From the March 17th issue. Of particular interest to this group:

Interviewer: And what about his line last summer about "women and queers" in the clubhouse?

Kent: I'm not John Rocker. I made a joke. I'd just come out of the shower. I'm about to drop my towel and I've got 30 media people around me. So I asked, 'Did you talk to Barry yet?' They said 'Barry gave us the bird.' I said, 'Then let me give you this.' I didn't see any women, so I dropped my towel and quickly pulled on my underwear. Everyone laughed. Then I said, 'I hope I didn't offend any women or queers in here.' Is it bad to say queer? Hell, there's a Showtime series called Queer as Folk. I went to Berkeley. I don't have a problem with homosexuals.

Hmmm everyone laughed after he dropped his towel...that's not something I would admit to in a national magazine wink

I read this article, while I was sitting in the Hair salon. He also admits to adopting a southern drawl even though he grew up in So-Cal, and talks about his porno mustache. Based on the article, I get the impression that Kent is definitely a meat & potatoes sort of guy.

That's not the point. Kent sounds like a jackass.

I don't know... maybe it's because I'm from south Texas and I'm used such talk from guys. But, I wasn't offended by what Kent said nor do I think he was trying to be offensive.

I would imagine Mr. Kent is much like alot of guys down here in Texas who don't pull any punches. From what I understand, Mr. Kent has owned a ranch just south of San Antonio for sometime now, so he's been a quasi-Texan for awhile. Men down here in Texas are broad, bold, and often shoot from the hip. And, like alot of guys down here in Texas...a fag is a fag, period, sorry to put it so bluntly. I don't think he meant the words to be as much a put down as it is a mannerism he owns. To alot down here in Texas, political correct terms are nothing more than an insignificant social construct formulated by liberal whale saving, tree hugging goody two shoers. I have no ideal if that's what Mr. Kent feels but you have to remember, he was naked, in his own lockerroomm, surrounded by media... give the guy a breakm he might not have been at his best form.

But, in the same vein, I would bet that Mr. Kent just doesn't care who is or isn't gay. Granted, a better choice of words probably could have been used. So, he's a macho baseball jock who talks like one...big surprise. I'm sure Mr. Kent is not out to degrade or intentially hurt anyone's feelings, and like the most of us, he's probably not very worried that he might at any given moment.

He sounds like alot of the guys I know that will say... "damm good man, works hard, does good work, (pause) he's a fag, ...to each his own" Sometimes, that's just the way people are and how they express themselves.

Just a thought... I"m sure this one will gather some replies...lol.... I could be wrong... wouldn't be the first time.

P.S. Gotta go....Javy is in from spring training....we gonna have dinner in bed tonite....he's the main course....hehe.

I agree. that comment didn't offend me. I think people are being too thin skinned. Like he said, he went to Berkeley and has no problem with homosexuals.

Geez. first we couldn't say homosexual. cuz it became "gay and lesbian". Then we couldn't say THAT because we weren't "defining ourselves" as gay or lesbian so we took the "more inclusive" word "Queer" Now, people can't say that anymore either? So........ Is it only GLBTSVHVV which is acceptable now?

No wonder straight guys don't know what to call us. We don't either. Geez louise!!

[ March 27, 2003, 08:42 PM: Message edited by: ung ]

I can't believe I'm agreeing with this, but I do. I read the quote and didn't think much of it, then I was surprised when the 'jock talk' bit called him a jerk. Well actually, jock talk said he remains a jerk. So perhaps the jock talk folks have more information than I do. It's easier to take a comment as more jerk-like from a well established jerk. I know little about Kent, so the comment didn't set me off at all.

Also some people are more sensitive to the word queer than others.

I don't read the quote as having any malice intended, so I'm not offended, but I can see how an objective reading by others might result in the assumption that Kent intended his words to be pejorative. Having said that, I think that baseball players are often the most narrowminded professional athletes. Most of them have only high school educations and were raised and/or reside in parts of the country that are generally more conservative and less welcoming to lifestyles and that are considered nontraditional. I think most of them, were it not for the wealth their athletic prowess has earned them, would be living lives that I can only describe as "Roseanne without the high-falutin' ways." Was John Rocker really the exception? I think only in that he was foolish enough to verbalize what I fear is the prevailing mindset in MLB locker rooms.

[ March 28, 2003, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: Munson Man ]

Munson, I agree with you. Plus, there's a big difference between the venomous tone of Rocker's remarks and the playful tone of Kent's. Nope, he's not gonna win the GLAAD Man-of-the-Year Award, but he's also not an automatic pariah.

GatorJamie

Queer isn't necessarily a derogatory term, like fag. However, I do think that if I were a gay teammate or sportswriter, the remark would make me feel unwelcome in the clubhouse. That may not have been Kent's intent, but it does tap into the anxiety about gays in the showers expressed by a number of athletes (Jeremy Shockey most notoriously).

"I hope I didn't offend any women or queers in here."

I'm with the crowd that doesn't find this offensive, jerk-like, or jackassy. If that statement is offensive to us queers, then it must be offensive to women too, right? I think it was an innocent use of a word that is offensive to some and not to others, which, alone, doesn't make him a jerk or a jackass.

I know some people equate the use of the "q" word by straight people to the use of the "n" word by white people, but there's not a major television show with the "n" word in the title which makes everyone think it's okay to use it.

If any of you guys know of Kent's past history that makes him "remain a jerk", please enlighten.

well, if I was there I would there, I'd would have responded....."Hell no, Jeff...let's see what you got." Would I have been offended or disappointed?

Instead of complaining,I sugget to meet Jeff with the same bravado. I think if any of those around him would have responded to meet his remark... with the same bravado... I think he would have probably have been taken aback for a second, then, gone right on in doing what he was doing... and finished the interview and probably covered up....lol...maybe not. :cool:

I think sometimes we are our own worst enemy. The reaction of the jocktalk reporter is what one may peg as a typical "gay guy" response. If Kent directed a similar ranking remark to another str8 guy, you know the other guy would have shot back with a comeback. Why should gay guys be any different, because we're gay? Oh Mary!!!!!

When you deal with guys like Kent, jock or non jock, you just have to stand up and meet with them same confidence and bravado. It's a guy thing. I realize this won't sit well with alot of gay guys as alot of gay guys don't like to play those str8 guy games...but then, don't complain when you feel victimized by them. It shouldn't matter.

Just a thought...

[ March 28, 2003, 07:52 PM: Message edited by: satxbuddy1 ]

How did he know there were no queers present? There may very well have been. That's what I find insulting, the whole "us guys" attitude, which is a crock.

Exactly my perspective, Red. If there was a gay reporter present, he should/could have made a come back remark. Mano e Mano. A guy like Kent probably would have recognized a comback as a respectable stance. Alot more than whinning about the remark...boo hoo, he called us queers.

Sometimes, us gay guys are real big on the gay part, but aren't so keen on the guy part.

Then again, if one truely rejects the whole "guy thing" as a crock... none of this should matter, so why be insulted.

[ March 29, 2003, 06:52 AM: Message edited by: satxbuddy1 ]

The comment and the responses on this thread, in general, confirm that the "q" word does not have the same potency for gays as the "n" word does for blacks. Yet another failed analogy despite the existence of many legitimate ones.

I think the fact that he used the word in the manner he did merely reflects the powerlessness of gays in professional sports. What gay teammate of his would dare to have shown the slightest annoyance at what he said. Gay or straight they would immediately have submitted themselves to speculation.

The fact that he included women indicates the level upon which he places women and gays - and I would venture to say that that level is not the same one on which he places himself.

Though he apparently meant it as an innocent joke, or to be taken that way (I wont try to read his mind), it still shows how difficult it will be for a pro jock to ever come out.

I don't get the problem either. the whining about every little thing gets on my nerves worse that comments like Kent's.

"the level on which he places women and gays"???

Maybe what he said had nothing to do with his socio-political beliefs and simply had to do with the fact that he was about to show his wing-wang.

Would you wanna get naked if you knew some old troll was staring holes into you?
(sorry if that's not PC. But it gets the message across clearly)

I don't find it offensive at all. It seems like he was just trying to make a joke. Since the word "queer" is used on TV, he probably thought it was the most PC word to use. I hang out with a lot of straight guys that know I'm gay and they call me "fag", "queer", and other names along that line and it doesn't offend me at all. It all depends on the context the word is used in and who is saying it. In this case, I don't really think anything of it, but I doubt a gay reporter would have been open enough to say anything like that in a MLB clubhouse. I've been in that situation and I know I wouldn't have.

Ok, queers are no prob, but he does have a problem with trolls. Old ones. And there was one in the locker room. That definitely calls for queer-baiting. Definitely.

[ March 29, 2003, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: redsoxbreath ]

[quote]sportinlife:

I think the fact that he used the word in the manner he did merely reflects the powerlessness of gays in professional sports. What gay teammate of his would dare to have shown the slightest annoyance at what he said. Gay or straight they would immediately have submitted themselves to speculation. [/quote]I fundamentally agree with you Sport. The use of the word is a powerful word regardless who uses it. Coming from a str8 guy, the word is ranking because the str8 man knows being queer is still considered to be \"alternative\" at best. The str8 man knows he still speaks from a positon of patriarchal authentic authority. I would imagine a guy like Kent has this perspective but doesn't see it as problem. After all, he's str8 and gay guys are queers...so what's the problem...


The fact that he included women indicates the level upon which he places women and gays - and I would venture to say that that level is not the same one on which he places himself. [/QUOTE]

There may be a element of truth to that Sport, but who else would Kent direct the remark too, other Str8 guys? I don't know if Kent ranks gays guys on a different level than himself. But I'm pretty sure he thinks of himself as a man who has what women and gay guys find physically and sexually attractive. Consequently,guys like Kent probably would lump the reaction of the jocktalk reporter with that as a woman's reaction. I'd give a guess why they may think that way.

Ah, the myth of the baseball player as corn-fed midwestern farm boy. Just as a reality check, I pulled up the birthplaces and colleges of the ten highest value fantasy players (using Sagarin's rankings) who were American born. The results

11 of 20 were from metropolitan areas on the East Coast, West Coast or Great Lakes (Alex Rodriguez, Jeter, Jason Giambi, Randy Winn, Garciaparra, Bonds, Brian Giles, Kent, Aaron Boone, Derrek Lee, Shawn Green)--mostly southern California.

Only 6 of 20 were from smaller communities in the South, Great Plains or Rocky Mountain States (Johnny Damon, Torii Hunter, Mike Cameron, Lance Berkman, Pat Burrell, Chipper Jones)

3 of 20 were either from large communities in the south (Helton-Knoxville, Ray Durham-Charlotte) or a smaller community in a less conservative area (Thome-Peoria).

10 of 20 also had at least some college (Giambi, Thome, Winn, Garciaparra, Bonds, Berkman, Helton, Kent, Boone, and Burrell). Obviously, to do this properly, you'd have to go through all the rosters, but I don't think your characterization of typical baseball player backgrounds is accurate.

So I don't think baseball players are necessarily more conservative on gay issues. Comparing the comments made around the Billy Bean and Piazza stories to those surrounding Tuaolo in the NFL, I think MLB is probably less hostile than the NFL. Certainly, I don't recall anyone in the NFL being as welcoming as Bobby Valentine or Jeff Bagwell (who said that if a teammate were to come out, he would back him 100%). Timlin observed that he had had a gay teammate that he knew about, and it had not been a problem for him; I don't recall anyone in football saying anything like that. It's easy to say they were just being P.C., but I think they went well beyond what they needed to for P.R. purposes.

Back to the subject of Kent: I actually don't care about the choice of word (he could, if his intent was to be abusive, used fag), I just would have been irritated by the joke because it implies that gays in the clubhouse would be busily ogling all the men. That's the biggest objection raised to gays in team sports, so Kent was--intentionally or not--indirectly validating that viewpoint. In reality, a gay teammate would be used to it and would probably go out of his way to avoid looking, and I would HOPE that a gay sportswriter would maintain some professional decorum.

Probably off topic but should go somewhere:

“My own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose but queerer than we can suppose.”
~ J.B.S. Haldane

Pat Burrell was born in Eureka Springs, Arkansas, but I think his family moved to California while he was pretty young. At any rate, his bio information on the Phils' website says that prior to college he was a 1995 graduate of Bellarmine Preparatory School in San Jose, CA.

You can't make assumptions or stereotype a part of the country, or a town because of it's size, any more than you can assume every gay guy is a nelly queen. JC did a lot of research that really means nothing. Pat Burrel's hometown proves this point:

Eureka Springs, AR is one of the most liberal, diverse, and \"gayest\" towns in the country. We go there at least once a year for one of their \"Diversity Weekends\", one of which happens to be coming up this weekend. Check out your Damron guide, and you'll find more gay-friendly and gay-owned accomodations (B&B's) in E.S. that anywhere, other than San Fran and P-town.

Don't make assumptions about us folk out here in the "fly over" part of the country.

[ April 01, 2003, 06:20 AM: Message edited by: maxallen ]