Dinner Party
April 9th, 2006 | Published in glbt, soundbites | 38 Comments
My dyke dude turned 21; present at dinner are 5 gay men, two girls (one gay, obviously, and one bi).
Overheard remark from the waitstaff:
“Is everybody at that table from Brokeback Mountain?”
Too bad for him that the person he made that comment to was someone who could fire him, and who could also tell me about it later during a smoke.
April 9th, 2006 at 1:55 am (#)
i dun find anything wrong w/ dat qn
is heightened sensitivity inherent in your species?
April 9th, 2006 at 1:58 am (#)
wanderer: fuck off, homophobe. your sarcasm only speaks of apathy.
April 9th, 2006 at 2:03 am (#)
nope i’m no prob w/ glbts.
u ever heard of reverse discrimination?
April 9th, 2006 at 2:18 am (#)
what is wrong with that question?
(and what is wrong with your comment? we’ll get to that later.)
everything. that lazy pop culture heuristic, “brokeback”, is so over used, in all the wrong ways. i am sick and tired of hearing that become a euphemism. (at public concerts, performers say, “i love my bruddah very much, but this is not brokeback mountain”. in school, people say “that is so brokeback”.) WTF is “so brokeback”? is it the story of a great love? or conforming to expectations even though it hurts? why has brokeback become the catchall for “gay”?
also, we were patrons at a dressy restaurant. even as an ex part timer in the F and B industry, i knew basic respect and manners were the customer’s right, not privilege. you do not talk about a customer that way. the same way you don’t refer to “table 10, that table full of Malays”.
and please don’t say “species”. ever again.
April 9th, 2006 at 3:01 am (#)
i agree the waiter has no business wondering aloud the sexual orientation of any cust while on duty.
yes brokeback has becum a byword for homosexuals.
lastly i apologise if my comments seem offensive/hurtful
April 9th, 2006 at 6:36 am (#)
oh so you’re sorry?
well you SHOULD be. :)
April 9th, 2006 at 6:46 am (#)
you go, my fairy god lover… let errrrrr riiip!
April 9th, 2006 at 7:04 am (#)
It’ll be a pity if your smoke buddy were to relieve the waiter of his position in view of the nature of comment the waiter made because he’ll end up being guilty of the same discrimination you speak of.
It’s a fact of life that such things are discussed, especially in the workplace. If you were to fire everyone in my line of work who has uttered a similar remark, half the people would be gone (which might be a good way to purge the more undesirable colleagues actually). It’s my observation that most straight males need to reaffirm their masculinity by marginalising a gay person to other straight males (this is where your waiter’s perception failed him), especially in close proximity to said gay person(s).
April 10th, 2006 at 12:36 am (#)
Yes, they may feel the need to reinforce their masculinity when they are in proximity to someone gay, but who in their right mind thinks that somehow makes it right?!
Straight men do not have the right to put down others because of their own issues and masculinities. No more than white people have any right to start throwing their privilege around.
And it’s not in the least the same discrimination. The wait-person that made the remark can still hold exactly the opinion he/she wants to have. No one is telling them anything like that. What he/she would be let go because of was behaviour that is not appropriate for waitstaff. Inability to perform one’s job (ie respect for patrons) is a perfectly reasonable, and I would argue needed, reason for firing.
Moreover, perhaps if more people were fired because of making such comments, it would serve as an example to the others that they need to keep their bigotries and insecurities to themselves when they work, and then not only would you not have to fire everyone, but your staff would have a better rep.
People don’t have a right to be an arsehole, but people do have a right not to be demeaned and dehumanised.
April 10th, 2006 at 1:35 pm (#)
Ignore what others say (including the staff)
Just be the way you want to be. Cheers.
April 10th, 2006 at 3:57 pm (#)
Well, people are now using “bbmt” instead of “brokeback mountain”. I have no idea why, since I haven’t watched that movie, but I must confess to having used it myself once or twice. No offence, popagandhi. You know I have great respect for you and all, and God knows I’m no homophobe, but are you sure you’re not overreacting? I mean, I used to get offended when people used the term “hackers” to describe “crackers”, but I’ve since become apathetic towards it. They don’t understand why it’s offensive because they’re not hackers, and neither should they be made to, because it’s just not relevant to them. I know it’s not the same thing, but there are some parallels, I think.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that it’s ok to use labels on people that they’re not comfortable with. I’m just saying that a lot of the time, it stems from ignorance instead of malice or prejudice, and I do not think someone deserves to get fired for ignorance that is unrelated to his job (wait, did he get fired?). After all, the question was, as you say, “overheard” and not addressed at you.
April 10th, 2006 at 5:07 pm (#)
To be honest, it’s not a big deal. But I also know that ignorance is no excuse for getting away with that, the same way I could never let any of my friends get away with making ignorant remarks about people of other races. Of course he wasn’t fired, but he was also very ignorant in making that comment to the person that he did (he obviously didn’t have a clue about that person).
If I owned an establishment, and even if I wasn’t gay ââ¬â I’d be most displeased by that sort of ignorance. It’s a sweeping statement, ignorant or not, which places a people you don’t know a thing about, into a little compartment in your head. Right up there, if you ask me, with how the numerous Chinese people I know who say things about Malays and Indians, because they were ignorant and don’t know people from those groups (usually because they won’t even give them a chance).
Is it really any less bad because it was overheard? Is internalized racism or homophobia OK just because it wasn’t vocalized and there were no lynchings? I’d rather have it in my face, than have it said behind my back. If they want to hate, or libel, they shouldn’t hide.
April 10th, 2006 at 9:24 pm (#)
No, internalized racism or homophobia isn’t ok, at least not in my books, but I’d have to disagree with your preferences where tolerance and acceptance are concerned. I think we’re all aware that most Singaporeans are racist to a greater or lesser degree, but the fact that it’s suppressed here makes it heaps better than some places in, say, Australia, where people shout racist remarks at you or make ugly threats in public without fear of reprisal. Of course I do think it would be best to have acceptance, but if that is not possible, then I’d definitely rather take tolerance as an imperfect substitute than have open racism/homophobia.
I do agree, though, that acceptance is something worth striving for, and I admire your resolve to fight prejudice wherever you find it. For myself, however, I am of the opinion that if someone says something stupid, it only makes himself look stupid, so the best way to deal with it is to laugh at him and get on with my life. I guess our opinions in this respect differ because we have different value perceptions.
April 10th, 2006 at 10:04 pm (#)
eh still being discussed?
i wonder - are gay ppl easily offended referred to as such? i mean arent u guys supposedly proud of your identity in this day and age? gay ppl CAN be identified by their appeareance and behaviour u know.
or are u guys insulted being compared to brokeback? it was first and foremost a gay story anyway. wats so negative about the connotation? i’ve watched the movie and i dun see any homophobic or disparaging msg.
no doubt the waiter was behaving unprofessionally. but the qn per se doesnt carry any homophobic meaning. logical no?
btw did u tell him to his face u were offended?
April 11th, 2006 at 12:14 am (#)
Your classification of gay people as a separate species belies your claims of not being homophobic, wanderer. Logical, no?
April 11th, 2006 at 12:16 am (#)
actually it doesn’t matter at all, the fact is the upbringing of the society. we were ‘taught’ from young that guys and girls go together and there’s no other ways about it. been queer is wrong and that something damaging must had happened to that person, (e.g: broken family, sexual harassment) otherwise the mentioned person should not be gay.
think back about it, ain’t this the way we were brought up? Gay acceptance was never a reality; like the recent fridae party which was cancelled. and constantly we are been judged and can we say the same for ourselves that we are in fact judging people too?
like i always mentioned, label anything you like, cans, jars, books, in anyway you like. at the end of the day, it’s just a term. there’s no use in expressing the way we are, ‘cos the ’straights’ just don’t get it. =)
April 11th, 2006 at 12:27 am (#)
a lot of people around me are brought up to be racist as well.
that is not acceptable either. because we the majority race never get it too.
April 11th, 2006 at 1:46 am (#)
why do ppl think brokeback mountain is a gay movie anyway? the way i see it, the movie is about two guys seeking to fill a certain emotional void.. not necessarily a longing for a gay relationship..
April 11th, 2006 at 9:41 am (#)
i thoroughly enjoyed the dinner. i seemed to be the only one that evening who can’t decide. (read: bi.)
and somehow, i think i sound pretty greedy.
talking about consumption, the food was excellent.
and about brokeback mountain, i gave my boyfriend a queer look (pardon the pun) when he says he wanted to go fishing with his buddy after the film. just for the heck of it.
straights are insecure about everything on earth. refer to my boyfriend for details.
April 11th, 2006 at 9:41 am (#)
i think his comment was just misguided and perhaps ignorant, but certainly it was an innocent remark and he’d meant no harm. bully for him that he told the wrong person, but i don’t think he meant for you at the table to hear it.
yes, it might not have been the most professional thing to do - in any industry, not just f&b, but, can you honestly say you’ve never bitched about someone else behind his/her back? i’m no saint; i’ve ragged on my teachers, bosses, superiors countless of times - passed disparaging or demeaning remarks.
aye, don’t want to make a mountain out of a molehill - don’t think you were that much affected by that remark, but after reading some of the remarks here, i just felt like i should throw in my two cents as well.
April 11th, 2006 at 9:51 am (#)
hey wanderer, I was thinking, I know that we all have the freedom of speech (or sort of, coming from a neutralised SG-ean) but maybe you should think before you comment.
April 11th, 2006 at 10:47 am (#)
Political correctness aside, I can tell you from a straight person’s point of view that saying someone [or a group for that matter] is “from brokeback mountain” ISN’T akin to simply saying “they’re not straight”. it’s meant to be derogatory, it’s meant as a jibe towards something they don’t take seriously: why else would you distill an issue as complex as homosexuality into a movie reference?
Look, noone [no gay person,especially] looks at a straight person and makes a reference to a movie or a porn flick in a manner
yes, we do label things. and when we label them, we also impress our value judgment on them. they may not be THAT insulting [aka being called a minah is something i've grown used to] but that doesn’t discount the fact that they are unfounded and derogatory and shouldn’t exist in the first place. Gay acceptance, just like racial acceptance or gender discrimination, may not be a reality but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep fighting for it, and doesn’t make it easier to live with.
Being proud of who we are can only truly occur when we are allowed to be ourselves completely and we are accepted for it. when this occurs, pple will know that being gay/female/a certain race doesn’t have a particular look or particular behaviour or a particular manner of speech. when this occurs, pple will stop thinking of a movie as the sole contact point to our identity.
April 11th, 2006 at 11:00 am (#)
That’s the thing about Brokeback Mountain - it was NOT “first and foremost a gay story anyway”. It’s a love story about 2 people who couldn’t come together for whatever reasons, c.f. Romeo and Juliet. The only difference is that the reason in this story was their sexual orientation.
We could go back and forth forever bemoaning intolerance/bigotry/ignorance, and comparing it back and forth. But while I will admit to being happy enough that homosexuals (like racial/religious minorities) are not openly persecuted in Singapore, that still doesn’t mean it’s okay to just go making such remarks.
Put it this way: if there had been a table of Indian diners at a restaurant, and said waiter had said, “Wah lao, is that entire table from Vasantham Central?” or something, they aren’t gonna be happy about it either.
April 11th, 2006 at 11:02 am (#)
wanderer: And for that matter, they’re also not going to appreciate your calling their entire race a “species”.
April 11th, 2006 at 12:20 pm (#)
I don’t think that you could have a connotation to a movie as recent as “Brokeback Mountain”, and assume that it means the same thing to everybody. I’d give the benefit of the doubt to people who say that.
Maybe you shouldn’t distill the entire homosexual experience into a movie reference? Why not say you shouldn’t distill the entire homosexual experience into a word and ban the use of “gay”?
Why is it not derogatory to call guys “the male species” and when somebody says “the gay species” it’s insulting?
I think people need to lighten up and realise that any form of behaviour that deals with sexual conduct, straight or otherwise, is a rich mine for politically incorrect humour, that’s just the way it is. Also need to realise that getting too strident about perceived slights is just not very good PR. Which is why I hope, for your sakes, that the waiter did not get fired.
April 11th, 2006 at 12:47 pm (#)
Elanor Roosevelt once said, “Nobody can make you feel inferior without your consent.” So why not forget about what everyone thinks, and live your own life as you see fit?
April 11th, 2006 at 1:24 pm (#)
Agrainofsand: I don’t think words like these actually make any of us feel inferior - I personally count myself lucky that I am not so ignorant of others’ feelings. Our lives - if you know anything of them - ARE being lived as we see fit. But that doesn’t take away the point that sometimes, maybe just once in a while, it would be nice to be respected in our capacity as individuals.
e.g. Just because I’m from RGS/Filipino/gay doesn’t mean I’m automatically destined to be a Alpha-female, man-eating maid who goes for fishing trips with my “friend” on Brokeback Moutain.
That’s all.
April 11th, 2006 at 1:33 pm (#)
Brokeback Mountain certainly did not distill the entire homosexual “experience” into one movie. I do not believe any one movie can do that. As such, to “distill the entire homosexual ‘experience’ into a movie reference” would be considered small-minded and ignorant. The nice word to replace those last two adjectives would be “idealistic”.
However, I must agree that Brokeback Mountain will mean different things to different people. For example, when I was queuing up for tickets to Sepet at GV Plaza, there were two ‘jocular’ men in at the box office, in front of me. I say ‘jocular’ because they some people would consider them playful/funny. i considered them an irritating waste of time because they hadn’t had a movie in mind when they got to the front of the queue. While they were discussing which mindless horror film to watch, I heard one half of them say, “You know what would be the scariest to watch? Brokeback Mountain.”
In any case, if whatever went on in Brokeback Mountain was the embodiment of every single-sex relationship, then it would be rather easy to spot the gays from the straights. There would also be a lot more dramatic angst in the world.
Men are not a species. Neither are gays.
Also, if we are shooting for politically incorrect, then perhaps we should be aware that the term “homosexual” was coined in the late 1800s, to name the medical diagnosis behind it. In that context, a homosexual is a sick, sick person, in need of cure.
Now, how politically correct is that?
April 11th, 2006 at 2:12 pm (#)
Something I thought was funny has become the motion of the month. Just like how someone would go “eh, you having UN conference is it?” whenever one hangs out with her ang moh friends.
This entry speaks in a light hearted tone until “species” came along.
Shame on you.
April 11th, 2006 at 6:02 pm (#)
No, I know that Brokeback Mountain doesn’t speak for all gayhood. I’m saying that if you want to take umbrage at being labelled with a movie reference (and it’s a sympathetic movie too) you might as well take umbrage at being called homosexual. (But you’ve already exceeded my expectations and somehow found a way to.)
Yes men and gays are not species. Also I am not a cat but I don’t mind people calling me a cat.
If you were to start taking offence at any harmless label that’s thrown at you you might as well take offense at everything. Laugh it off. You people are gays, not miserables. Otherwise when one of you say things like “straights are insecure about everything” there will be a problem taking her seriously.
Usually “politically correct” is a derogotary term, and it is code for certain situations where people are not mature and need to be handled with kidgloves.
On another note, somebody mentioned that “Brokeback Mountain” is not first and foremost a gay film. That’s true, but neither is it just a film just about two people who love each other, because the story would make absolutely no sense if they weren’t gay, or if they weren’t cowboys.
But I can understand why you’re sick of the “Brokeback” references. I’m a mathematician and I’ve lost count of the times I’ve had “Beautiful Mind” thrown at me.
April 11th, 2006 at 6:23 pm (#)
Wanderer has already apologised. Seems that it (apology) isn’t really good enough for some here. And apparently his poor taste of words i.e. species really riled some up!
Reeks of hypocrisy here for some of the posters, who are so quick to judge i.e. Wanderer = homophobe.
Agree totally that the waiter has no business making such a comment, esp when it’s directed to a patron, who is probably paying his salary the moment food is ordered from the establishment.
Not wanting to diss off anyone, but I am sure in some point in time we had ragged about things/people we disliked so UNLESS YOU HAD BROUGHT IT UP TO THE WAITER, if you had caused him to lose his job, I can only say that you are no better than him.
If the waiter had lacked sensitivity, the OP had loads of narrow-mindness for the last para of the post.
April 11th, 2006 at 6:56 pm (#)
Um, to be honest, the last para was only phrased that way not because I wanted him to lose his job (and for what?), but because 1. this is a restaurant i have links to and 2. I needed to find a roundabout way to talk about my relationship to the restaurant and its owner, without divulging exactly what kind (as I refuse to talk about certain people from my real life, on this site, and the owner of that restaurant is one of them). That’s all.
Other things.
On living life as we see fit. I am. We are. If I’m unhappy that I’m called a chink, that doesn’t mean I’m uncomfortable with who I am.
On the terminology “brokeback”. This is a problematic term that’s become a symbol for something else. Yes, for some people they use this term because they don’t know better; why should be bother about it? The importance of language should not be underrated. Whatever it is Brokeback has become for the mainstream, or for us - the effect, as it’s played out, is that the mainstream has begun to use this euphemistically in reference to us. Fine. Except that it’s lazy, and rude; worst of all, they don’t know that it is. But we’re in danger of having that become the only way they know how to think, and talk about us. Especially when it’s being used to single us out for certain characteristics. It’s like wearing the wrong combination of colours, and knowing that’s why you’re getting whispers and stares. Except that you can’t change your clothes. Ever.
Language, and names, are important. Try using the terms “black” or “N*****”. Or ask me “who’s the boy and who’s the girl?” Think about the daily usage of some of the phrases we use. e.g. I am uneasy to hear every Chinese Singaporean say huang gia (Teochew and Hokkien) to refer to every person from a certain other race here. Why? Everybody says it right? But that’s because that phrase, came from çâ¢ÂªÃ¥â¿, of which çâ¢Âª refers to barbarians who the Chinese exterminated. My grandmother may not mean so when she says that, but when it is used to refer to my girlfriends; it’s not an easy thing to live with. Or try being called a chink. Or have slit eye actions made at you.
Whether or not those of us who are upset by the remark, indeed do the same kind of judging, is not the point. A wrong does not right that wrong, what more a hypothetical wrong which isn’t in the context of the topic.
And: believe me, we’ve got a ton to try to laugh off. We try. I certainly do.
April 11th, 2006 at 10:29 pm (#)
That’s gotta’ hurt (the waiter).
April 13th, 2006 at 2:02 am (#)
if anything, i think you’ve done something valuable by opening this discussion up to everyone (to tell you the truth, i’ve been keeping track of this post’s comments but don’t have anything productive to say)
April 17th, 2006 at 12:54 am (#)
Lanciao Kapitalist !
Just because you are a high class patron, you think you own the waiter issit?
The poor thing is trying to pay for college/ pay grandma’s hospital bills/ send money to children in Calcutta slums and bam! he is suddenly relegated to the second division (sorry, class) of society.
Nope, sorry, you are a waiter, you do not deserve dignity and free speech. Thats only for us rich folks.
Well eff you. Waiter Pride.
April 17th, 2006 at 1:14 am (#)
I don’t think you’re quite qualified to say that if you don’t know my employment history.
Though the moment his free speech takes away another person’s (or in this case, 8 people’s) dignity, I don’t know how much dignity he has anymore.
April 17th, 2006 at 6:51 pm (#)
goodness chile! what a storm in a tea cup! you know we love you and all are always welcome - offending staff member will be put right! and until i see you again, happy trails my lovelies!
April 21st, 2006 at 1:20 am (#)
I think if you’re confident in yourself, you’ve no need to react to such comments.
It’s simple.
I’m indian chinese myself. some people at work, especially the old aunties tend to ask, “wei she me ni na me hei?” (why are you so dark/black?) And they continue, “but at least your not as black as the malay guy in the kitchen”. Now, what’s that about?
Very obviously, one could make the effor to correct them. But other than that, I feel that homos in general should really play down the defensiveness; after all it’s natural, isn’t it?