What are your views on this quote relating to homophobia and masculinity?

[Davetello]

I read this on another site a couple of years back. Obviously googling the quote will find the page, but it did make me laugh. Do you think there's any truth to it?

"Homophobic abuse can be when you accuse someone of not being manly. It's a very real issue that isn't understood well enough in this country, when you accuse someone of not being as manly as you, you're being homophobic. It's not hard to understand."

People accused the guy of talking nonsense, but if you think about it a lot of males use 'gay' as a pejorative in an effort to position themselves above the target in terms of manliness. Is it as much of a nonsense quote as it first appears? Certainly I've seen the term 'gay' used in this manner both online and offline.

[slashpieturtlemix]

The meaning of the word "gay" is slowly dissolving. It is because culture in general has always looked down upon the concept because of how we are raised and taught. The quote is silly but the hatred is real.

[Candy Kappa]

It is often the mindset of homophobic misogynistic asshats, that if a man acts in any way effeminate or like a woman, he must be one of dem gays.

[Davetello]

The meaning of the word "gay" is slowly dissolving. It is because culture in general has always looked down upon the concept because of how we are raised and taught. The quote is silly but the hatred is real.

Agreed, there's too much homophobia in society and the use of the term "gay" as an insult is peculiar. I've been called gay in that manner before and I didn't even feel slightly offended. Why would I? Surely any heterosexual man who's secure in his sexuality would just laugh it off.

The quote is quite silly at first glance, but to be fair he did back it up with some evidence, showing how 'sexuality' is a social construct and explaining that, to some people, being a 'man' is as much about being turned off by other men as it is about being attracted to women. I think there is some discussion to be had over the quote, although it's obviously poorly worded and a bit too strongly put.

There are a lot of guys out there who think that insulting another guy by calling him 'gay' or 'queer' or whatever is insulting his masculinity and positioning him as inferior and in return themselves as alpha. I'd assume that's where the sentiment comes from. But yeah, you could argue either way.

[Davetello]

It is often the mindset of homophobic misogynistic asshats, that if a man acts in any way effeminate or like a woman, he must be one of dem gays.

Yeah, that's essentially what the quote is trying to say. And also some guys call men who DON'T act in an effeminate way 'gay'. I think it's born of insecurity.

Interestingly the guy was mocked by posting a photoshop photo of the quote. In the photo, a very effeminate soccer player named Fernando Torres was depicted and there was a speech bubble next to his name saying the quote. So the guy's quote was sort of proved, since the posters mocked his words by referring to an effeminate man. Essentially they were mocking Torres's femininity. I will try and find the photo on my hard drive because I saved it at the time.

[Davetello]

Here's the photo. They were essentially taking the p!ss out of the quote by referring to a feminine player. As I say, that can be construed as proving the guy's point, or it could just be argued to be innocent fun. It depends.

I laughed at this originally but the more I contemplated it the more sinister it seemed.

[BubblyShell22]

At first glance of the quote, it seemed confusing, but after reading it a second time, I can see where this person is coming from. He definitely has a point in the quote about how a lot of men will look down on others for not being manly or doing manly things and saying that a man is "gay" because of it when that could not be the case. Just goes to show that there are some mean people in the world.

[pennydreadful]

You may want to check out a doco called "Tough Guise - Violence, Media and the Crisis in Masculinity". It has some very interesting things to say about masculine identities and how masculinity as a socially constructed behavior has been shaped by modern pop culture.

The full doco is 82 minutes; you may have to search a little to find the complete version as a lot of sites often only have the first 7 or 8 minutes.

[Netkeeper]

I'd love to check it out if I could ****ing find it anywhere. Where is it?

[pennydreadful]

Here ya go, handsome. Don't say I never gave ya nothin'. :D

QYjKlXIvFwc

This is the current edition; pretty much the same as the original version but with a couple of tweaks. The original was actually done specifically as segmented educational videos to be shown in schools.

[Davetello]

At first glance of the quote, it seemed confusing, but after reading it a second time, I can see where this person is coming from. He definitely has a point in the quote about how a lot of men will look down on others for not being manly or doing manly things and saying that a man is "gay" because of it when that could not be the case. Just goes to show that there are some mean people in the world.

Yeah, there does seem to be some academic debate backing the viewpoint. As I say my first impressions at the time were to laugh, but the more you think of it the more it makes sense. As I say above, the posting of the femine footballer saying the comment ironically reinforces the point - they've taken a guy who's quite girly in appearance and used him to take the mickey out of the comment, because they think it's funnier to have a feminine guy say it than a masculine guy. You could argue it's harmless fun but it seems quite sinister, if only at a subconscious level.

You may want to check out a doco called "Tough Guise - Violence, Media and the Crisis in Masculinity". It has some very interesting things to say about masculine identities and how masculinity as a socially constructed behavior has been shaped by modern pop culture.

The full doco is 82 minutes; you may have to search a little to find the complete version as a lot of sites often only have the first 7 or 8 minutes.

Thanks, will take a look through that when I have time.

[Redeemer]

The meaning of the word "gay" is slowly dissolving. It is because culture in general has always looked down upon the concept because of how we are raised and taught. The quote is silly but the hatred is real.

Bud it went out the window back in the 90's :lol:
gay originally meant happy or upbeat/carefree.
When I was younger it was used to describe something as "stupid"

[Davetello]

Bud it went out the window back in the 90's :lol:
gay originally meant happy or upbeat/carefree.
When I was younger it was used to describe something as "stupid"

Yeah, I have heard that too, that "gay" was calling someone an idiot. I think that's more of a North American thing though - here in Britain it always seemed to imply someone was effeminate or homosexual. At least whenever I heard it in person.

[Netkeeper]

Here ya go, handsome.
http://i.imgur.com/Cydevvz.png
Damn right I'm handsome! I'll watch this later tonight, thanks a ton.

[Redeemer]

Yeah, I have heard that too, that "gay" was calling someone an idiot. I think that's more of a North American thing though - here in Britain it always seemed to imply someone was effeminate or homosexual. At least whenever I heard it in person.

Sounds right. The derogatory term for insulting a man's masculinity is ******, but I heard in Great Britain that term actually means cigarette bud???? correct????

[Davetello]

Sounds right. The derogatory term for insulting a man's masculinity is ******, but I heard in Great Britain that term actually means cigarette bud???? correct????

'Fa gg ot' is a type of food. 'F a g' is slang for cigarette. Both are pejorative terms for a homosexual so yeah, they have other meanings too.

[Netkeeper]

Is the latter term used that often? I've never heard a Brit actually use it before.

[Davetello]

Is the latter term used that often? I've never heard a Brit actually use it before.

F a g? Yeah, it's used all the time when people are talking about ciagrettes. I hate the word in that context (and the other, of course). It just sounds pretty nasty.

[Netkeeper]

Hm, it makes me wonder how gay guys over there feel about it...

[Davetello]

Hm, it makes me wonder how gay guys over there feel about it...

Hmm, well 'fa g' isn't really used as a gay term over here, much less than terms like 'poo f' or 'qu een' or 'faggo t' itself. I'd imagine they don't dwell on that for the most part.

I mean you could say that anything could remind them of a pejorative. Someone could say 'that went up in a poof of smoke' and even though it's used innocently in that context, it might brings back some harsh memories for gay men upon hearing that. Some black people in North America might feel uncomfortable when someone talks about spades in the garden.

[pennydreadful]

I'll watch this later tonight, thanks a ton.

All good; I may give it a rewatch myself just in case folks here want to discuss! :)

[Luckyday]

Being gay and effeminate should not be consider the same thing. Sexual identity and sexual orientation don't always go in hand in hand with each other. Being woman is not just solely defined by being attracted to men and there more to manhood then being attracted to women.

[Mayhem]

Yes, there is some homophobia in the UK, but I've never seen anything like the reaction that the Top Gear guys got in Alabama after doing each other's cars up in gay slogans and colours...

[Prowler]

Well, it's related to football. You know how sports are viewed as something stereotypically masculine/manly. So it's not surprising at all that a player who people don't like and who acts a bit whiny or likes to dive gets labeled as "gay"(aka weak). I don't think people actually believe Fernando Torres is gay, though. But anyway, homosexuals are still very stereotyped ad being weak and "wanting to be girls". Many people would describe a homosexual male as a "flower" or "someone who talks with an annoying lisp". The most homophobic types actually believe there's no such thing as strong and courageous homosexuals, which is retarded since there's plenty of cowardly straight guys.

[Candy Kappa]

Yes, there is some homophobia in the UK, but I've never seen anything like the reaction that the Top Gear guys got in Alabama after doing each other's cars up in gay slogans and colours...

That was a intense episode.

[Prowler]

Yes, there is some homophobia in the UK, but I've never seen anything like the reaction that the Top Gear guys got in Alabama after doing each other's cars up in gay slogans and colours...
I just watched that on youtube and I wonder why they decided to do such a thing. I don t watch the show, but isn't it mostly about cars? Why did they decide to provoke locals for teh lulz? Felt like a reality show.

[BubblyShell22]

I've heard another slur against gays is calling them "fairies" also. I've heard that term a time or two before.

[Mayhem]

I just watched that on youtube and I wonder why they decided to do such a thing. I don t watch the show, but isn't it mostly about cars? Why did they decide to provoke locals for teh lulz? Felt like a reality show.
Because the show is a third about the cars, a third about the lulz, and a third about the banter. I think they knew it might provoke some reactions, but not nearly as intense and dangerous as they got. Gonna be interesting how the edit for the Argentina episode goes, because it sounds like that was even worse.

[Candy Kappa]

I'm not an car enthusiast, but I absolutely love Top Gear. The real Top Gear, the other versions not so much. the humor and banter between Clarkson, Hammond and May

[Metalwolf]

I've mainly seen it as male posturing and little more then a dong swinging contest. Sure there is some dislike of gays, but the main root of it is the ultimate insult of being compared to a woman. Gays are 'not-quite-there' as far as masculinity goes, but the guys know that it's still another man they are talking to. But ever notice that? The gay man is not quite there, so he must be close to the level of a *eww* woman.

[plastroncafe]

Well there's being compared to a woman, and then there's also the chance that they might be treated the way that they themselves treat women.

[Davetello]

Well, it's related to football. You know how sports are viewed as something stereotypically masculine/manly. So it's not surprising at all that a player who people don't like and who acts a bit whiny or likes to dive gets labeled as "gay"(aka weak). I don't think people actually believe Fernando Torres is gay, though. But anyway, homosexuals are still very stereotyped ad being weak and "wanting to be girls". Many people would describe a homosexual male as a "flower" or "someone who talks with an annoying lisp". The most homophobic types actually believe there's no such thing as strong and courageous homosexuals, which is retarded since there's plenty of cowardly straight guys.

True, But it just so happens that I saw this social science debate touched on on a football forum. The debate will be going on on non-sport forums too.

Nah, they certainly don't think guys like F Torres are gay, it's just homophobia and a way to belittle someone. And yeah, it's amazing there seems to be some sort of link between homosexuality and weakness or softness for homophobes. As you say, there are plenty of straight men who have no guts. It's probably due to a misunderstanding of 'camp' men.


I've mainly seen it as male posturing and little more then a dong swinging contest. Sure there is some dislike of gays, but the main root of it is the ultimate insult of being compared to a woman. Gays are 'not-quite-there' as far as masculinity goes, but the guys know that it's still another man they are talking to. But ever notice that? The gay man is not quite there, so he must be close to the level of a *eww* woman.


You think so? I don't always think of it that way. But it does make sense since there are plenty of sexists and misogynists about. It still seems strange in a way because men love women physically, but some still see it as acceptable to assign negative attributes to girls/women and, as you say, imply that gay men are 'closer' to women than they are to being real men. The whole thing is fvkced up.

A lot of it is what I talked about earlier - a desire to come across as alpha and manly and the more I think of it the more the original quote is sensible. I know I had a bit of a preoccupation with masculinity for a long time since I'm quite a boyish person. But I never felt that calling other men gay would make me seem more manly. I find the whole idea pathetic to be honest. Clearly major sings of insecurity.

[slashpieturtlemix]

True, But it just so happens that I saw this social science debate touched on on a football forum. The debate will be going on on non-sport forums too.

Nah, they certainly don't think guys like F Torres are gay, it's just homophobia and a way to belittle someone. And yeah, it's amazing there seems to be some sort of link between homosexuality and weakness or softness for homophobes. As you say, there are plenty of straight men who have no guts. It's probably due to a misunderstanding of 'camp' men.





You think so? I don't always think of it that way. But it does make sense since there are plenty of sexists and misogynists about. It still seems strange in a way because men love women physically, but some still see it as acceptable to assign negative attributes to girls/women and, as you say, imply that gay men are 'closer' to women than they are to being real men. The whole thing is fvkced up.

A lot of it is what I talked about earlier - a desire to come across as alpha and manly and the more I think of it the more the original quote is sensible. I know I had a bit of a preoccupation with masculinity for a long time since I'm quite a boyish person. But I never felt that calling other men gay would make me seem more manly. I find the whole idea pathetic to be honest. Clearly major sings of insecurity.

I saw a stand up sketch on youtube about it and he made the most sense. It is pretty much men trying to put down other men who show feelings. I think it is more of the boot camp mentality. You want to prove yourself a manly man so you do not want to be anything below a man. Anything else is unmanly. No matter the terminology.

[Davetello]

I saw a stand up sketch on youtube about it and he made the most sense. It is pretty much men trying to put down other men who show feelings. I think it is more of the boot camp mentality. You want to prove yourself a manly man so you do not want to be anything below a man. Anything else is unmanly. No matter the terminology.

Yeah, I think that's another major aspect. The whole 'boys culture' and the notion that sensitivity or vulnerability are signs of weakness and something expected of women and not men. This leads to a hierarchy.

Personally I never have a problem showing my feelings and I don't feel insecure about it. I'm lucky that I never had that problem because I know that there are many men out there who are bottling things up because they're scared their mates will take the mickey out of them. There are some very backward areas and societies out there.

[Netkeeper]

So Penny, I came in here to watch that doco, and son of a bitch it was removed.

Know any other links?

[pennydreadful]

... damn.

Leave it with me, I'll do some hunting!

[Netkeeper]

Alrighty. I won't procrastinate on watching it this time. Wonder why it's so difficult to find, though...

[pennydreadful]

I'll just PM you a link; if it's getting taken down everywhere, I don't want to get the boards in trouble by putting a link to it here.

[Gunpowder]

Hmm, well 'fa g' isn't really used as a gay term over here, much less than terms like 'poo f' or 'qu een' or 'faggo t' itself. I'd imagine they don't dwell on that for the most part.

I mean you could say that anything could remind them of a pejorative. Someone could say 'that went up in a poof of smoke' and even though it's used innocently in that context, it might brings back some harsh memories for gay men upon hearing that. Some black people in North America might feel uncomfortable when someone talks about spades in the garden.

Are "poof" and "queen" actually derogatory terms for gays? I've never heard that. Only terms I've seen regularly are fagg0t, queer, and fairy. I've also never heard a black dude be called a "spade." Either that's more common up North, or I'm just that naive.

[slashpieturtlemix]

Are "poof" and "queen" actually derogatory terms for gays? I've never heard that. Only terms I've seen regularly are fagg0t, queer, and fairy. I've also never heard a black dude be called a "spade." Either that's more common up North, or I'm just that naive.

I haven't heard poof but queen is mainly an 80s term. There are tons of these lol most of which I would probably just accidently get myself banned with. They is a good bit that are food items / French bakery goods for no apparent reason. Kids these days~

[pennydreadful]

"Poof" and "poofter" get used a lot here in Australia; I'd go so far as to say they're one of (if not the) main slurs for gay men here.

[Leo656]

It's funny because I just had this conversation with a friend yesterday. This is my problem with slurs in general... if someone calls you a "Poofter" or whatever, how are you even supposed to get MAD at that? I mean, yeah, the intent, okay, whatever, but seriously... even if I was gay, if someone called me THAT, I'd be too busy calling HIM a F*g for trying to use a nonsense nursery rhyme word like THAT as an insult. Or how "sissy" is supposed to be bad now. I'd be more embarrassed for the person saying it, than I'd be offended. Like, come on... "At least have the balls to call me a c***sucker, or does your Mommy not let you swear?" It's so silly.

I mean, honestly, I understand the principles involved, but I find all "hate" words to be such so much nonsense and coming from such a place of ignorance that I can't see how people still choose to be offended by such nonsense. I mean, yeah, straight white male, very little grounds for comparison, but still... words are just words and people decide what they mean and how much power they have. If people collectively decided that these gibberish words are just that, gibberish, nonsense, whatever, then I think that right there would be a huge bit of progress for society as a whole.

I'm not saying, "People should go around calling each other slurs", at least, not exactly; what I am saying, is that it's People who decide what these words mean (and even that can vary depending on region) and it's People in the end who can decide that they don't mean Anything. Words themselves are merely words.

Granted, Irish people never get to hear any GOOD slurs, what with being perfect and all. But I've been called a Mick or whatever and I just don't get it. That's an insult, I guess? Why? I never got that memo, to me you just sound like some nitwit spewing jibber-jabber.

[Jester]

So....the "Laugh at Hitler" principle? Take something offensive/hateful and just laugh in it's face?
kHmYIo7bcUw

[Davetello]

On the subject of Hitler, I haven't seen an example of Godwin's Law on this forum yet.

[Jester]

Godwin's has been referenced (http://forums.thetechnodrome.com/search.php?searchid=932994), but I don't think the "My enemies are Hitler" has ever actually happened.

[plastroncafe]

It's always been my understanding that it's less the words and more what tends to come with the use of those words, ie: violence, that's the problem.

I hear someone use the word f@g and I'm primed for fight/flight, and I'm lucky enough to have never been bashed. Same goes for misogynistic turns of phrase depending on the context.

[Davetello]

It should only be a matter of time anyway. Forums can't generally go more than a few months without an occurrence.

[Leo656]

I mean, I get all sides of it, but I mean... like if someone tries to bring you down, and you know you're above their station, are you gonna let 'em do it? With words? On some level, that's a Choice.

Like, when I worked in the moving business, I worked with a lot of black guys, and frankly, when you work in manual labor, you hear the word N***** thrown around like it's somebody's name. From EVERYONE. It's really uncomfortable, but partly because it's so casual. One time, this one dude was really getting hammered from another dude at work, not like "I hate f*cking n*****s" or anything, but just a lot of "joking" use of the word, coming from a self-admitted "redneck". And the dude is just laughing it off, rolling with it. So anyways, me and the guy Mike were washing up for lunch, and I couldn't help it, I'm like "Why do you just let guys do that? Like, every time I'm on the crew with you, it's the same thing. What gives?" He kind of shrugged, and was like "Well, for one thing, I know he ain't being serious because we known each other long enough. Besides that, if he WAS serious, that just proves he's stupid, so why would I give a sh*t what stupid people say if I'm not stupid?" Then he laughed and said, "If it ever came down to it, I know I could f*ck him up, so he's the one who's lucky it's just jokes."

I never really got comfortable being in that kind of work environment, but seeing people so easily deflect other people's stupidity, and keep their temper in check when it would HAVE to be difficult no matter what they said, was always something kind of inspiring to me, and I wish I could let things roll so easily. Like, I've seen white guys on a job site throw punches and get fired over being called "stupid", but I never once saw a black guy throw a punch over being called "N*****", even though you know they must have wanted to.

The lesson I took from those experiences is, you CAN choose whether or not the words people say to you have any kind of power over you as a person. Obviously when hate and harassment escalates beyond words, that's a different issue, but words themselves only mean what we want them to.

[Davetello]

It depends. Reaction to insults isn't always a choice - as said people can't always control how something affects them. People also have "trigger insults" - that one thing they're susceptible to finding hurtful and want to avoid at all costs.

Racism is sort of different because that's an issue of discrimination. It's not like being called a d!ck or "big nose", or whatever.

[Leo656]

Well, I mean I do get it. Being called a liar is MY trigger, simply because lying in my mind is a really huge sin. I was lied to and manipulated by people close to me for most of my youth, so I am very judgmental about people who lie and have cut ties with people over catching them in their dishonesty. If I can't trust you, I want nothing to do with you. So yeah, I've lost my temper over being called a liar. To me that is supremely disrespectful, especially if the person accusing ME is a proven lying scumbag themselves. So I do get it. But that's a personal hang-up.

As far as being actively discriminated against, yeah that's different and it's bad, but I still separate words from actions in that respect. A person deliberately using slurs to "hurt" someone is just exposing themselves as a moron; it's really more of an Idiot Warning than anything, and in a way they're doing you a favor by letting you know who you should avoid. When words become actions, then that's clearly different. But if a person is just saying dumb sh*t because that's how they actually feel, well, you're not going to change their mind anyway. Even if you get mad and kick their ass, you're not changing their mind, they're still going to be prejudiced. So until someone physically escalates the situation, all they're doing by making it vocal is letting everyone in the room know who the Assh*les are.

The problem is, prejudice exists and always will. You can't change what's inside people's heads, and some people just hate for no reason. Assigning words different labels like "good" or "bad" or "offensive" isn't going to change that. And you can't make words "taboo" because then people just come up with new ones. Like, nobody thought of "Poofter" as the FIRST insult they could sling at a gay person. They only came up with THAT after a hundred other slurs became verboten, but that was benign enough so that they could "slip it in" without people catching on at first. That's what's always going to happen.

So again, it becomes less about language and more about changing the way people think about each other and outwardly act towards each other. That's much, much harder, but that's the only way there's actually going to be Progress.

[Davetello]

I don't mind being called a liar, strangely. It's just not something I take offence to, mainly because it's rare that I do lie.

All of that makes sense. You're implying that the words aren't the problem, but the motive behind them and the connotations they carry are. In a way being called a nigg%r actually does a black guy a favour because he then knows what someone really feels. If the person suppressed their true feelings that guy might never find out and might interact with someone who hates him deep down solely because of his colour.

Education is the key, but I think it's a hopeless cause. There are simply way too many narrow-minded people out there who are prone to stigmatising others unfairly.

[Leo656]

Frankly, I never understood how you can actively hate someone according to circumstances of birth, things they have no control over. There's no logic in that, meaning people who are prejudiced are really, really ignorant and lacking in any kind of common sense.

I mean, people give you GOOD reasons to hate them, every single day. And instead of that, you'd rather hate them because of their skin color, or where their family is from, or who they want to lick in the bedroom? Like, the fact that most people are assh*les by choice isn't a good enough reason? You gotta hate them for stuff they're NOT doing on purpose? That to me is really f*cking stupid.

Not "you" personally, by the way. "You" as in "People". :)

[Davetello]

Frankly, I never understood how you can actively hate someone according to circumstances of birth, things they have no control over. There's no logic in that, meaning people who are prejudiced are really, really ignorant and lacking in any kind of common sense.

I mean, people give you GOOD reasons to hate them, every single day. And instead of that, you'd rather hate them because of their skin color, or where their family is from, or who they want to lick in the bedroom? Like, the fact that most people are assh*les by choice isn't a good enough reason? You gotta hate them for stuff they're NOT doing on purpose? That to me is really f*cking stupid.

Lol, exactly. It's a bizarre state of affairs. I never got why the colour of someone's skin was a reason to hate them. I guess white supremacists will say that there are lots of cultural things going on with black people e.g. the claim that blacks are more prone to crime (totally overlooking that this is because they are discriminated against in the first place, and that it might only appear that way because a black man or woman is more likely to be convicted than a white).

I dislike people because they are pr!cks (see sig) but not because of something they can't control.

One worrying thing is that, if you've ever browsed Stormfront, some of these people are extremely intelligent and well-read. They have a vast knowledge of things like biology, phenotypes etc. It's a total myth that prejudiced people are lacking in intelligence, which obviously makes their ignorance even more unforgivable.

[Leo656]

Well, to be fair, people can be totally brilliant in one area and totally ignorant in another. That's actually how it usually works.

Like, my Dad was kind of a thick block, but he was really good at chemistry, and he was well-versed in politics and world history. But sometimes he had no common sense at all, like the old "check your watch and forget you're holding a drink, so you spill it everywhere" kind of thing. Plus he had a ton of drug problems. So, yeah, brilliance and dumb-f*ckery in just about equal measure sums it up, and it's not a unique condition.

[Davetello]

Well, to be fair, people can be totally brilliant in one area and totally ignorant in another. That's actually how it usually works.

Like, my Dad was kind of a thick block, but he was really good at chemistry, and he was well-versed in politics and world history. But sometimes he had no common sense at all, like the old "check your watch and forget you're holding a drink, so you spill it everywhere" kind of thing. Plus he had a ton of drug problems. So, yeah, brilliance and dumb-f*ckery in just about equal measure sums it up, and it's not a unique condition.

Yes, fair point. But what i was saying is that these people had a deep historical knowledge of cultural difference, exclusion, phenotypes etc - all things you'd expect to equip someone with the knowledge and intelligence to NOT be racist. Yet they were anyway. These weirdos are probably so twisted that they'd say their weird views on racism carry more credence than our open-minded views because they're more 'educated' on all of this.

But generally you're right; genius and idiocy comes in all forms. The footballer Wayne Rooney must have some form of intellect to be able to have the reactions and ideas he has on the field. But when he speaks he doesn't come across as academically gifted, like many sports stars.

There are many different forms of intelligence, and the term itself is ambiguous.