?

Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile Previous Previous Next Next
Anyone remember the quirks of the northern abolitionists? - A little less than a happy high
komos
komos
Anyone remember the quirks of the northern abolitionists?
Sports Illustrated published the results of a poll concerning gay athletes. The results indicated (at a +/-3% error) that of the 979 people polled, 61% indicated that they believe "...that homosexuality as a way of life should be accepted." 86% agreed with the statement, "It is OK for male athletes to participate in sports even if they are openly gay."

Chew on that for a moment and get back to me.
27 comments or Leave a comment
Comments
cosmicserpent From: cosmicserpent Date: April 14th, 2005 07:12 pm (UTC) (Link)
It's kind of odd that the other results of the poll all hover in the 60th percentile, yet that one question stands out at 86%. Methinks it's possible the poll had a flaw.

Or of course, people make even less sense then before.
komos From: komos Date: April 14th, 2005 07:22 pm (UTC) (Link)
But if we can assume that the 86% is reasonably accurate, it's the "mak(ing) even less sense" that I find interesting here. 25% more of the polls respodents appear to accept gays in sports than in everyday life. I'm not sure what to make of that, but it seems like a contradictory position to take.
cosmicserpent From: cosmicserpent Date: April 14th, 2005 07:24 pm (UTC) (Link)
Given how homophobic the average sports fan tends to be (Remember Coco Crisp is a fag after all?), I just tend to doubt the statistics here because of the contradictory position.
komos From: komos Date: April 14th, 2005 07:31 pm (UTC) (Link)
I'm wondering if PC conditioning might have come into play. The way the statement is worded - "it's OK, even if" - is a hedging question that would allow plenty of room for a "yeah, what the hell..." response. The others show much stronger language.
why_style From: why_style Date: April 14th, 2005 08:06 pm (UTC) (Link)
i agree with comsicerpent that the poll seems fishy, but if we are to take the results as accurate, then i'd say there's definitely some merit in what you say about PC conditioning and the wording of the question. it seems odd that so many would think it was okay while acknowledging that it would hurt the athlete's career/endorsements. it's almost like they're saying it's OK for them to play, but they better expect to hear me taunt and slur them if they do.
komos From: komos Date: April 14th, 2005 09:08 pm (UTC) (Link)
That's just it, though. It's "ok even if..." they're gay. Making that statement doesn't preclude the idea that they'll have difficulties being accepted by the fans or by other players, or that they'll be as marketable. A representative of the firm that conducted the poll indicated that there seemed to be an idea that people were fine with the idea of gay athletes, but when more specific questions were asked, they hedged a little more. "It was like, I'm O.K. with this, but if you press me, I have some doubts." (Yeah, not exactly biting analysis, but this is an SI poll we're talking about...)

The sentiment that the presence of an openly gay athlete would affect the performance of the team sounded remarkably like a similar argument concerning "unit cohesiveness" in the military.

why_style From: why_style Date: April 15th, 2005 01:27 pm (UTC) (Link)
can a gay athlete live in a ditch for a month- without infections?
komos From: komos Date: April 15th, 2005 02:19 pm (UTC) (Link)
I'm not sure a straight athlete can live in a ditch for a month without infections. I would think that anyone living in a ditch for a month would, at the very least, have to worry about fungal infections (e.g. athlete's foot & jock itch). From there, it really depends on the conditions to which they're exposed, but common infections could include anything from rashes to respiratory ailments to various agents that cause g/i issues. So far as I know, infectious agents don't particularly care about one's sexual preferences.

Did I miss the point of your question?
why_style From: why_style Date: April 15th, 2005 02:52 pm (UTC) (Link)
it was a reference to newt gingrich's speech circa 1992 in which he said women shouldn't be allowed in the military because, unlike men, women couldn't live in a ditch for 30 days since "they get infections". your response triggered a nueron in my brain that made me think of it.
komos From: komos Date: April 15th, 2005 03:00 pm (UTC) (Link)
Heh. I had forgotten about that. Gingrich was always great for a painful laugh.
mittenstein From: mittenstein Date: April 14th, 2005 07:47 pm (UTC) (Link)
The average sports fan doesn't think twice about calling a black athlete on an opposing team any number of racial slurs, yet is eager to cheer when one of his team's black athletes performs well.
komos From: komos Date: April 14th, 2005 09:09 pm (UTC) (Link)
Whatever rock's handy, I guess.
komos From: komos Date: April 14th, 2005 09:37 pm (UTC) (Link)
Ah here... The results of the full poll are a great deal less anomolous than the handful of questions highlighted for the article.
mittenstein From: mittenstein Date: April 14th, 2005 07:33 pm (UTC) (Link)
if they can play ball they're obviously not real homos. duh.
komos From: komos Date: April 14th, 2005 07:43 pm (UTC) (Link)
Do they still Happy Ending Sundaes at at Friendly's?
mittenstein From: mittenstein Date: April 14th, 2005 07:46 pm (UTC) (Link)
only if they play "hard."
komos From: komos Date: April 14th, 2005 09:09 pm (UTC) (Link)
It's all about giving 110%
canonfire From: canonfire Date: April 14th, 2005 08:07 pm (UTC) (Link)

Not that Green Monster.

komos From: komos Date: April 14th, 2005 09:17 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: Not that Green Monster.

Is it me, or does the werewolf look like he belongs in Cats?
prosicated From: prosicated Date: April 14th, 2005 09:04 pm (UTC) (Link)
I wonder if gender and/or exposure plays a part in the difference in stats. Perhaps because there's something of a pop-awareness of gay males based on TV shows, etc. male athletes can be gay, because they're seen in that same irreality of television/performance. This stands in contrast to less fictional/one-dimensional gays, who might be male OR female, and who have to be interacted with, and not just watched.
komos From: komos Date: April 14th, 2005 09:17 pm (UTC) (Link)
I was thinking along the same lines. So long as the openly gay athlete remains an idea, there's no problem with saying "ok, whatever..." When faced with questions about performance, team morale, or economics, you're suddenly becoming more grounded in reality and suddenly the bias comes through.

So back to the abolitionists... for all of their fire about freeing the slaves, there was an undercurrent that said, as a footnote, "just don't send them here..." It was almost as though there was a conceptualization of rights that overreached even those favorable to the ideals.
apeyanne From: apeyanne Date: April 14th, 2005 11:22 pm (UTC) (Link)
Thank you for posting this. Very interesting!

I don't buy a lot of the answers. I think, in a blank context, people are okay about it, but put them in front of their friends, and they'll become raging homophobes. Sociology at its finest. Not.

This is interesting:

>It is a sin to engage in homosexual behavior: 44% yes, 46% no

>Homosexuality is a way of life that should be accepted by society: 61% yes, 33% no

Don't these two things contradict each other to some degree?


Note the "homosexuals working in sports" section. Interesting how people are torn about having homosexuals near their children (or watching in their locker rooms), but otherwise it's okay. People persist in thinking that gays "recruit" or are pedophiles or voyeurs or some stupidity.
komos From: komos Date: April 15th, 2005 12:07 am (UTC) (Link)
I heard tell of someone who was using the surge in pinot noir sales in the wake of Sideways as proof that Americans can't be trusted to make decisions when exposed to media.

I would submit this poll as proof that Americans shouldn't be allowed to vote on civil rights issues. The people in this random sample seem utterly incapable of maintaining a cohesive line of thought on the subject.
mudguts From: mudguts Date: April 15th, 2005 02:51 pm (UTC) (Link)
results indicate that of 76 people polled, 98.64% disagree with the statement, " it is OK for pablo to show his crack in public."
while, 100% of pablos polled, "dont give a fuck what 76 people polled think."
komos From: komos Date: April 15th, 2005 03:01 pm (UTC) (Link)
That may be the best poll EVAR.
mudguts From: mudguts Date: April 15th, 2005 04:38 pm (UTC) (Link)
thank you.
personally, im a big fan of the "should pablos wash their bits with their right or left hands" poll.
komos From: komos Date: April 19th, 2005 02:32 pm (UTC) (Link)
I'm not sure it matters, so long as they can wash them as fast as they want.
27 comments or Leave a comment