Andy, and it's encouraging to see the thoughtfulness among the readers. @24 Tmckelv, I know Seth Meyers is a Red Sox fan, so we need to cut him some slack, but does anyone really think freedom of "the press" only applies to yellowed broadsheets run from manual presses with eighteenth-century ink? Times change, as Andy has so eloquently pointed out in this topic.
May 25th, 2011 at 3:32 pm
@22: See #19. But yeah, any examples of that are few and far between. As for gay marriage, my opinion has always been that the government shouldn't be in the business of marriage, period. Marriage is a religious thing. What the government should do is give out civil unions. It would hold all the same rights currently afforded to marriage, but with a different name. Any two consenting adults who want a civil union can get one. If you want to get 'married', you go to your local house of worship, and if they don't want to 'marry' you, that's their right, but it would be purely symbolic anyway.
I'm not going to go off on a crazy tangent here, but what a great thing to tell today's youth--however you were born, whatever sexual orientation, you're perfect.
As for this, I've always thought that we need to stop telling our kids that they're perfect. A better message would be "You're not perfect, because nobody is perfect. So don't feel like you need to hide all of your problems. Learn how to talk about things, learn how to seek help, learn how to cope with limitations, and remember that everyone's got problems."
May 25th, 2011 at 3:36 pm
#26, re: 'perfect', I do actually agree with you. I mean that we're all perfect in our imperfection, i.e. we're all what we are, nothing is ever perfect, and so in that sense we're all perfect. Perfection is kind of a myth in virtually all things--even a 'perfect' game in baseball hinges on ball-and-strike calls, close plays in the field, etc. Everybody always wants to see the toughest defensive play to see how close to imperfect it was, and since this means that not all perfect games have the same degree of perfection, then what the hell does perfection even mean...
May 25th, 2011 at 3:50 pm
It seems we are closer than ever to having a male professional athlete come out voluntarily while they are active. Once that brave person comes forward, it seems to me a lot of stigmas - well, they don't disappear - but maybe they dissipate somewhat.
I wish I could remember who this woman was, but I saw her interviewed about civil rights. She was an accomplished African-American woman in her 50's who said she had been appalled at the lack of civil rights fervor that her children felt. Then she realized that they had grown up with friends who were of different ethnicities (and many of multiple ethnicities), friends who were gay, transgender, who followed diverse religions, etc. So to her children, these people were simply accepted (or not) as who they were without question or thought to if it was 'right.' That, she said, was what the civil rights efforts were about.
May 25th, 2011 at 4:01 pm
I hesitated before clicking through to the comments from my feed reader, afraid of what I might see.
I'm pleasantly amazed. Proud of the readers of this site.
May 25th, 2011 at 4:02 pm
@8
You can talk about stuff like this all you want, straight or gay. I was lured into thinking this thread would be about baseball and it's not, that's all. I don't see the connection between gay rights and baseball.
@10
I don't watch ET. If they had a headline like this one and I tuned in and found the subject matter to be something completely different I'd be annoyed. It's easy to voice your disapproval here, so I did.
Carry on, everyone.
May 25th, 2011 at 4:53 pm
On "bearing arms," only 20 percent or so of Americans owned their own at the time of the Revolution.
May 25th, 2011 at 5:10 pm
I was mildly chastised a while back for poking some fun at the notion that you could find future President Barack Obama in the background of a guy's baseball card photo, because my comments were taken as infringing into the political arena and we should stick to baseball here.
Now I see this post and I'm wondering what the boundaries are.
Gay guys in sports are nothing new, so I'm doubly confused here. The post says this guy is " the first high-profile person associated with a major American professional sports team to make such an announcement."
Have you forgotten Billy Beane?
This is not an anti-gay post, by any means. As for a thought-provoking aspect to this thread, I think we need to be more concerned about the attitudes that still prevail among players, like that NBA player who was disciplined the other day for shouting an anti-gay slur at a fan. The fact that he acknowledged his mistake indicates we've come a long way, baby.
Except that it still makes the news when a guy "comes out," so have we really reached a stage of enlightment or are we still stuck on just being politically correct?
On a lighter note, as per the Jose Canseco / Lady Gaga relationship potential, I checked the website the link above takes you to, and based on their pictures there I'm wondering what their kids would look like. Is there a website where you can play with pictures and combine facial features to get an idea of that?
'Cause on the one hand, you have the DNA for some really cute dimples, a luscious smile, and that smoldering come-hither look in the eyes.
On the other hand, you have Lady Gaga. . . . . . .
🙁
May 25th, 2011 at 5:25 pm
I'm with Larry. Nuf 'ced.
May 25th, 2011 at 6:04 pm
It's too bad that so many in the black community do not see the logic in Barkley's comments.
May 25th, 2011 at 6:31 pm
Howard-
I think that is going a bit too far. While I am dismayed at the lack of support we've seen from the black community in marriage equality efforts, turning them into "the problem" with homophobia is unfair and further demonstrates efforts to pin already marginalized groups against each other. Much of the opposition from within the black community comes from the strong religious ties present with many of its members, whom should really be considered "Christian opponents of gay rights" than "black opponents of gay rights". I do think that there are some elements of the opposition unique to black culture, which would certainly be a discussion worth having. But the meme that has emerged that "the blacks" are the reasons gay marriage efforts keep failing is just nonsense. I don't know if that was the point of your statement or not, but I worry that it easily takes us down that path.
To the larger points, of the place that an out gay man can have in sports, I'm still not confident. I do not doubt the sincerity of Charles' words, but it is one thing to say it, as a retired player with 50+ years of life experience, far removed from the culture of the locker room, and another to live it, as a younger, 20-something who may have never known an out gay man and who harbors may misconceptions. Even if the player wouldn't be attacked, verbally abused, or explicitly ostracized, how many players would cover up after a shower more quickly? Would he still be invited "out with the guys"? Would he lose endorsements? Would they accept his partner (if he had one) the way they accept other guys' wives (assuming they accept them at all)? I just don't know.
This is not to single out the NBA or any other sport. I do think it would be harder to do in sports because the culture is different. But I've worked in several environments far more "progressive" or "liberal" or whatever than a sports locker room that struggled to be entirely inclusive and welcoming of LGBTQ folk. Which, unfortunately, may be the reality for a long time coming. We still have quite figured out the whole "not being racist" thing, which has been a movement for far longer.
May 25th, 2011 at 6:57 pm
re: Post #17 "...can you imagine if somebody proposed that any group of adult US citizens shouldn't have the right to vote?..."
Well, give me one good reasons convicted felons should be allowed to vote.
Also, thanks to the lawyers, the process for selecting judges has been taken out of the voters hands. We have the "right" to vote, just not for the people the lawyers want to pick themselves through their bar associations. And, gee, ain't it funny how they only pick fellow lawyers?
May 25th, 2011 at 8:57 pm
I'm with Larry and KB. You ran with a weak hook to baseball in order to make a political statement. Sure, Canseco played baseball, but nothing about this story has anything to do with his being a ballplayer.
May 25th, 2011 at 9:12 pm
I totally respect the viewpoints of those of you who don't care for this post. You are of course welcome not to read it. I also hope that when you do like a post on this free blog that you also post there, saying how much you like it.
May 25th, 2011 at 9:17 pm
I'm welcome not to read it? Have you any familiarity with the phrase "locking the barn door after the horse is out"? If you can suggest a way to unread it and recover my lost time, I'd be grateful. Failing that, perhaps you can title your political posts more clearly in the future to aid in my not reading them.
May 25th, 2011 at 9:21 pm
My original post was essentially a bloop about Jose Canseco, and I tied it into another huge recent sports story. It wasn't political.
I sincerely apologize if the title was misleading--I should have labeled it a "bloop" at least.
May 25th, 2011 at 11:23 pm
I'm sure we'd all like every title to perfectly capture the essence of the story so that we never waste a moment with a topic that doesn't interest us. (Homer Simpson, coming out of the movie Naked Lunch: "I can think of two things wrong with that title!") But complaining about a misleading headline here, after it's clear that there are many more people who are actively engaged by the story, is liable to come off as trying to stifle the discussion, whether or not that's the actual intent.
May 25th, 2011 at 11:39 pm
And so you just had to chase the horse through 38 posts. Me thinks thee protesteth too much.
May 26th, 2011 at 1:29 am
I'm sorry if this has been said before, but it's my understanding that there is a "gay underground" in baseball, and maybe in the other sports. I remember that the gay umpire Dave Pallone discussed it a bit in his book. Apparently the gay athletes are aware of the other gays, and have sworn not to divulge each other's secrets.
The solution seems simple to me: Every gay person in baseball (and hopefully, other sports) should band together and all come out of the closet at the same time. It would be the biggest sports story of our time, and take much of the pressure off each individual gay player. What are you going to do, ostracize 1/10 (or maybe more) of the entire major league roster? I can't be the first person who has ever thought of this idea, right?
May 26th, 2011 at 1:30 am
I'll just say I have no problem with threads, or websites in general, going off-topic. It has not previously been the practice of this site to do so, so I understand the opinions of those complaining. Personally, I don't care about Lady Gaga or what Jose Canseco thinks of her.
=========================================
give me one good reasons convicted felons should be allowed to vote.
Why should one who has served their sentence be deprived of rights? What good reason do you have for not allowing them to vote?
May 26th, 2011 at 1:32 am
Have you forgotten Billy Beane?
Don't know if that was a typo or you're confused. Billy Bean, the marginal former player, came out years after retiring. Billy Beane, the Oakland GM, has not yet done so....
May 26th, 2011 at 1:32 am
@39 - You're basically saying "How dare you inadvertently deceive me into spending five seconds reading something I wasn't interested in." Call the waaaambulance, it's an emergency!
May 26th, 2011 at 2:25 am
Andy,
I was only ab;le to skim the entries due to time constaraints, but I believe there were sebveral bi-sexual football players in the 70's.
Of course this information was heard on the Howard Stern show, so its validity is in question.
But I also remember ESPN hinting rather obviously during a Brave playoff run that Mark Lemke was 'open' - even to thre extent of reserve seats for Elton John for the world series.
If I'm not mistaken, I believe Ameile Griffith, the boxer was homosexual as well, and why he didn't flaunt it, he surely did not hide it, and was even called out by an opponent during the weigh in.
Then we must not forget Alomar and the swirling rumors. Also now at least two woman are accusing him of knowingly giving them HIV.
There are also those wonderful shots of the Golden Boy, Oscar de lay Hoya in full drag..
There is of course several open lesbian tennis players as well.
Then of course the Village People, and scientologists.
But I do Agree that once the stigma is lifted and a player comes out, it will be like 1947 all over again.
Only this time, I ythink the law of averages and the more lax culture we live in, it is bound to be happening soon, and I hope the gentle man wins the triple crown.
May 26th, 2011 at 2:28 am
Johnny Twisto
YET...
May 26th, 2011 at 2:46 am
Ameile Griffith, the boxer was homosexual as well, and why he didn't flaunt it, he surely did not hide it, and was even called out by an opponent during the weigh in.
Emile Griffith. He did and does deny it (though I think he probably is, based on what's out there). Incidentally, the documentary Ring of Fire is a terrific movie, based mostly on Griffith's mortal beating of Benny Paret in a '62 title fight, but also somewhat on Griffith's life and sexuality.
May 26th, 2011 at 7:34 am
I think what Lady Gaga puts out is trash, and should never be called anything else no matter who you're trying to score points with. Let's not lose track of what is right and what is wrong. While I hope and pray that those born gay find true happiness in their lives and are never kept from jobs they are qualified for, nor discriminated in any way, having Gaga as your spokesmen hurts your cause, it doesn't help. To call her inspirational is beyond sick and I pray you use better judgement with your children. "however you were born, whatever sexual orientation, you're perfect"?????? Not even close pal, none of us are. I would never advocate censorship as an answer, and she should be free to give her opinions and attempt her "art", but let's not pretend or lie to ourselves that this is good for kids, or society as a whole.
May 26th, 2011 at 10:01 am
Thanks for the post, Andy.
As for people responding negatively about the content of the post, if the topic of the post doesn't interest you, then skip it. If you read it and then find the subject doesn't interest you, then skip it. This blog does not exist to cater to your every interest and a majority of the other posters (if not readers) appreciate interesting posts that are not directly related to baseball, because this is a community of yes, baseball fans, obviously, but all of us have interests that are unrelated (or only tenuously related) to the game of baseball.
A lot of you have a ton of opinions about how limited in scope this free content should be in the B-R blog. Just be grateful and stop trying to pretend you're owed something.
May 26th, 2011 at 10:08 am
I'll say this much. Although I generally agree that the people who don't care for the subject of this post should just skip it and move on (and I particularly like the reference to the "waaaambulance" in #46), there is something to be said for failing to meet the readers' expectations for this blog.
Here's a counter example. The day after bin Laden was killed, my local sports radio station pretty much discussed only bin Laden and nothing about sports. A lot of callers complained, but the hosts said--hey, this news story is just too important and emotional not to discuss, so that's what we're doing. I had no problem with it whatsoever, despite the fact that the usual escape that the sports radio provides was taken away for a day.
However, in the case of this post, the subject matter is just a tiny bit less important or meaningful than bin Laden's death (that's sarcasm, folks) and it may not have been the best choice for me to choose this as a diversion. I can understand if some readers who come to this blog as a diversion were put off by the fact that issues like Twitter, music, parenting, sexuality, etc, were raised just in my original post, let alone the comments that followed.
I'm not saying I regret making the post, but it's been a learning experience for me and I'll probably try to keep things a bit more centered if there are any more such diversions.
And Phil H at #32, you have correctly pointed out a little bit of hypocrisy on my part.
May 26th, 2011 at 11:21 am
Pat-
Why all the hate on Gaga? You are entiteld to your opinion but have given nothing to back it up.
May 26th, 2011 at 12:04 pm
My personal view is that I think it's better if a baseball website sticks to baseball. Those who want to discuss Lady Gaga and her issues can do so in other fora. There must be thousands of such sites on the internet.
May 26th, 2011 at 12:29 pm
Black peoples votes 9when cast0 were never worth 3/5ths of white peoples votes.
The 3/5ths "compromise' was in regard to the census and congressional apportionment. The southern states wanted to count blacks, because the greater the enumeration, the more seats a particular state will have in the house of representatives.
And Northerners didn't want the slave vote counted as it would dilute the power of the northern states, Eventually they compromised that a black person was counted at a factor of 0.6 of what a white person was "worth".
May 26th, 2011 at 3:00 pm
There may be a lot of baseball knowledge here, but I'm sorry, many are ignorant on the cold hard facts of history. And Andy my goodness! You think Lady Gaga is a good thing for the young people of this country? Right up there with Joe DiMaggio, and Johnny Bench? Having a gay ball player come out and be treated with respect is one thing, but have you seen what this Gaga does at concerts? Have you read the lyrics? You mention being married, don't know if you have kids yet, but my god man are you serious? I'm going to assume most are men 30 and up on this site, what in the hell has happened to us? I see co-workers, men in there 40's and 50's, bring adult cartoons (South Park and Family Man) into work to watch while they should be working. Men that are grandfathers dressing like little kids to go to work, and they watch American Idol and know all about the latest rapper. This country is all most unrecognizable sometimes to me.
May 26th, 2011 at 3:31 pm
I'm finding out a lot about homsexuals and not a lot about baseball.
May 26th, 2011 at 3:50 pm
@57, and that is probably a good thing.
I think most of us know way too much about baseball already.
May 26th, 2011 at 6:01 pm
Timmy P-
Are you going to start demanding your country back?
May 26th, 2011 at 6:11 pm
BSK - No, but I would like to see some gentlemen start acting like men. My God do you forget how much harder others have had it.
May 26th, 2011 at 6:15 pm
@ 58 (with tongue in cheek)
There's never been a time in my life when I've known too much baseball. Yet, just after reading this post, I know more about Lady Gaga than I ever wanted to.
May 26th, 2011 at 6:19 pm
BSK before you call me a homophobe, know that in my heart I hope that a ballplayer can reach his potential without worrying about what he does at night. In 1950 they called them queers, but I will bet that the 1950 queer was ten times tougher than than the 2011 tough-guy. I knew gay men growing up, and I had the guts to stick up for them when they needed it. But I just think that the idea of whatever goes is OK is wrong, life doesnt work that way.
May 26th, 2011 at 7:22 pm
Timmy P-
I never said you were a homophobe. But you seem to be taking the curmudgeonly stance that nothing today compares to anything of yesteryear. I'm afraid next you'll tell us youngsters to get off your lawn. I have no doubt that things are easier now than they were 50 years ago. Many of the posts here were dedicated to just that notion, about the progress society at large has made and sports in particular seems to be making.
Yet it is comments like yours, which have the implicit assumption that a queer is less tough than a tough guy, or that man should act a certain way, that show there is still a hell of a lot further to go.
May 26th, 2011 at 7:38 pm
Actually, he said the queers were tougher than today's men, because today's men watch American Idol, or something.
I don't disagree that a lot of guys are, how shall I say this, soft. I don't think it's a recent phenomenon or has much connection to Simon Cowell or Lady Gaga.
I also think he was dissing hip-hop (hard to tell), and I won't stand for that.
May 26th, 2011 at 7:40 pm
Oh wait, I see what you meant, he was saying queers aren't tough, but *even* the queers of old were tougher than tough guys now.
May 26th, 2011 at 7:42 pm
Yea, he thinks I'd be surprised to learn that a queer was tougher than a tough guy. As if queer and tough guy are mutually exclusive. I worked in Chelsea for two years. Dem queers were hard as shit.
May 29th, 2011 at 12:51 pm
There is a brief interview with Steve Nash where the subject of an openly gay player came up. I thought Nash's response was spot-on:
Q. Is the N.B.A. ready for an openly gay player?
A. If a player in the locker room came out, it would come and go quickly, too. I really don’t think it’s a big issue anymore. I think it would be surprisingly accepted, and a shorter shelf life than maybe we would imagine. I think the time has come when it should happen soon.