Becoming A Cop
|
New officers learning in the field Well that was lame Advice for the newbies Promotions Hey smack-talkers Awesomely bad TV alert Life in the spotlight Just an intermission Graduation story Question from a reader August 06 September 06 October 06 November 06 December 06 January 07 February 07 March 07 April 07 May 07 June 07 July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 November 08 December 08 January 09 February 09 March 09 April 09 May 09 June 09 July 09 August 09 September 09 October 09 November 09 
RSS 2.0    Share!
|
|
|
Polar bears and homosexuals
There have been a few times in the course of reporting this project where someone has said or done something and I have been struck by how truly different I am from the subjects of my story.
The first time was an interview I conducted before the academy even began. One of the recruits told me a reason he wanted to be a cop is because he really liked the idea of following orders, of structure. He didn't want to be too free, he said. Oh wow, I thought. This person has a completely different perspective than I do. We could not have more disparate desires in a profession. I had another 'oh wow' moment when I went with the group to the Museum of Tolerance in LA yesterday. During a workshop, one of the recruits said he had never met a gay person before. Ever. Actually, he said he'd met more polar bears than gay people. Oh wow. He's not one of the recruits I'm following, so I don't know a lot about him, just what he said at orientation. He is probably in his mid to late 20s. I'd guess between 26 and 29. He's been in the Navy for 8 years and is married with a couple of kids. And he's said he's never met a gay person. The woman running the workshop was quick to point out that he has never met anyone who self-identified as a homosexual. Because let's face it, this guy has, without a doubt, met gay people, he just doesn't know it. Every gay man is not going to be like Nathan Lane in "The Birdcage." I chatted with the trainer later about it. She said that it's probably just an example of a person seeing what they want to see. Maybe, but willful ignorance aside, let's assume he really has never known a gay person. Sure, a gay person has maybe been the clerk at a store he's shopped at or a doctor he's gone to, but he's obviously never had a close gay friend, acquaintance or family member. How can this man's life experience be so different from mine? We're about the same age. I've grown up in Kern County since I was 12. It's not like I seek out gay people to befriend. But over the years I have had dozens of gay friends. I'll admit I've never met a gypsy, never shook hands with a Masai warrior and never broke bread with an Eskimo. But I'd argue that these groups of people are thin on the ground in the places I've lived. You can't swing a dead cat in California without hitting a gay person. Is this recruit an aberration? Are there a lot of people out there who have never met a gay person? Is it concerning that someone who is going to be an officer has been so limited in his contact with people who are different from him? Are there any groups, ethnicities or sub-cultures you have had no experience with? -- CS 62 comments from 18 users
posted by
randomfactor
on Nov 9, 2006 at 11:31 AM
I've met plenty of gays, just never had the opportunity to count one as a friend. (My circle is fairly small.) . Polar bears, on the other hand... :) posted by
dusty1215
on Nov 9, 2006 at 11:57 AM
Perhaps many people don't identify or label people by their sexual orientation. As far as "swinging a dead cat" without hitting a gay person..that's a broad statement. Could you elaborate? Do you mean as opposed to someplace like TX, MA, GA, etc?
posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Nov 9, 2006 at 12:07 PM
I have no experience with the Amish. They seem nice enough though. I'm just trying to figure out how they check their email without electricity. ; )
posted by
anonymous
on Nov 9, 2006 at 01:25 PM
Has anyone ever seen that episode of The Office where the boss outs one of his employees and they have to go through "sensitivity training." Maybe they should play that episode at new employee orientations.
posted by
coochee
on Nov 9, 2006 at 02:44 PM
If he was a squid for 8 years, he's met many, many, many, many, many etc. gays. posted by
BecomingACop
on Nov 9, 2006 at 03:08 PM
Several of the other recruits also commented at the time on the likelihood that some members of the Navy may have been homosexual.Also, funniest comment of the day was e-mailed to me by a friend who I know will never post it, so I'm doing it for her: BTW, I've hit a number of gay people with dead cats, and they don't like it one bit. posted by
randomfactor
on Nov 9, 2006 at 03:58 PM
I had a gay cat once, but she's dead now...
posted by
dusty1215
on Nov 9, 2006 at 04:10 PM
Perhaps that is the cat he is swinging around Random.
posted by
randomfactor
on Nov 9, 2006 at 04:15 PM
Nah. I've still got her around here somewhere. In fact, my username is in her honor.
posted by
anonymous
on Nov 9, 2006 at 04:25 PM
"many people don't identify or label people by their sexual orientation." And why should they? Who gives a rat's ass whether a person is gay or straight? This is the thing I don't understand. "Gay pride". Where is there pride in what you do in the bedroom? It's sex people, plain and simple. Are gays so screwed up that that's the only thing they can identify with or take "pride" in? Would somebody please explain this to me?
posted by
randomfactor
on Nov 9, 2006 at 04:29 PM
Simple, Anny. On the *BASIS* of their sexual orientation they are denied equality. They're not screwed up, they're singled out.. Besides, I take particular pride in what I do in the bedroom. If your sex is "plain and simple," then perhaps you're correct not to take pride in it. . But I long for the day when people can truthfully state that it doesn't matter a rodent's south end whether someone is gay or straight, unless you want to go to bed with that person. It'll require a change of laws, though, and a constitutional change in Virginia as of Tuesday. posted by
dusty1215
on Nov 9, 2006 at 04:32 PM
Random..remember your on a blog where swinging dead cats at gays is acceptable and quite the joke. Your point most likely will be missed.
posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Nov 9, 2006 at 04:36 PM
But but random, cats can't be gay. That would make it a natural phenomenon. ; )The real question is was the cat always gay or did one of the other cats make it *turn* gay? posted by
BecomingACop
on Nov 9, 2006 at 04:36 PM
For clarification, swinging dead cats at anything is not acceptable and swinging anything at any minority group is also not acceptable. And Dusty, the C stands for Christina, so when referring to me, the female pronoun is appropriate.-- CS posted by
randomfactor
on Nov 9, 2006 at 04:38 PM
Oh, crap. Now we're going to have gays sneaking *INTO* Mexico across the border:http://www.bakersfield.com/... . I picked her up as a stray. I suspect she picked it up on the streets. posted by
dusty1215
on Nov 9, 2006 at 04:42 PM
Then by all means let me clarify CS..this is a blog where " You can't swing a dead cat without hitting a gay in CA." is acceptable...and then posting this : "BTW, I've hit a number of gay people with dead cats, and they don't like it one bit."-- is ok too.posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Nov 9, 2006 at 04:43 PM
anon, I think for a most gays it's about more than just sex. If you had to live your whole youth with a secret and finally revealed it, you want to shout it out to the world too. It's really just celebrating their differences from the rest of us "breeders"I agree with random though. I feel sorry for your partner if your sex is plain & simple. They do have lots of movies that can show you some new "moves" if you want. posted by
anonymous
on Nov 9, 2006 at 04:44 PM
I agree that gays have been discriminated against in alot of areas, based on their sexual orientation. That still doesn't explain the "pride" part. What about just being proud to be a productive human being, if one is. And if one is a total loser, then what is there to be proud of, gay or straight? Why the demands to change textbooks to point up the "gayness" of some of our historical figures? Again, who cares? Either they were heroes, or they weren't. And who they were banging had nothing to do with their accomplishments.
posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Nov 9, 2006 at 04:45 PM
If there are any ladies tired of a plain and simple sex life, I'll be glad to show you the ropes. ;-). And whip you into shape. posted by
mattloch
on Nov 9, 2006 at 04:46 PM
"For clarification, swinging dead cats at anything is not acceptable and swinging anything at any minority group is also not acceptable. "So swinging anything at a white middle-class male is acceptable? Sh-t. I'm in trouble. I'll start having to wear hockey pads like I'm a Road Warrior if I expect to survive in this brave new world.... posted by
dusty1215
on Nov 9, 2006 at 04:48 PM
I bet you would Hardliner..being the proud sexual being that you are ;)Gee, the comment about "swinging a dead cat and hitting a gay" is gone..poof..isn't that interesting? posted by
dusty1215
on Nov 9, 2006 at 04:50 PM
Mattloch, the comment we were referring to has been deleted. It said: You can't swing a dead cat without hitting a gay in CA.So to be correct..it wasn't about swinging a dead cat AT someone..it was about swwinging a dead cat and hitting a gay, there are so many of them was the point. posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Nov 9, 2006 at 04:50 PM
Yup, nice soft thick cotton ropes. And yup, I'm proud of being an openly heterosexual male. ;-)
posted by
randomfactor
on Nov 9, 2006 at 04:52 PM
Again, Anny, it's quite simple. Their accomplishments are made light of because of their sexual orientation, and/or it's been promulgated that gays haven't accomplished anything of significance. The demands to change textbooks are there to make sure that kind of thing *ISN'T* done to schoolchildren who might believe such dreck.. There's "Irish Pride" and "Chicano Pride" and "Aggie Pride" and so on. What' *WRONG* with "Gay Pride?" You think maybe they should be *ASHAMED?* That certainly seems to be your starting point. . I take particular pride in my parallel-parking skills. That may not be important at all to you--but you may be parked behind me some day.* . (*I once read a letter-to-the-editor by someone who likened anti-gay discrimination to traffic laws which "protect us all." My first thought was, "WOW--now *THERE'S* someone who's terrified of being rear-ended...") posted by
dusty1215
on Nov 9, 2006 at 04:52 PM
As well you should be Hardliner :)
posted by
anonymous
on Nov 9, 2006 at 04:53 PM
Alright you clowns, since you've chosen to take an off-hand comment and make something out of it, let me clarify... I have an absolutely luscious, very active, uninhibited, sex life, and I have all the movies (for entertainment, not instruction) that I need. But thanks anyway Pete, for the offer.
posted by
BecomingACop
on Nov 9, 2006 at 04:56 PM
I haven't deleted anything. Did someone else delete something?
posted by
dusty1215
on Nov 9, 2006 at 04:56 PM
Clown? Not me anon. I thought the clown was the author of the comment that said, you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a gay in CA..just to be clear.
posted by
mattloch
on Nov 9, 2006 at 04:58 PM
Not to bring up the stereotypically racist point, Random, but I'll mention that there's no "white pride" anymore. Does that mean us "crackers" should be *ashamed* now?I read it, Dusty. I was just quoting that because I like to see what people say when I take offense when they "denigrate" or "marginalize" my whiteness/middle-class-edness/maleness/anything else stereotypically '50s ruling class-edness. posted by
dusty1215
on Nov 9, 2006 at 05:00 PM
Well, if thats true CS, then what would this comment: "BTW, I've hit a number of gay people with dead cats, and they don't like it one bit."--refer to?
posted by
anonymous
on Nov 9, 2006 at 05:04 PM
RF, for all we know George Washington was gay. We know what his accomplishments were. Would suddenly finding out he was gay, change those accomplishments? The achievements of gays, at least that I know of, have not been made light of, because up until recent years, nobody knew who was straight and who was gay. And please, don't put words in my mouth....I never said or implied that gays should be ashamed. It's just that I don't understand why anybody wants to put all of their "Pride" into their sexual orientation, rather than their accomplishments. I too am proud of being able to parallel park...a 35-foot 16 passenger Excursion. It took alot of work and practice to master that skill. It doesn't take work or skill to be gay. It's not an accomplishment....any more than being black, chicano, Irish, etc. posted by
dusty1215
on Nov 9, 2006 at 05:07 PM
It takes courage to be gay when surrounded by homophobes anon. Perhaps that point is lost on you. Afterall, attacking a gay is a hate crime, just like attacking a black or a jew.
posted by
BecomingACop
on Nov 9, 2006 at 05:15 PM
"BTW, I've hit a number of gay people with dead cats, and they don't like it one bit." was a comment a friend of mine made in reference to the line in the original post "You can't swing a dead cat in California without hitting a gay person."I have not altered and/ or deleted the original post, any of my comments, or any comments submitted by any other bloggers. posted by
dusty1215
on Nov 9, 2006 at 05:20 PM
Well, I stand corrected CS. It is in your original post. My bad. I knew I wasn't making it up or seeing things that werrn't there.. It appeared somewhere in this blog. I appreciate your correcting me :)
posted by
BecomingACop
on Nov 9, 2006 at 05:23 PM
You can accuse me of being a bigot, but I can't accept being called a censor. ;-)
posted by
dusty1215
on Nov 9, 2006 at 05:28 PM
I do apologize for insinuating you deleted a comment CS. Calling you a bigot or homophobe isn't something I would do on your blog..I would consider it very rude. When in the course of commenting on a long thread, you don't start at the top..you start where you read the last comment...at least I do.
posted by
randomfactor
on Nov 9, 2006 at 05:30 PM
Anny, you're misstating what's being asked for here. The law you presumably refer to, the one Schwartezenegger vetoed, would have made it illegal to say "gays are bad people" in the same way that it's wrong to say that "blacks are inferior" or "Jews are sneaky" or any of another thousand bigoted statements.. Relating to the topic of this blog, the cop-to-be didn't *KNOW* that a large number of the people he had dealt with in the past, had *WORKED* with in the past, were gay. Why not? Perhaps because he's had a lifetime of thinking of them as second-class citizens. Knowing that the chairman of the Republican National Committee is gay might make him think twice about their role in his life. . Making people think is a *GOOD* thing. It happens so seldom. . But if Washington were found to have been gay, what's wrong with saying that? It's not generally known how many famous and prominent people in history *WERE* gay, and that's a part of the prejudice that's built up around them. Is it important that very few of the Founding Fathers were Christian? Only when people start saying they were, and that therefore non-Christians shouldn't have an equal part in this country. It seems to me that the argument against letting people self-identify and pride themselves on being gay is predicated on making them feel guilty for it. And that's Plain Wrong. posted by
dusty1215
on Nov 9, 2006 at 05:34 PM
Random..and to continue that line of thought... Being "gay" must be an identifying factor, within our society if beating up a gay individual is defined in many states, as a hate crime.
posted by
bakonative
on Nov 9, 2006 at 11:15 PM
Geez, I think this blog is all testosterone... bragging about parallel parking... oh my, I won't say another word about what else is going down here! Ooops. I mean, going on. Or... maybe I don't mean that. I just don't want to get all you guys in a wad. Oops. There I go again. Well, hey, listen. I have met gay people. Guys and gals. No biggie in my book. Now boys, go on... keep up the blog, I am quite enjoying it. Oh! BTW..... Married girl, never been with same sex, not homophobic though. Oh geez, PLEASE DONT PICK ON ME GUYS! posted by
jermox
on Nov 10, 2006 at 01:55 AM
The question of a guy being so insulated (be it physically or subconsiously) going into law enforcement seems to be interesting. If anything it sure ought to be a huge culture shock. posted by
Goat
on Nov 10, 2006 at 10:08 AM
Anny Wrote: >>>I agree that gays have been discriminated against in alot of areas, based on their sexual orientation. That still doesn't explain the "pride" part. What about just being proud to be a productive human being, if one is. And if one is a total loser, then what is there to be proud of, gay or straight? --->Gays living in a place where they are denied the same rights as non gays must show everyone they are gay, they are here to stay, and that no one is going to shame them into hiding in the closet. That's what the "pride" thing is all about. That's the first step in achieving equal rights in this country where being a homophobe is the last accepted prejudice in this country that claims to accept everyone. >>>Why the demands to change textbooks to point up the "gayness" of some of our historical figures? Again, who cares? Either they were heroes, or they weren't. And who they were banging had nothing to do with their accomplishments. --->Because the RRR would have everyone believe that gays are an abberation and they are devients, when the reality is, there have always been gays living among us. The RRR has re-written history in an attempt to control us and the gays are just trying to set the record straight. One of our former presidents was arguably homosexual, and another one of our former presidents wore womens underwear. Chances are the bigot sitting next to you on Sunday morning has a coupe of secrets he'd rather you not know about... He'd rather enjoy his fetishes in secret while persecuting others for being who they are. posted by
jbaldwin
on Nov 10, 2006 at 10:22 AM
To answer all of your questions about why gay people feel the need to celebrate being gay, this is from About.com:"The first gay pride parade in 1969, known as the March on Stonewall, started as a protest against discrimination and violence against gays in New York City. Today, pride events have become an annual ritual and have grown to include thousands of gay and gay-friendly participants, not to mention hundreds of spectators. Many gays and lesbians dress in bright colors, head-to-toe leather or sometimes next to nothing. But regardless of the attire, all of the participants join the festivities to remind the world that gays deserve the same rights as others and people should be free to live their own lifestyle, void of judgement or hate. Gay pride is also a symbol of solidarity and an opportunity to express the vivid personalities which reflect the diverse gay communities throughout the world. During this time (and in many places year round), the skies are covered with the gay pride flags and banners, the symbol of gay solidarity and freedom." posted by
jbaldwin
on Nov 10, 2006 at 10:28 AM
As for the baby cop who thinks he's never met a gay person: I once told a gay friend I had never met anyone with AIDS. He went on to list all of the people we knew who had AIDS. I went home and cried. One, because all of these wonderful people I knew were going to die of this awful disease. But two, because I had realized my friends live with secrets every day and I had no idea.
posted by
dgrealish
on Nov 10, 2006 at 11:07 AM
Goat, it is in your last statement that the problem lies. We are, none of us, free from sin. The ones, like Haggard, Swaggart, Baker.........etc, while casting stones at others are living the very lives they are condemning. These are the ones who cast all Christians in a negative light. We are called to love the sinner, but hate the sin. Yet, there are people, who by their own self promotion, put themselves before God and set themselves up as examples of Christianity. Non-believers, seeing these examples, turn from God, thinking all Christians are alike. We are all alike in that we all sin and fall short of the glory of God. But, not all sit in judgment. We may see others knowing that they can do better. But in our own mind we know we are blessed and "there but for the Grace of God, go I".
posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Nov 10, 2006 at 11:14 AM
Well put.
posted by
mattloch
on Nov 10, 2006 at 11:22 AM
I would disagree, DG. Some of us don't choose to live in glass houses, not that we're the stone-throwing types.
posted by
dgrealish
on Nov 10, 2006 at 11:33 AM
I don't understand what you're disagreeing with, mattloch. But that's your prerogative. I was commenting on Goat's last statement: "Chances are the bigot sitting next to you on Sunday morning has a couple of secrets he'd rather you not know about... He'd rather enjoy his fetishes in secret while persecuting others for being who they are." The few, who have had their faces seen and their voices heard, have shown a bad light on the majority.
posted by
mattloch
on Nov 10, 2006 at 11:38 AM
Some of us in the "minority" within the "Christian" nation of America aren't "sinners". Some of us choose to live our lives with secular humanist morals, and so therefore escape the hypocrisy of being a "sinner" while railing against other's "sins". With a liberal (and "liberal") "live and let live" philosophy, you don't throw stones; and by avoiding the traps within religion we're living in a house not made of glass and so aren't affected by those who do choose to throw stones.
posted by
dgrealish
on Nov 10, 2006 at 11:48 AM
Good for you mattloch. To not be a sinner is to be like Jesus, so you are equating yourself to God. A rather lofty entitlement, even for you. There is none among us who is "without sin". We were born into sin. Whether or not you you "avoid the traps within religion" your statement is a judgment upon Christians, so in that sense, you are casting stones. I hope you have good homeowners for that glass house you're living in.
posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Nov 10, 2006 at 11:56 AM
I don't believe in sin. I believe in societal rules, but sins are a religious belief that I do not subscribe to. Societal rules may in fact be based on some sins or religious rules to live by (like thou shalt not kill), but the ones that are the sinners are the ones that believe in them and break their religious teachings. Just like I call some people devil worshipers because they believe in the devil and mention "him" often. I don't believe in "the devil" any more than I believe in the tooth fairy so I cannot be a devil worshiper. Make sense?
 Loading Stories
Advertisement |
