I have to admit while I have gotten used to some people in this community apologizing for abhorrent behavior, I was taken aback by the lack of concern about the banner and behavior at the recent soccer game between Davis High and Jesuit.
What do you mean you don’t understand why it’s homophobic to have a sign at a soccer game that says “Jesuit (Hearts) Wieners?”
Do I need to spell this out? Wiener in this case is slang for male genitalia. So they are implying that the all-male student population likes male sexual organs rather than female ones.
One person responded: “While I happen to be straight, if someone called me ‘a wiener lover’ I would not think he was trying to disparage gays.”
Really, what would you think? The implication here is the same as it was in my day when the term “faggot” was often used as a synonym for weakness.
It reaches into a stereotype that implies that people who are gay are somehow less masculine, and therefore weak.
Incredibly, that same person wrote: “Further, if the game had been between St. Francis’s girls’ team and Davis High’s girls’ team and the banner had read “St. Francis ⼠Loves Wieners,” I don’t think anyone would think that was an anti-gay slur.”
There is a level of absurdity here. The putdown is not prima facia an anti-gay slur. It’s not like calling someone “faggot” or using the “N-word” to describe African-Americans. It is a situational insult. Suggesting that females love male genitalia is obviously not implying that they are gay, though I suspect many females would be similarly offended by the sexism.
As one person noted, the insensitivity here is the implication that gays are something negative.
But it is more than that. One person noted, “There is a huge difference between the insensitivity of what they may have considered a light-hearted playful name calling as young men are prone to do back and forth… and true hate speech which has an entirely different intent.”
Some of that may be true and I certain do not believe that the act represents deep-seated hatred or fear of gay people.
On the other hand, it perpetuates a needless and pointless cultural stereotype that gay people are somehow less manly and, by extension, weak.
Indeed, another popular phrase is “That’s so gay.” It has become a common part of popular lexicon for some time.
But this summer, the Huffington Post reported on a study from the University of Michigan which “revealed the phrase could have deep consequences for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) students.”
Published in the Journal of American College Health, “The study reportedly examined the impact of hearing ‘that’s so gay’ among 114 LGBT students between the ages of 18 and 25.”
“The resulting data found that LGBT students who heard the phrase frequently were more likely to feel isolated and experience headaches, poor appetite or eating problems than those who didn’t. Still, the study also revealed another troubling statistic: a mere 14 respondents (13 percent) hadn’t heard ‘that’s so gay’ at all throughout the duration of the survey.”
“Given the nature of gay-lesbian-bisexual stigma, sexual minority students could already perceive themselves to be excluded on campus and hearing ‘that’s so gay’ may elevate such perceptions,” Michael Woodford, an assistant professor of social work and co-author of the new study, said in a statement. ” ‘That’s so gay’ conveys that there is something wrong with being gay.”
Professor Woodford went on to suggest, “Policies and educational programs are needed to help students, staff and faculty to understand that such language can be harmful to gay students. Hopefully, these initiatives will help to eliminate the phrase from campuses.”
Some may argue that this is all some sort of political correctness gone amuck, that people are too sensitive. Sure, and let’s just laugh off the high rate of suicide for gays and lesbians.
The problem is that adolescence, even for those seemingly in the mainstream, can be an awkward and uncertain time. Add to that the ambiguity and confusion of sorting out one’s own sexuality in the face of a culture that, while more accepting than it was even twenty years ago when I was in high school, still has pockets, particularly in the religious community, that is intolerant if not hostile to the gay lifestyle.
Given all of that – and given this community’s surface reputation for tolerance – it is stunning not only the reaction of some on here, but the lack of action at the sporting event.
And so while I believe the superintendent has not gone nearly far enough, at least he was quick to acknowledge the act itself was wrong.
He wrote to the community: “On Monday, my office became aware of inappropriate behavior from three fans at last Saturday’s DHS vs. Jesuit home soccer game. The three fans, dressed as hot dogs, displayed a large banner that read ‘Jesuit (heart symbol) Loves Wieners.’ “
He writes, “Students and staff agree that the sign was a clear anti-gay message targeting the Jesuit all-male student body population.”
He states unequivocally: “The Davis Joint Unified School District opposes this type of messaging and fan behavior and apologizes to those who were present.”
The bottom line for me is that if you are not offended or otherwise believe that a banner stating “Jesuit (hearts) Wieners” is inappropriate for a high school sporting event, replace “wieners” with “dick” and see if that floats your boat. Because that’s what they are saying.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David
Lest you think that I am tolerant of racist and discriminatory behavior, I would direct you to my comments about the noose incident which I felt was worthy of direct official condemnation. In this case, I think the superintendent’s apology and statement of inappropriate behavior was just about right. An acknowledgement without hyperbole.
I would like to take this issue full circle. It is only when we get to the point in our society where that sign is not offensive will we have achieved the goal of tolerance.
You are probably too young to remember the comedian Lenny Bruce.
I think that he said it best with regard to racism. Two of my favorite quotes:
[quote]It’s the suppression of the word that gives it the power, the violence, the viciousness.[/quote]
[quote]if President Kennedy would just go on television, and say, “I would like to introduce you to all the niggers in my cabinet,” and if he’d just say “nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger” to every nigger he saw, ….. ’til nigger didn’t mean anything anymore, then you could never make some six-year-old black kid cry because somebody called him a nigger at school.[/quote]
Lenny was an equal opportunity offender. He also ran riffs on Catholics, Jews, spics, wops, hicks, honkies….
Ok, so this is obviously extreme, but I think the point is well taken. I think there is a substantial difference between this kind of flagrant, public attempt at probably trying to be funny since they were readily recognizable to all, and the kind of secretive behavior of the KKK wearing masks or even the anonymous and cowardly behavior of the person who hung the noose. Whether you agree or not, I think that it is clear that these kids were not thinking that what they were doing was going to bring any punishment on them. They simply didn’t appreciate that others would be so offended by what they considered a joke. So they need education and have doubtless received it in the form of an apology and disapproval from the superintendent. Seems about right to me.
What you and others characterize as “homophobic”, was obviously an attack on Catholicism and religion in general. The ‘secular world’ hates and seeks to belittle institutions such as Jesuit High. Yet secular Davis wants to “spin” their outrage to ‘homophobia’. Sad.
hpierce
[quote]Yet secular Davis wants to “spin” their outrage to ‘homophobia’. Sad.[/quote]
Please tell me your comment was written “tongue in cheek”.
If serious, I have to point out the David, or the Vanguard for that matter, hardly represents “secular Davis”, whatever that might be.
[quote] “tongue in cheek”. [/quote]Yes, but someone who really wanted to could attribute sexual (admittedly, just a little bit beyond ‘first base’) connotations to your quoted words.
Hypersensitivity, in my view, desensitizes folks. Counterproductive.
Much ado about nothing. A dumb prank followed up by a letter to the newspaper has somehow generated two editorials and a demand for more diversity of our teachers. Just another day in in the life of David.
To be clear, homophobia is wrong. Stupidity is stupidity. However, prolongation of the discussion and publication of the photos only serves to give the idiots more than their share of “fame” (or, if you prefer, ‘infamy’).
hpierce
[quote]Yes, but someone who really wanted to could attribute sexual (admittedly, just a little bit beyond ‘first base’) connotations to your quoted words. [/quote]
Then if the reference was to tongue in your own cheek, could this be seen as a precursor to masturbation ?
David
i want to apologize. I think that hpierce and I have taken a serious piece and made too light of it. I am in no way attempting to trivialize a reasonable subject for public consideration.
I am dead serious on my belief that protracted discussion,and continued publication of the picture will just serve to feed the adolescent ‘need’ to draw attention to themselves and their sorry behavior.
hpierce
[quote]To be clear, homophobia is wrong. Stupidity is stupidity. However, prolongation of the discussion and publication of the photos only serves to give the idiots more than their share of “fame” (or, if you prefer, ‘infamy’).[/quote]
In this case, I completely agree. The noose incident I saw as being of much greater significance…..
many disagreed. I think we have consensus that homophobia and bigotry of any type are wrong, what we seem to have is a difference of opinion about where the line should be drawn and the resultant degree of disapprobation. How surprising !
Medwoman,
As always, valuable comments. I read the Vanguard all the time but rarely write. This time I want to thank you for invoking Lenny Bruce– he was a rare voice in this enduring socio-political thicket; and we’d do well to listen to him again, or, as in some cases, keep listening. (My dad represented Lenny in the infamous San Francisco “c**sucker” trial- – the only trial at the state level ever won, so I grew up on Lenny’s barbed insights, and with his reverence/irreverence for the power of words and how to use and/or hear them . . . ) Thank you again for keeping Lenny alive….those who are too young to remember the man himself might want to research and listen to him. Brilliant, brilliant person. And VERY funny, as well.
Suggestion… nix the picture, so the twerps don’t get more “publicity”..
I’ll bet there was screaming at the Greenwald house last night. Congratulations on the Cards victory. Talk about being down to your last strike and that check swing was very very close to being the end. The Cards are clutch and fun to watch and I hope my Giants are up to the task. Should be a great playoff series.
No one from Jesuit complained. The complaint came from a woman who was not at the game, but whose sister got involved in physical altercation with the hot dog people, taking their banner away, who then claimed that she was “verbally assaulted” when they told her how they felt about it. The woman’s sister and daughter came home upset that more people didn’t get involved. You don’t need to explain, David. But, I just don’t believe that this warrants the level of response or concern that you and the complainers are striving for. I think that the woman was wrong to seize the banner and probably deserved to be called a few names for doing so. She should have kept her hands to herself.
Remember when the Phillies fans treated Tim Lincicum to wolf whistles because of the length of his hair in 2010? His response was a grin and “they must think I have a cute butt,” effectively turning it back on them. He also led his team in winning the game. Jesuit won that game handily and, if the banner offended any of the players, I’m sure they don’t care now.
David said.
[quote]And so while I believe the superintendent has not gone nearly far enough, at least he was quick to acknowledge the act itself was wrong.[/quote]
What can he say or do to satisfy your desire that he has gone far enough?
Nora Oldwin
Thank you for the kind words. It would appear that we share an appreciation for both the humor and the wisdom of Lenny Bruce. By the way, that line ” come on man, I only said it, I didn’t do it….” is another favorite of mine.
I also read the Vanguard for quite a while before I made the realization that I had something valuable to contribute, namely a different point of view. As a doctor, and particularly as a gynecologist, I have no use for our society’s tendency to disparage some parts of our body as somehow unmentionable, dirty, or even evil.
I see this in my office on a daily basis when fully grown women refer to their genitals as “down there” or “lady parts” or their ” hoo hoo” or sometimes words that I did not know existed and had to have them show me what they were talking about. I have difficulty understanding why we have chosen to make it any less acceptable to call the vulva ” vulva” or the vagina ” vagina” or the penis “penis” than calling our head or hands by their proper names. i think this dumbing down of the conversation about sexual organs, desire, sexuality and responsible sexual behavior is not only responsible for such displays as the one that sparked this discussion, but also for our current 49% unintended pregnancy rate. And for those of you who do not see this as a problem, I will be happy to have a conversation with you anytime, anywhere, bill on me, to explain why it is.
But, back to you Nora, I would like to encourage you to post more often. I am sure that you, like each of us, has unique experiences and points of view to share. My feeling is that the more people who share their perspective,
the richer the conversation will be.
I’m back on here at the risk that every word I key will be torn apart by the lawlerly types among us. Let me start with this simple premise: we all write or speak to communicate with one another. When one of us write or speak a phrase that the reader is 99% sure means something, even if the author writes it slightly incorrectly, I for one don’t need to call the author on it. For example: simple typo’s or a word written without proper grammar. We all pretty much know what the writer intended, so communication was accomplished. This blog is not a court of law. No one will be locked up for life if they write something that is very slightly incorrect. So I am back on here today to try to communicate. If some readers want to nit pick apart every phrase that I attempt to communicate to you, I guess that is your right. For example, a while ago an author mentioned DUI and a reader picked her apart and tried to condescendingly explain to her that a DUI can be pot or alcohol or rx’s. I think that author probably knew what a DUI was…. So in my opinion, she was communicating effectively. I think the reader understood her comment, too. So it is with much trepidation that I come back onto this website to write my opinions.
Whoops: *lawyerly*. Let the games begin…..
Re: the phrase “that’s so gay”: would anyone object if teens said, “that’s so Mexican”? It is wrong to use that phrase. In the 70’s I objected to men referring to me as a “chick”. Years later, we took back that word & lovingly referred to a movies as a “chick flick”. But originally, that word stung me. So I have gay friends who lovingly refer to each other as “fags”, but I would never joke with them and use “their” word. Now if all the people holding the banner were gay guys, they could probably have gotten away with it. But I have a sinking feeling if someone in the stands KNEW they were gay guys, someone would have been offended! Offended enough to ask them to remove it! I applaud the brave person who asked those people to remove that banner. I am ashamed that more faculty and parents did not immediately tell those people to remove the banner. And I’m rather flabbergasted that David had to spend time explaining stuff, twice…
David wrote:
> Wiener in this case is slang for male genitalia.
> So they are implying that the all-male student
> population likes male sexual organs rather than
> female ones.
No one has ever called me “homophobic”, I had a gay roommate (and a girlfriend) as an undergrad. We still keep in touch and a few years back when I was in LA for business I went to a party at his place in West Hollywood and I’m pretty sure I was the only “breeder” at the party.
Just like the “boy who cried wolf” we have the same problem with the “boy who cried homophobia” When people hear “hate crime” and “homophobia” every time someone makes a joke about a guy in a pink shirt we run the risk that people will just roll their eyes when a gay guy getting beat by skinheads really needs help.
> On the other hand, it perpetuates a needless and
> pointless cultural stereotype that gay people are
> somehow less manly
This is not a “cultural stereotype”, most (but not all) gays are “less manly” just like most (but not all) woman are “less manly”. We need to just get over this and be OK with it.
Last night at a talk to Waldorf parents Kim John Payne mentioned that he was happy to have so many more men in the audience than he typically has when he talks about parenting. Using David’s logic Kim John Payne is homophobic since pointing out that more men in Davis care about parenting he is saying that they are “less manly” and probably all closeted homos…
[i]What can he say or do to satisfy your desire that he has gone far enough?
[/i]
Yes, I’d be curious to know that, too.
No one asked David to explain anything once or twice. He obviously thought that he didn’t get the response he wanted, so felt that he needed to explain further. That’s on him. I disagreed and explained myself further. I also want to point out that the woman did not make a request that the banner be removed. She physically took it. She apparently thought she was dealing with students (minors). In an altercation it is commonly asked who laid hands on the other first to determine greater fault. It was the altercation that created the level of extreme upset. The banner itself was annoying.
Hmm. This raises some interesting questions.
Is an offensive banner protected by free speech?
Does the first amendment exist to protect offensive speech, or to protect speech that everyone agrees with.
Does physically and forcibly taking a banner constitute assault? Theft?
Is it fascist behavior to block somebody else’s speech?
“What can he say or do to satisfy your desire that he has gone far enough?”
This is an excellent question. My understanding is that there has been a persistent problem at sporting events. I got an email from a parent who complained that last year’s DHS-Jesuit championship game was marred by poor behavior and obscene chants. So I think I would like to see the Superintendent take steps to put an end to this kind of conduct.
” I had a gay roommate (and a girlfriend) as an undergrad. We still keep in touch”
You’re arguing that you’re not homophobic because some of your best friends are gay? I think you missed some of the points this piece was trying to make which in part was that as the study of “that’s so gay” suggests, even seemingly innocuous pop cultural references can do harm.
These are good questions…
“Is an offensive banner protected by free speech?”
Yes and no. The event staff could have asked the individuals to take down the banner or have removed the banner if they did not. They had no “right” to display that banner at this event.
“Does the first amendment exist to protect offensive speech, or to protect speech that everyone agrees with.”
The first amendment specifically prevents the government from making acts to prohibit free speech. For instance the court has ruled that the KKK has the right to march and express their opinions. However, the courts have also put time and place restrictions on the exercise of these rights. I believe the court here would rule that the event organizers had the right to prevent inappropriate material from being displayed at a school event.
“Does physically and forcibly taking a banner constitute assault? Theft?
Is it fascist behavior to block somebody else’s speech?”
It’s possible. I tend to doubt any prosecutor would prosecute it under these conditions.
Guess my problem with teasing in general is the teaser always thinks the victim should just have a thicker skin. I tried to teach my teens that self depreciating humour is always the safest humour. It can be fun, without offending our friends. On occasion I have referred to myself as a “feminazi”, when I’m being a little over the top with my feminism. I’ve also made Irish drinking jokes because I am 3/4 Irish. I also make jokes about how I am tardy and I am sloppy, & I love dark chocolate & hate to exercise so I’m overweight…. Self depreciating humour keeps us safe when we aren’t sure if we are offending anyone else. It’s kind of like what I try to teach my kids about competitive academics & sports: just try to compete with your best self, not with others. Peace.
If a kid gets bullied and ends up committing suicide, is the appropriate response, well they needed to have thicker skin?
David wrote:
> I think you missed some of the points this piece
> was trying to make which in part was that as the
> study of “that’s so gay” suggests, even seemingly
> innocuous pop cultural references can do harm.
I got your point and said:
> We need to just get over this and be OK with it.
If a conservative (or libertarian) kid hears all day that he is a bad person because he does not want to pay more taxes to help the down and out it is not a great thing, but he needs to get over it.
How many times have we all heard (or seen a “seemingly innocuous pop cultural reference to) “dumb jock” or “spoiled rich kid”? Should we ban this as “hate speech” also? How about banning meat and any reference to killing animals from the schools to make the vegan kids feel more comfortable?
I’m hoping that David and others on the left that want to protect their friends from ANYTHING that might hurt their feelings will realize that we can’t live in a free country if no one ever has hurt feelings and that going after petty things like causes groups to get farther apart not closer together.
I think that all of us can agree the sign was immature and in bad taste. Let’s ALL say that and move on not have the people on the left arguing that it was anti-gay while the conservative Catholics are arguing that it was anti-priest (in reference to priests having sex with Jesuit kids)…
I don’t think all of your examples are really parallel to what we are talking about here. I’ll ask you directly: If a kid gets bullied and ends up committing suicide, is the appropriate response, well they needed to have thicker skin or just get over it?
“I don’t think all of your examples are really parallel to what we are talking about here. I’ll ask you directly: If a kid gets bullied and ends up committing suicide, is the appropriate response, well they needed to have thicker skin or just get over it?”
Talk about examples that aren’t parallel. It was just an ignorant sign, nobody was getting bullied. Move on, get over it.
Did you read the report on “that’s so gay”?
Did you read the report, David? It’s behind a paywall, so I couldn’t assess whether it was a reasonably conducted study. ([url]http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07448481.2012.673519[/url]) An online survey with a very small cohort, done by a sociology professor who specializes in heterosexist topics, gives me considerable pause about the likelihood of its scientific strength. The conclusions, which you can read at the abstract, are ideological prescriptions. Usually the conclusion of a scientific study describes the study. It doesn’t say what society should to about it.
There’s a reason sociology is considered a soft science.
To answer your previous question: bullying and teen suicide should be addressed from both ends — that of the perpetrators, and the self-confidence issues of the victims. But you’ve tied a lot of things in with this particular incident that really have no bearing on it.
Don: I did. I have it on my computer at home. You are stereotyping on a field. Some of the best methodologists I worked with as UCD were in the Sociology Department. Michigan is a top notched university. I think the concern needs to be not that single incident like this one is going to cause severe problems, but the overall cultural message that already troubled students are receiving is still conflating homosexuality with weakness and lack of masculinity. There are also psychological studies that back this work up. The troubling part of the Michigan Study is how seemingly innocuous things can cause problems and the pervasiveness of the stimulus. The quickest defense mechanism is turning the issue around and proclaiming that people ought to get a thicker skin or get over it – and yet not one of these people suggesting this are clinical researchers studying the impact of these stimuli.
David wrote:
> I’ll ask you directly: If a kid gets bullied
> and ends up committing suicide, is the appropriate
> response, well they needed to have thicker skin
> or just get over it?
It is nice and simple (and easy on the parents that in most cases were horrible parents to the kid) to say “Tim called Bobby gay and he killed himself case closed there is nothing else and no one else to blame, Tim is an evil person and must be punished for the death.â
My wife has a masters in clinical psychology and was working with really screwed up (cutting, suicidal, eating disorders etc.) kids when I met her and there is a lot going on in a kids life before they pop the pills (or pull the trigger or make the jump) and if you do a little research you will see that signs that are in bad taste trying to be funny does not result in kids ending it all after they see the signs.
What I think you don’t understand is that if you want a perfect society where NO ONE can have their feelings hurt (so they wonât feel bad and kill themselves) we will not only ban any negative reference to same sex attraction, but ban any negative reference to the teachings of most religions that say that same set attraction is a sin (that means no vote no on âprop hateâ signs on any lawns)…
“if you want a perfect society where NO ONE can have their feelings hurt…”
What I want is that people act decently toward each other and when they don’t they get criticized. I see too many excuses here for bad behavior and that concerns me.
On the topic of free speech from a different Greenwald (who, by the way, will be in Davis on Tuesday night)
http://bit.ly/Wlrqyo
[i]What do you mean you don’t understand why it’s homophobic to have a sign at a soccer game that says “Jesuit (Hearts) Wieners?”[/i]
[i]. . . I certain(ly) do not believe that the act represents deep-seated hatred or fear of gay people.[/i]
Are those statements not contradictory?
I’m against bullying & teasing. Often a teen will pretend the teasing/bullying doesn’t bother them as much as it does because they’ll endure worse teasing/bullying if they wear their heart on their sleeve. Teachers sometimes are in the their breakroom at lunch & between classes & miss the interaction that occurs. My kids had a wonderful teacher at Holmes Jr. High who opened his classroom to the 7th graders at lunchtime. They could go into Mr. O’Brien’s classroom & listen to CD’s & talk & know that an adult was there & things would not get out of hand. Bless him. He gave up his own lunchtime so that 7th graders would have a place where they felt safe. He went above & beyond his job. There were several teachers who care about teasing & bullying, but many others turn a blind eye or a tired, semi-burnt out eye. All adults: “Just ask yourself to care.” (Jaycee Dugard) I walked by a group of teens who were being horrible to one kid at a public swimming pool several years ago. They were standing in the parking lot just taunting the kid as other adults walked right by! I paused a minute, just to make sure what was happening. As I started to approach them one kid started to shove the victim. I did step in and wait until they all left the victim. I just looked at him & he looked at me, then he walked away. I was so shocked, later I thought of all the right things to say:”It gets better, ignore the as&*les” etc. But at that moment I was so speechless that those other adults walked by this scene. There were at least 8 junior high aged kids, for God’s sake. There is no way they didn’t see them bothering the one kid! If that kid is reading this, I’m so, so sorry I didn’t do more that day.
P.S. Re: David’s suicide question: does anyone want to be the straw that breaks the camel’s back?
Red flags:
– Internet study.
– Small cohort.
– Self-selected participants.
– Vague symptoms.
– Didactic conclusion.
I don’t find it very meaningful, but I’ve only read the abstract.
Language has meaning, words have consequences. But I think cognitive therapists would tell you that the individual can change the impact of those words on himself or herself. That’s not calling for a thicker skin or to ‘get over it’. Cognitive therapy is a time-tested and research-based approach to dealing with stress factors.
Gay hasn’t meant homosexual for all that long. ‘That’s so gay’ is derisive, but that phrase has been around for an even shorter period. If the organization that did the ‘It gets better’ campaign really wanted to change it, they could do a series of ads: “That’s so gay” showing powerful role models.
For those who don’t feel like googling the article, here is the conclusion from the abstract:
[i]Conclusion: College professionals and student leaders must acknowledge that the phrase is a form of heterosexist harassment. As such, policies addressing diversity and harassment should address studentsâ use of this phrase, aiming to reduce its use. Additionally, colleges and universities should develop practices that counteract poorer well-being associated with hearing the phrase.[/i]
Maybe someone should go to a 6th grader who is being teased for being a slut or having a flat chest or being a tomboy or being gay or being a dumb jock and ask that 6th grader if they know what the words cognitive thinking mean and if they know how to apply that technique to themselves when someone is being mean to them. If their parents don’t know this skill and the 6th grader doesn’t know this skill, they could be taught? I have used the cognitive thought process to help me as an adult when I experience stress & anxiety. But when I am feeling blue, loving people and kind words from others seem to help me more. Sometimes just knowing a friend is out there, even if I can’t reach them, improves my mood. My pets help, too, more than cognitive thinking alone.
Somehow a stupid wiener sign has turned into all this. Typical of you liberals.
Stop being offensive, rusty.
I like Don Shor’s most recent post. My dad worked for the Massachusetts State Police in the late 60’s and the 70’s. Remember when the cops were called pigs and a campaign was started, “Pride, Integrity, Guts”? I think that was a good idea.
“That’s so gay”. I would love to hear readers’ positive suggestions for the word gay.
Lydia L
I love a game so I’ll start :
“Generosity, acceptance, ? Yes!”
Ok, it’s early and the “yes” is suboptimal. Come on Vanguarders. a good “y” word is needed !
Thanks Medwoman! I hoped a creative mind would come to the rescue! My ideas were not nearly so beautiful. Happy Monday Morning. đ
Y is for yearning to be accepted and loved exactly as you are.