"Tim's Gay" - The Problem with the Sattler and Gillard Exchange

Let me start by declaring my biases:

I think Howard Sattler is a complete moron (I would love to insert a string of expletives to decorate my description of his character, but I think it would detract from the simplicity of the sheer facts), who loves trying to get a reaction from people by peddling his biggotted dark ages views on 6PR. I think its very sad that he has an audience, as it indicates that there are more people who share his ridiculous views.

I think Julia Gillard is an intelligent and articulate woman. I think she has been treated atrociously as a woman, as a Prime Minister, and as a human being, since she has was appointed, then re-elected PM. 

I am a liberally minded voter i.e. not conservative, though that does not mean I necessarily support her or her political party in all their policies and actions. As an atheist, I whole heartedly disagree with her current stance against same sex marriage, as I see any policy against anyone consenting adult being able to choose what relationships they are in, and how they wish to have that recognised, or their right to legally recognised unions should be the same as any other person- as discriminatory; pandering to the conservatives and the churches. 

I was also highly underwhelmed by the proposal to redirect asylum seekers who arrive by boat to Malaysia, not quite as appalled as I am by the "turn back the boats" farce being proposed by the other side but... hang on... getting right off track- that's a rant for another day.

Sattler, in his radio show, which has now been suspended from airing (for the sake of society- axe him permanently, please!), has chosen to revisit "Myths rumours and lies" about the Prime Minister in an interview with her. The whole interview can be seen here (although I warn you that your IQ may be depleted by osmosis in proximity to this lower pressure zone by even having listened to his utter drivel):  http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-13/prime-minister-questioned-whether-partner-is-gay/4752998

I could go into the whole conversation, how inflammatory it is to bring up any myths about  Ms Gillard to her face, regardless of the nature of them, and his clear intent to try and get a negative reaction or embarrass her, how well she did at staying calm etc, but that's not my point today. 

What I think everyone is missing,  is why saying "Tim's a hairdresser, therefore he's gay" should be insulting at all. From the Prime Minister's perspective, there is the insinuation that her relationship is ingenuine, but that's a very superficial suggestion. What Sattler is suggesting (or echoing the suggestion of) is that being gay is somehow a bad thing. 

It is reiterating the immature, bigotted notion that "you're gay" is an insult, and that there is something inherently "wrong"with approximately 10% of the world's population who primarily prefer same sex partners which they should feel embarrassed about or ashamed of.

In a way I thank Sattler for showing people his true self, and how these views are still alive and well to the point where they are thought by some to be entertaining radio. By showing us all how hateful and absurd these views are, we can have the conversation openly about how preposterous small minded zealots like Sattler are, and how vulgar we find it when people like him spread their prejudices. 

Pat Robertson- Pushing the Limits of Stupidity

Pat Robertson, and American televangelist, has come out and said some pretty ignorant, hateful things in his time. For example (this one is so ignorant it's actually funny):

"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." - 1992 (Wikiquotes).

The frightening part is that to remain on television, he must be earning money and hence some people actually follow this utter dribble he spouts forth, which doesn't bode well for [certain subsets of poorly educated, older, white, American] society.

In recent events, some random psychopath picked up a gun, went into a Sikh temple and shot a bunch of people. 

While most people would say (inside the USA) "That guy was possibly influenced by the Batman shootings, and is a random psychopath" (outside USA) "This is more evidence as to why there should be tighter gun control laws in the US", Pat Robertson has gone for the hate and blame game approach. See his dribble on the shooting incident here: http://www.examiner.com/video/pat-robertson-blames-atheists-for-sikh-temple-shooting

“What is it? Is it satanic? Is it some spiritual thing, people who are atheists, they hate God, they hate the expression of God? And they are angry with the world, angry with themselves, angry with society and they take it out on innocent people who are worshiping God.”

In retort, one author put it so beautifully: "For the record, atheists neither love nor hate god, for the simple reason that god does not exist.".
(http://www.examiner.com/article/pat-robertson-blames-atheists-for-sikh-temple-massacre?cid=rss )

I think I love this guy (no, no- not Robertson- the other guy). Blunt, sees it like it is, and recognises a total arsehat when he sees one.

Robertson's diatribe against athiests is clearly ill-informed, and shbows more evidence in support of the theory that extreme conservatives have lower intelligence ( http://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html).

It could be a matter of not having the educational opportunities, though, so we've been here before, but will say it again. Atheism is not a hatred of a God, deity or theology. It is an absence of belief. 

Let's provide some context, and compare it to something he may be able to comprehend:

Compare unicorns to ponies. A child may believe in and love unicorns, or believe in and love ponies. Chances are, though, they have seen, and possibly touched a pony, as it is not a figment of their imagination. When you grow up and learn the difference between real and imaginary, most rational people don't start to hate unicorns or resent anyone who ever led them to believe they might be real.

Medi-e-Vil BiAs

I get very frustrated with people who want to spread fear and hatred, which is really all this could be described as trying to achieve:
Medical [e] Vilification and Bigotry in Australia (ala Medi-e-vil BiAs)
http://nocompulsoryvaccination.com/2012/07/29/medical-vilification-and-bigotry-in-australia/


The humorous side of it, however, is the degree of hypocrisy and lack self-awareness it demonstrates.


The blogger starts trying to paint any who disagree with her opinion as "bigots", offering the initial definition of  "a bigot is anyone who is intolerant of those who hold differing opinions." Well it's a somewhat overly simplistic definition, used with bias to promote the blogger's own cause. Let's explore this a bit further...


The Mirriam Webster dictionary defines a bigot as:
A person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one who treats the members of a group ... with hatred or violence.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot


For some more context and depth, Wikipedia introduces bigotry as:

"'Bigotry' is the state of mind of a "bigot", a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance". Bigotry may be based on real or perceived characteristics, including age, disability, dissension from popular opinions, economic status, ethnicity, gender identity, language, nationality, personal habits, political alignment, race, region, religious or spiritual belief, sex, or sexual orientation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry

In the article, the blogger aims to prove the claim "So you could say that everyone who is a member of Stop the AVN – by definition – is a bigot.", and yet what the blog continues to present is a hateful diatribe based on the a group and members thereof, based purely on their beliefs or opinions solely because they dissent from the blogger's own.... hmm I believe that actually is the definition of bigotry.


Firstly, let's look at the origin of this claim. It is from the AVN- so the idea that some may oppose their stance would perhaps appear threatening, if they felt vulnerable to such criticisms. Humans in general do not like a difference of opinion- the challenge that they may not be 100% "correct" creates cognitive dissonance: a sense of unease or discomfort which may even be experienced physically. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Secondly, as is much of the website, the article is presented with a slathering of martyrdom based on the claim that AVN are trying to achieve something laudable, and suffer greatly for their cause (if you consider a difference of opinion "suffering"). 


Then there is the selective representation of the case study "Bowditch compounded his shocking assaults against innocent supporters of the AVN as you can see below". In elementary school I think we all learned about character development in prose, or even inadvertently, through stories which describe the "wicked witch" vs the "charming prince" for example. It leads the readers' minds to side with the constructed protagonist. It's journalism ala Today Tonight. 

To vilify: To make vicious and defamatory statements about.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/vilification


I don't know Bowditch, and am not familiar with his personal or professional associations, or interaction history with the AVN, but can only assume that their past has not been amicable. The attribution of negative traits in any description of him or what intent his statements were made are an interesting demonstration of vilification, however.


Then there is the selection of tweets presented as follows:
"Innocent" AVN Supporter: Meanwhile you keep talking about dead babies and orgasms.
Bowditch: Why don't you just answer the question? How many does it take?


Followed by this interpretation of said tweets:
"So once again, he implies – to the mother of a vaccine-injured child – that she gets sexual pleasure from dead babies."


At this point I'm tempted to suggest a class in reading comprehension to the blog-writer. What I can see is mutual aggravation- baiting from both sides, and avoidance of the topic at hand, not one mercilessly attacking the innocent [unnecessarily emotive descriptive bias added for dramatic effect] other unprovoked. In this selection, at least, there was no such implication, and the insinuation makes as much sense as:


Q- Ask me if I'm an orange.
A- Are you calling me fat?
Once again, the Q implied that A has a dietary and weight issue and enjoys sexual activity with fresh produce.


I persevered, in the mistaken belief that there would be some sense, conclusion or at least a reasonable argument contained in the post, and was left wanting.


"I feel that people who cannot see what is inherently vile and disturbing about Bowditch’s rhetoric could be capable of anything."


I feel the same about the Catholic Church; that it is inherently vile and disturbing in its rhetoric. I also believe the behaviour of certain individuals who are members of this institution conduct acts which are reprehensible, for example, the systematic rape of children by some members of the clergy. Yet I don't assume this necessarily means every Catholic is vile or disturbing or insinuate that they must all condone such acts. To do so would be perceiving all Catholics to have the same characteristics, based solely on their membership of said group, and treating the members of that group with hatred and intolerance on that basis (refer above to definition of bigotry).


*End with staggeringly hypocritical statement *:
"Vilification and bigotry have no place in Australia."