Woot, Easter break has begun which means: 1> You will eat too much chocolate 2> The committee go insane organising their first major event, the Ball.
The Ball always features a very tongue-in-cheek awards ceremony, so we need to establish the categories.
Going from years past, the list thus far is:
*Best dressed
*Biggest slag
*Best dancer
*Cutest couple
*Most butch
*Most lipstick
*Most manly
*Most camp
*Biggest drunk
*Most tragic
The list changes pretty much every year, so I want to make sure whatever we end up with, there has been some member input. Once the categories are sorted, we can start to receive nominations, and then the voting can begin!
Why can't we just not have the awards... i hate them so much... be tongue in cheek or anywhere else. Any sort of encouragement for mass gossip and sexual judgement or categorising people just makes me want to vomit.
The very existence of the LGBT society categorises people. Categorising people is not in itself wrong - a category is a descriptive term. 'Blonde', 'cyclist', 'writer' and many other nouns are all categories. It is stereotypes and prejudice which accompany certain categories, and social stigma attached to those not easily categorised, which are wrong. Not the idea of grouping people in itself. Without groups, for example, the social sciences become practically impossible.
Secondly - I am all for politeness and decency and avoiding causing offence when one can. I've been picked on in my time. I know people can say vile and horrendous things and pass it off 'as a joke'. However, you have to have a sense of perspective. Teasing is not the same as oppression, and a bunch of tongue-in-cheek awards do not, in fact, cause any harm. They do not encourage gossipiness: people are more than capable of doing that all off their own bat, and the existence of these society awards is an effect of that, not a cause. If teasing is not allowed then a large quantity of comedy is rendered unacceptable. I don't mean Bernard Manning and all that. I mean satire, or character-based sitcoms where much of the comedy comes from mocking a character's foibles. I thoroughly believe that politeness is underrated, and in having the awareness to know when a joke may actually be hurtful, but I can't see that any of these awards overstep a line into malice.
If you'd objected to the awards on the principle that they were naff or overdone or you just didn't personally find the categories very funny or original, I wouldn't have cared, but as it is, it feels like an overreaction to a triviality. Maybe we need an award for 'Person Most Closely Resembling A Paranoid Daily Mail Reader's Stereotype Of A Liberal'.
Can i first apologise for a bit of an emotive outburst as my first words. I still think the vote poses a risk, but I also want to affirm that I understand that yes people don't want to be hurt each other, and may just want to have fun etc.
Captain Tim wrote:
Jacob -
The very existence of the LGBT society categorises people. Categorising people is not in itself wrong - a category is a descriptive term. 'Blonde', 'cyclist', 'writer' and many other nouns are all categories. It is stereotypes and prejudice which accompany certain categories, and social stigma attached to those not easily categorised, which are wrong. Not the idea of grouping people in itself. Without groups, for example, the social sciences become practically impossible.
I would generally agree that stereotypes and prejudice are your damage doers. But when an act of categorisation is unrequired it can cause harm. Creating an LGBT society is not, i feel, unrequired. For that yes we have needed a distinguishing bookmark to gather people, distinguishing ourselves as "other" has been able to do that, but not without cost... i think that's off topic slightly but as a comparison, I don't think these rewards are required. People who are voted on in this way are not volunteering themselves for the positions but put into them by others.
Secondly - I am all for politeness and decency and avoiding causing offence when one can. I've been picked on in my time. I know people can say vile and horrendous things and pass it off 'as a joke'. However, you have to have a sense of perspective. Teasing is not the same as oppression, and a bunch of tongue-in-cheek awards do not, in fact, cause any harm. They do not encourage gossipiness: people are more than capable of doing that all off their own bat, and the existence of these society awards is an effect of that, not a cause.
I appreciate that you do support these good things. I don't think anyone is trully trying to cause great harm...
I note that people may tease eachother when actually expressing a fondness for eachother without any encouragement. But also I think formalising it as a vote, magnifies it and is beyond a casual occasional joke. I think it can cause a lot of hurt. And what I saw, when I was bullied etc, was that the lines between teasing and oppression were greatly blurred, which was why nice people ended up being cruel, and why it was able to continue for so long.
I have no doubt that people are capable of gossiping on their own, nor that such a culture is capable of leading to the idea of the awards. I draw issue with the idea that "if something is caused by a notion, it is incapable of perpetuating it". Because in practise many things occur in that way, a falling domino is caused BY a falling domino, and it causes another one.
If teasing is not allowed then a large quantity of comedy is rendered unacceptable. I don't mean Bernard Manning and all that. I mean satire, or character-based sitcoms where much of the comedy comes from mocking a character's foibles. I thoroughly believe that politeness is underrated, and in having the awareness to know when a joke may actually be hurtful, but I can't see that any of these awards overstep a line into malice.
I have not said that teasing is not allowed... but just think that at least here it is harmful. I'm not in a position to allow things and disallow things, only to state my opinion and beliefs.
I sort of blurted out my grievances a bit hastily, and may have been too vague, I'm not accusing anyone of malice only saying that i think the awards themselves could be harmful... that's unforeseen with no ill intent at all.
Being singled out by the group as something you may not necessarily call yourself, based on everyone else's speculation on your sexual history, drink problems or gender identity and to be invited in front of them all to receive that award, must be a horrible horrible experience for some people. And I just get so upset thinking of someone having to experience that, which is what i'm reacting to.
If you'd objected to the awards on the principle that they were naff or overdone or you just didn't personally find the categories very funny or original, I wouldn't have cared, but as it is, it feels like an overreaction to a triviality. Maybe we need an award for 'Person Most Closely Resembling A Paranoid Daily Mail Reader's Stereotype Of A Liberal'.
"And the best "put down" goes to...................."
I'd rather just not go there.
-- Edited by CrowJake on Monday 6th of April 2009 03:23:58 AM
Maybe a suitable compromise would be that anyone who objects to the idea of being involved in these awards can tell the committee, and we would disregard any nominations of that person. Certainly I think it would be better to have something in place IF an individual is worried about being nominated, rather than scrapping it pre-emptively.
(Though I still suspect that if one is so thin-skinned as to be seriously upset by being called drunk, tragic, a slag etcetera, then the LGBT is quite possibly not the society for you. If receiving one of these awards hurt the feelings of the recipient, then I'd wonder how they ever survived the general banter that goes on in coffee hour.)
I do think your suggestion an improvement, but it'd probably still be better if people had to opt-in to be considered...
I really don't think the LGBT should be something that needs to be survived. People come to it when they ARE in a delicate state. And even so I think it's really cruel to frame people as weak or even say they have no place in the lgbt for simply saying they don't want to undergo personal judgment in this way when they're not asking for it.
To make participation truly optional, there'd be more understanding required than disapproval for whatever people decide.
I will encourage anyone who feels uncomfortable with the idea of the awards to message me, or one of the welfare officers, to opt out.
Jacob, I appreciate that the awards could be potentially quite a hurtful thing. And when I say "I appreciate...", that isn't sophistry- last year I was nominated for Biggest Slag. A lot of people who know me, will know that last year I did a lot of bad things, which had pretty serious ramifications for me in my personal life, and then I got nominated for that award. At first, yes I was incredibly upset. My response was to toughen up, and not let it bother me. That decision is, I know, not one that everyone would take in that situation.
The opting out will be publicised with every mention of the awards, once the Ball is organised.
I think the awards have been a source of fun for years! I remember a friend of mine getting the"Biggest Slag" award and he got up and thanked his 300 men. (And then said that was a joke. :oP)
That said, perhaps avoiding hurting people's feelings would be a good idea and could be done by monitoring, as you guys have suggested, who is and who isn't elligible for an award.
Playing with the conventions of political correctness is a good way of laughing at prejudice, and I think the awards are a good means of having some ironic fun!
__________________
'I've discovered the secret of life. A lot of hard work, a lot of sense of humor, a lot of joy and a whole lot of tra la la.' Kay Thompson
I quite like the idea of the awards. Mainly because I think that we need to lighten up. If the LGBT can't make fun of themselves we will be seen as a bunch of moaners and we will only get sucked into a sarcastic straight hating crowd trying to be the same, while as much as we might like, we are not. We didn't reclaim the word queer for nothing. I think when making fun of ourselves the thing we will achieve is getting more self confident. But I might think this because I am (a bit) older than the rest and... I, by the way, agree that we need to take care of the people that are still in a more fragile position and might not agree with me (yet).
sorry i'm not that good in transferring my thoughts into words... stupid foreigner!!
All that Tim/Jacob stuff was long and tedious I couldn't be bothered to read it... But YAY for awards! They are fun and light-hearted. Roy, are you doing prizes with them this year? I really enjoyed my lipstick and mirror last year. I think you should stick with the traditional catergories... If you try to cater for every man, woman and queer it would be a never-ending political debate. I would be forced to slap you all with a wet fish.
um......sorry but the awards are just a bit of silly fun i think its a little ridiculous to be offended by a bit of tongue in cheek fun. All awards that were mildly controversial have already been removed from the mix and being upset for being nominated for something like best dancer or biggest drunk is slightly tragic as none of them are even meant to be taken remotely seriously.
__________________
Mrs Doyle: I have cake!
Father Ted: No thanks, Mrs Doyle.
Mrs Doyle: Are you sure, Father? They've got cocaine in em!
Father Ted: WHAT?
Mrs Doyle: Oh, no, not cocaine. God, what am I on about. No, what d'you call them. Raisins.
With the list at the top, I'm just wanting to make sure I havn't forgotten about any of the traditional categories.... If I have, please tell me, someone!
I love the awards. They are a good opportunity for a bit of humor in the spirit of not taking ourselves too seriously. If anything was gonna be hurtful or offensive to the people who were being nominated etc then I'm sure the committee and chair can be relied upon to be sensible and pragmatic about things.
Also... the awards aren't even stereotypical half the time anyway. I loved it when I was nominated for most lipstick last year. We had a prom King and Queen in my first year and it was all mixed up and just funny.
-- Edited by Ubernoir on Wednesday 8th of April 2009 12:58:49 PM
Roy, I think there used to be a hottest guy and hottest girl one... That said, I hope these categories don't offend anyone!
I agree with people who think we can all learn from laughing a bit at ourselves. I got Biggest Drama Queen one year and it made my day. I cried buckets! :oP Besides, the world is too PC these days, and I already have enough of a PC in my crap home desktop!
__________________
'I've discovered the secret of life. A lot of hard work, a lot of sense of humor, a lot of joy and a whole lot of tra la la.' Kay Thompson
For the most part it's just harmless fun. I would say that perhaps most tragic should be discussed... I wouldn't like to be nominated for that! Last year it wasn't actually voted on, just given to the person who voted for themselves the most, which was Alice! funtimes.
I agree, the awards sound fun! but its a good suggestion that those who dont want to be involved can opt out and the commitee can void any votes made towards them! im looking forward to them!!! : )
