Yet another uninformed hit piece against gays who dare to deviate from the party line is making the rounds, this time via Public Eye, a quarterly put out by Political Research Associates, a nonprofit supported by progressive and liberal activists and foundations.
In Gay Conservatives: Unwanted Allies on the Right, Pam Chamberlain sneers that:
Embarrassed by a gay community that embraces the diversity of drag queens, transgender youth, and adherents of exotic sexual practices, these (mostly male) assimilationists express their sense of entitlement through outrage at being discriminated against for being gay....
It is in the blogosphere, however, where political writers like Andrew Sullivan, Jonathan Rauch, and the Independent Gay Forum, an online collection of gay conservative writers, have found their home....
I love the fact that to prove her case, Chamberlain copiously quotes...other progressives who accuse those they label as "gay conservatives" of sexism, racism, etc. etc.
Actually, IGF's writers include several Democrats and many small "l" libertarians. But while Chamberlain notes that "gay conservatives" embrace a variety of issues including "limited government, lower taxes, personal responsibility, a strong defense, and free markets," she repeatedly returns to the trope that because the religious right is anti-gay and holds sway over the Republican party, "gay conservatives" don't make any sense (aside from being motivated by shame and selfishness).
It's clear that Chamberlain simply doesn't give any credence to the ideas of "limited government" and personal responsibility, so she dismisses them as a veneer. It's not possible that gay non-leftists might genuinely believe that individual liberty trumps group entitlement. Or that faith in government regulation to engineer social outcomes is often counter-productive. Or that economic redistribution doesn't lead to "social justice" but to economic stagnancy. Or that those who champion less government and greater individual liberty might be battling the grip that social conservatives have on the GOP.
These ideas may, of course, be debatable, but it's a sign of the left's slovenliness to not even engage in that debate and instead to dismiss gays who rejected leftwing boilerplate politics as craven, racist, misogynist self-loathers.
On a happier note, here's an op-ed in which one (straight) conservative explains why he supports gay marriage. It's the kind of argument that gay libertarians and conservatives can help foster on the political right, the value of which you might expect gays on the left to recognize.
48 Comments for “The Left’s View of Inauthentic Gays”
posted by JimG on
Reading through the article the signs were there until you came to the final third and out came the misandry. It’s all about “being male” (oh pardon us) and if you’re white then you’re really a priviledged prig.
Why is it that women on the left, and particularly gay women on the left are all one note thinkers? This woman makes the Stepford Wives seem multi-layered!!
posted by Jorge on
Okay, so it’s intelligent read, but I find it extremely patronizing.
Who says so-and-so number of gays “consistently” vote Republican? I’ve moved to the right over the past few years, while other gays abandoned Bush in 2004. Nothing “consistent” about that.
I always found the assumption that of course I’ve experienced discrimination and oppression because I’m Hispanic to be extremely patronizing, because it is absolutely not true and it’s saying to me that I’m a cripple. With being gay it’s different, and I really wish people would get this right. I’ve never felt “discriminated” against. That’s a really big word, like nooses and EEOC. I have never been treated as a second-class citizen. I have been treated as a second-class person. The closet is the easier life, it’s no joke. It has nothing to do with the excesses of the gay community; frankly gay oppression has been around for longer.
What is up with calling everyone to the right of the radical left conservative? Tammy Bruce? Really??? “Conservative” commentators more acceptable to editorialists than “radical” commentators? Now that’s frightening–what happened to all the liberals and moderates? Sure, I joke sometimes that my parents are major-league conservative–major anti-San Francisco values going on with them. They’re also major-league Democrats. Not that I have any idea why in this day and age.
Oh, one more thing. Most people in this country are white. There is nothing wrong with being white. Especially in a world that assigns everyone who isn’t white as some kind of victim who can’t stand up on his own.
posted by Bobby on
“Embarrassed by a gay community that embraces the diversity of drag queens,”
—Who says we do? We embrace them just as much as the straight community embraces strippers.
“transgender youth,”
—Funny, I’m sure most gays find transgender people to be weird. It may be politically
“and adherents of exotic sexual practices”
—If by that he means having sex with the same sex, that’s not exotic to us. But if he means s/m, and other weird stuff, then how dare does he suggest we all embrace that.
This remind me of a liberal movie critic who referred to American History X as “homoerotic” just because the main star was almost always barechested. Seriously, there’s nothing more funny or tragic than heterosexuals trying to figure out who we are and what we like.
posted by Samantha on
I think it was a very good article, very comprehensive, and not a hit piece at all. It was quite complimentary toward Andrew Sullivan and gave him a lot of space. It did cover a LOT of ground though, and included numerous writers, pundits and bloggers, as well as the subject of media access, conservative trends, and so on. Numerous discussion topics could emerge from this one article, including patriarchy, feminism, the overtaking of traditional conservatism by fundamentalism, the wisdom or foolishness of hate crimes legislation, the significance of gay marriage, the chasm between male and female gays, and so on.
I found this to be interesting:
[Goldstein suggests that gay conservatives assuage straight anxiety about homosexuality by presenting acceptable images of gays and lesbians. “This preserves the illusion that stigma can be overcome by good behavior.”]
Interesting observation, and pretty accurate. It’s interesting because other discriminated groups have faced this dilema, namely blacks and women.
Women have largely backed down, having lost the ERA, yet making sufficient gains in social equality and the job market to lessen the need to push for more equality. Vocal women who persisted, and were faced with charges of “lesbian!” or “man-hater,” retreated to the cocoon of marriage and suburbia. After years of this, we can see the result – less public respect for women, less fair coverage in media, film and tv, and an erosion of rights.
Blacks on the other hand, took a different path. Sure, they assimilated, in some ways became Cosby-like and likeble, but at some juncture decided to also embrace and defend their less desirable characters, who behaved too black for white america. Blacks figured out long ago, that it’s not as important to be loved as it is to be culturally intact, to be organized, to survive, to have pride, to have power and ownership, and maintain the crucial legal protections which overule individual bigotry.
For gay americans, we’ll see. Because we face the same quandry.
One other comment, on the poster who mentioned that Tammy Bruce isn’t a conservative – she notoriously is. She’s a big Fox News mouthpiece, a friend of Hannity and Laura Schlessinger, and attacks liberals and democrats on a regular basis.
posted by Samantha on
“Funny, I’m sure most gays find transgender people to be weird.”
Really? Well, I’m glad you can speak for most gay people.
posted by ETJB on
LGBT people on the left, right and center are more then capable of responding to people of different political affiliation/beliefs with crudely.
The “religious right” does hold a tremendous sway over the Republican Party, and it looks like that is not going to change anytime soon.
I am not sure that Chamberlain, “doesn’t give any credence to the ideas of “limited government” and personal responsibility..” I think that is a bit of a stretch, especially from some one who is making the case against such crude and over broad political generalizations
Likewise, using the phrase; “a sign of the left’s slovenliness” does not help make your case. LGBT people across the political spectrum often DO debate online.
posted by ETJB on
“Most people in this country are white.”
Care to back this up with statistics? Even if it true, so what?
“There is nothing wrong with being white.”
No, but white privledge does exist.
posted by Avee on
The charge that if you’re against race-based preferences in hiring/promotion then you’re a racist, or if you dispute the view that the patriarchy is the font of all evil, then you’re a misogynist, seems to me all too typical of leftwing polemics. Chamberlain, Goldstein, and their “queer” progressive allies believe this, and so rather than debating social and economic policies, nonleft gays are expected to prove that they’re not racists, sexist, self-hating misers. That’s the contemptible game many of us simply will not play.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
I am happy to note that the straight conservative op-ed writer in Philly to whom Steve links, Howard Lurie, is a retired law professor at my alma mater, Villanova University.
As to white privilege, the fact that it exists does not for a moment justify the self-defeating politics of the left. When so-called progressive anti-racists declare that a person is racist not based on what he believes or says or does but simply because he is white, they are inhabiting a looking-glass world worthy of Lewis Carroll. To talk endlessly about white privilege without acknowledging the considerable history of people spending that privilege to work for equality is a lie of omission. When you refuse to give people credit for their past efforts, you make it clear that any further efforts by them will get them only bitter rebukes and insults. Those who still press ahead under such circumstances are inevitably few.
posted by Casey on
Just thought I’d pipe up for a second here – I’m pretty dang conservative, fiscally, religiously, and in terms of national security, etc. – but I also have no problem whatsoever with people who identify as transgender. I don’t think they’re anymore weird than I am, if by weird you mean somebody who experiences life in a significantly different way than most. I know trans folks, I’ve studied the phenomenon, and mostly, I’ve seen the senselessness of the discrimination they do suffer. Fact is, the only reason I didn’t support “trans-inclusive ENDA” wholeheartedly was because I think transfolk have a better chance at gaining those protections through the evolution of Title VII laws, and a failed ENDA vote could hurt that for them. Call it pragmatism.
Of course, nobody cares what I think – I’m just one random voice online – but it seems that there’s a thread in this conversation that “of course sane conservatives think trans people are freaks” which I just couldn’t let slide. Most trans folks go to work, pay their taxes, mow the law and love their families like anybody else. I don’t care what a person’s chromosomes are, or if they’ve been diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder – I just judge them by the content of their character. That’s conservative, as far as I’m concerned. Transphobia makes no more sense than homophobia, and is just as ugly.
posted by Bobby on
“Funny, I’m sure most gays find transgender people to be weird.”
Really? Well, I’m glad you can speak for most gay people.
—-I don’t speak for most gay people, I only say what I see. There is transphobia in our own community. A lot of people don’t understand transgendered people, and it’s politically correct to suggest otherwise.
You don’t believer me? OK, quick poll. How many of you support transgendered bathrooms?
As for white privilege, I disagree. What about all those jobs that require you to be bilingual, so if you’re hispanic and speak both languages, you end up having an advantage? Or the jobs denied because some company or college needs to fill a diversity quota and you happen to be white. Or how the media didn sympathize with the white victim of the Jenna 6?
Call me a racist if you want, but we all know that if 6 white kids had beaten up a black kid, there wouldn’t have ben 20,000 people marching for them.
posted by Brian Miller on
I don’t vote Republican, but I do find the contempt of queer folk who vote Democratic towards non-Democrats to be amusing.
For instance, what’s the difference between being a huge supporter of Bob Dole (supporter of DOMA) and Bill Clinton (signer of DOMA) when it comes to gay issues?
Why does a former Paul Wellstone supporter get to rip on an Arlen Specter supporter as “self loathing” when both Senators voted for DOMA?
How come Rudy Giuliani is vilified by the queer left as “anti-gay” when his policies are literally identical to those of Hillary Clinton?
Why is are Hillary, Obama, Dodd, or Biden “better” on ending the military’s anti-gay policy than other politicians? After all, all four Senators have refused to sponsor or co-sponsor legislation in the Senate — the MREA — that’s already in the House (and which would end the anti-gay ban).
Why are Republicans who oppose the UAFA gay immigration equality legislation (Romney, Paul, etc.) painted as so much more evil than Democrats who oppose UAFA (Clinton and Obama)?
Because they think we’re stupid, that’s why.
Let’s show them who the stupid ones are by voting for the candidates who are best on gay issues — regardless of party.
posted by Larry on
Mr. Miller, you have a very annoying habit that I’ve commented on before. It’s captured by this line of yours:
“These ideas may, of course, be debatable, but it’s a sign of the left’s slovenliness to not even engage in that debate…”
Time and time again you paint the whole of “the left” as having some characteristic or behaving in a certain way, and you base it off the written or spoken comment of a single individual. You decry the broad brushstrokes painted by certain lefties and then do the exact same thing yourself.
posted by Jorge on
No offense, Samantha, but given the ridiculousness of Democratic and liberal politics these days, attacking liberals and Democrats on a regular basis is hardly worth writing home about, much less labeling as “conservative.”
Tammy Bruce doesn’t speak like any conservative–fiscal, social, or otherwise–that I know of. She strikes me as squarely on the Clintonian center-left. Farther left than him, even.
Of course, given Clinton’s support of the invasion of Iraq (no matter how he tries to cover that up) and frequent kissing up to both Bushes, I suppose he qualifies as a “conservative” to you too.
“Most people in this country are white.”
Care to back this up with statistics? Even if it true, so what?
“If”?
Don’t you think it’s a little ridiculous for the author to disparage and dismiss the vast majority of people in the nation?
…white privledge does exist.
And why is that? Don’t you think by this time, with everyone in the country having equal rights (oh, right, except us gays), that minorities have gained the power to influence how far they can go, how easy they have it? Especially in those places where they are the majority? You say white “privilege”, as in whites take success and accomplishment for granted. You don’t say white racism, whites casting down minorities. So then why is there this privilege? What are whites doing and what are minorities doing to sustain it?
I mean, gee, if gays, who have the *least* legal rights and the most ostracism, are stereotyped as being just as privileged as “whites”, then maybe we should be talking about not the privileged, but the underachievers.
posted by Jorge on
OK, quick poll. How many of you support transgendered bathrooms?
Eh, that’s not a very good idea. They should just choose one and be done with it. I don’t care if we go by physical sex or outward appearance, just let them go to the bathroom like everyone else, not like some segregated group.
posted by Amicus on
it’s a sign of the left’s slovenliness to not even engage in that debate …
====
yes, you are right.
“The Left” should take time to properly address, what is it, 3% of the people who believe like the good professor from Villanova.
On some accountings, the Libertarians are taken for granted by the Republicans, because the vote GOP, by majority, all the time.
Of course, it is p.c. to engage their ideas, nicely, nonetheless.
Chamberlain writes, “Gay conservatives have had difficulty finding a home and a purpose.”
Really?
posted by Avee on
The progressives commenting above have yet to address my point — that instead of engaging in debate over whether policies such as government-mandated preferences based solely on race actually make society better or not, their response is to label anyone who even questions mandated preferences as a “racist.” Those on the left no longer see the need to debate (or know how to, apparently); they prefer to lob accusations of racism, sexism, self-hatred etc., etc., etc.
posted by Brian Miller on
Time and time again you paint the whole of “the left” as having some characteristic or behaving in a certain way, and you base it off the written or spoken comment of a single individual.
Our editor is hardly the only individual who does this from time to time, and when it’s done to folks who aren’t on the left it receives vigorous applause from left-leaning audiences. So while an unfortunate tendency, my observation is that it’s actually more common on the left than the right.
posted by Ashpenaz on
I’m not gay because I like diversity. I’m gay because I like men. Right now, I’m into men like Jason Statham and Matt Hughes. I’m all about masculinity.
I’m a Christian and I want to get married. I plan on being sexually exclusive. I have no interest in drag queens or Pride parades or transgenders or Project Runway (well, OK, Project Runway). I’m not one of Kathy Griffin’s gays. I have no interest in sexual adventuring. None of that has anything to do with what being gay means to me.
I’m not particularly conservative–I believe we should have universal health care. I think most international problems can be solved with diplomacy. I’m going to vote for John Edwards in the primary. But I feel completely out of sync with the gay left. I go to a Pride rally or gay bar every now and then and think, “Who are you people?” Then, I go into a Cabelas and feel right at home.
In my coming out process, I’ve gotten more support from straights than gays. Straights are pretty much OK–gays want to sign me up for a bunch of causes I’m not interested in, and when I don’t, they call me a self-loathing closeted queen. So, I don’t have any ties with the gay community.
Most of the members of the gay community I encounter are like the author of this article. I’m glad for IGF, and I wish there were places other than the blogosphere where mainstream gays could meet. I’ll be at Cabelas.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Hey Ashpenaz, I went and looked up Cabelas (an outdoors store) and remembered something different but related.
Back in the old days (1970s or 1980s, I forget which) there was a running joke about how “real men don’t eat quiche.” It was a backlash against stylishness in general and gays in particular, as symbolized by people who went to overly fancy restaurants and ate overly fancy foods whose names began with Q and sounded effeminate.
I don’t really know where it all started, but I remember it having an effect like any other cultural tidbit. After a while you’d hear gay people saying things like, “You’re not going to be seen eating quiche, are you?” They’d laugh when they said it, but still, there was some underlying worry of some sort.
At the time, I didn’t know what quiche was. Then I had some, and I thought it was pretty damn good. It’s really nothing more than an omlette in a pastry shell. So I started saying, “Real men eat whatever the fuck they want to eat,” and laughing about it. Then I discovered eggs benedict. Now I wear skirts and I squat to pee. Better watch out.
Now, as far as “the gay left” goes, I think maybe you’re seeing what you want to see and making some connections that aren’t as solid as they seem. You can be masculine and liberal if you want to be. It really works. And if you somehow think you’ll find more masculinity among the gay Republicans, all I can say is that you really haven’t been looking very hard.
Bottom line: Retail, politics, and sexual orientation don’t mix all that well. As far as Matt Hughes goes, even though my sexual adventuring days are pretty much in the past, I think I’d make an exception.
p.s.: Now that you’ve got those clothes, did you catch any fish yet?
posted by Samantha on
I wonder in Hitler’s camps, when the “masculine” sports fishing gay types wearing the pink triangles were hungry and sick, if they appreciated any help from the pride-parade types who offered them a piece of bread and a blanket. Or, did they tell them, get lost I’m not like you?
“Being gay” means a lot of things to a lot of people, and that’s ok. But snobbishness doesn’t get us anywhere. As a gay woman I could say that in general, gay male behavior is distasteful, whether you’re conservative or not, because you’re much too different than me. You’re too sexual, you have too many partners, and my teenage son doesn’t feel safe around you. My family understands me for the most part, and they don’t think what I do in bed is strange. Gay males on the other hand…they view very differently. Straight males at work love me. They love lesbians, really. So, do I get my medal now?
Should I shrug my shoulders at what’s around me, and figure, as a suburban lesbian, it ain’t my problem? If GLAAD or the local gay organization wants me to help volunteer, or sign me up for “a bunch of causes,” should I say, I don’t care? Well, I certainly have choices, and most of us honesty don’t get involved, we just lead our lives. But, I feel that it’s a good thing to get involved, and would make me a better person.
posted by ETJB on
Bobby;
Anyone, especially if they are young, can learn to speak Spanish. In fact they should probably offer foreign languages at younger ages in schools.
People can not change their race, and like it or not, white privlege does exist.
“The media” is a rather broad term and I sure that their were plently of right-wing elements in the media who were more then happy to “sympathize” with the white victims.
“Call me a racist if you want.”
Trust me, the shoe does seem to fit.
“If 6 white kids had beaten up a black kid, there wouldn’t have ben 20,000 people marching for them.”
Well, in such a case the KKK and other such organizations would have probably showed up.
posted by Jorge on
I wonder in Hitler’s camps, when the “masculine” sports fishing gay types wearing the pink triangles were hungry and sick, if they appreciated any help from the pride-parade types who offered them a piece of bread and a blanket. Or, did they tell them, get lost I’m not like you?
Of course not. Don’t you remember the LA Riots? Check out Crash. Look what happens whenever a white person is jumped by a black gang or a white gang chases after a black gang. And why does this happen?
(Hitler’s camps?)
posted by Charles Wilson on
Don’t you remember the LA Riots? Check out Crash. Look what happens whenever a white person is jumped by a black gang or a white gang chases after a black gang. And why does this happen?
I understand that this is sometimes a matter of fashion choices. Colors, and so on. Someone should tell Cabelas to stock their real-man clothes in both red and blue. Ashpenaz, I’m a liberal and I’m waiting for my trout. In a white whine reduction sauce, natch.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Fishing? During pheasant season, Charles? It’s time for snowy cornfields and all that.
Here’s the word the gay left is afraid of: normal. I’m coming out–I’m normal, guys. I bet you knew it all along.
I don’t want to say all men are alike, but men do have a lot of things in common. I’m just like every other guy–I just feel a bit more tingly when I see Brett Favre throw a pass. I didn’t want to be normal, I didn’t ask to be normal. It just turns out that I don’t see a lot of difference between me and the average guy. It must be genetic.
That’s why I don’t understand the gay left’s desire to affirm exotic, flamboyant behavior. It seems artificial. They seem to be trying to be as different as possible just to annoy people. If they were true to themselves as guys, they’d probably be sittng in a recliner with a bowl of chips and a remote. Like I’m about to do now.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Ashpenaz, I’m not as down on what you’re saying as I might sound. I am trying to lend some perspective, and am doing it with an edge. My temperment is similar to yours, although Cabela’s just doesn’t make me tingle. I used to go fishing when I was a kid, but for some reason it never stuck with me. Well, maybe a little bit. In my teenage years and thereafter, I went for trouser trout instead. Masculine trouser trout, I might add.
That said, I really think you ought to go study some gay history. You’ll learn that the two really big events were in 1961, when a drag queen got 6,000 votes in what was a joke campaign for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors (their city council), and in 1969, when a bunch of transvestite hookers got tired of police harrassment in New York and barricaded themselves into the Stonewall Bar in Greenwich Village for a couple of days.
I don’t hang out in pride parades either. I went to one of them and it was really not my style. At one place I lived, my co-workers literally refused to believe that I was gay when I told them. I wasn’t attracted to any of ’em and I didn’t have a partner or boyfriend (never liked the word, by the way) so it wasn’t like I could demonstrate it. Back in the 1970s and early ’80s when I did go out to the bars, the disco music drove me near around the bend I hated it so much. So, I really do hear you.
All that said, though, I’m trying to tell you to beware of “respectability.” It doesn’t win you as many points as you think it does. The people who hate us (and yes, there are a shitload of them out there) don’t care if you shop at Cabela’s. In fact, I think there’s an argument to be made — and I’ve seen it played out in person — that “normal” gay people are sometimes treated worse than stereotypical ones. They’re more of a threat to the heterosexual male psyche. And make no mistake, the anti-gay stuff is almost exclusively directed as gay men; lesbians have their own troubles, but they’re not usually in the gunsights like we are.
Why do you think there aren’t any openly gay baseball, basketball, or football players? Why do you think that, in those sports in particular, people wait until they’re retired to come out? I’m going to give you one answer: Gay people in those sports are afraid that they might be assassinated — quite literally — if they came out. No shit.
Remember Mike Piazza, the catcher on the New York Mets who had a press conference to announce that he was heterosexual? My little elves tell me that he shares a house with another baseball player. Now, I don’t know if Piazza is specifically afraid of being assassinated, but I’d be willing to put money on it that there are plenty of equally masculine men in the major sports who are.
Don’t sit there and tell yourself that gender-conforming public behavior equals acceptance. It doesn’t. I wish it were otherwise, but it’s not, and I’m not in the business of bullshitting myself.
When it comes to my liberal politics, iike anyone else I fall on a spectrum of liberal to conservative. It’s not “anything goes” for me. If I think that transsexuals should be treated fairly, it doesn’t mean that I’m big into the display. I’m not. But whenever I’m tempted (and believe me, sometimes I’m tempted) to toss the “embarrassing” people off the bus, I remember who got me the rights I now enjoy.
Now, like I say, my appreciation has its limits. There are some gay men who like underage boys. I have no problem tossing them off the bus, although I also have to say that I think the hysteria has gone a bit far on that issue in recent years. Still, if NAMBLA wants to be part of the, uh, rainbow, I say, not on my dime.
But Liberace and Ru Paul and that whole crowd, while not reflective of the way I carry myself, are part of the passing parade. They had a lot more guts than I ever did, and paid much higher prices (before they got rich, anyway) than I ever did. And I don’t know who the hell they vote for.
Sorry for the length and seriousness of this, but I guess I needed to respond to you directly. Don’t paint with such a broad brush, and don’t be so quick to think that your shit doesn’t stink. That’s what I’m trying to say.
posted by Ashpenaz on
I don’t identify with Ted Nugent, either. There are extremes on both sides.
You assume that I’m trying to be normal in order to cover up my innate flamboyant tendencies. I’m trying to say that I’m just helplessly normal. When I’m true to myself, I hit the recliner.
I think Stonewall was a huge step backward for gays in that it permanently associated “gay” with “drag.” They are not the same things. It is difficult now to change public perception and focus on the mainstream gay experience, which, like everyone else, is a room with two recliners and a bowl of chips between them.
I am not convinced that there is such a thing as “transexuality,” sorry. I might be wrong, but I don’t have to. Lots of scientists don’t. I think people are born either male or female, and I think the healthiest thing to do is to embrace the gender you were born with. Again, I may be wrong, but I have the right to feel that way. I do not have to associate my issues with the transgender community or the drag community if I don’t want to. I welcome them to pursue happiness like all Americans, but I’m using my inalienable right not to care.
And, as for the Mike Piazza thing–all I can say is, “Ohmigod, ohmigod, OHMIGOD! Please let it be true! Where’s his house?”
posted by kittynboi on
Yep, more complaining on the part of wannabe butch guys. Just like always. More whining about stonewall, just like always. More bashing fem guys, as usual.
Okay, enough of this; back to Half-Life. Shooting at aliens in a videogame is more intellectually stimulating than half the people on here could ever be.
posted by Brian Miller on
Oh, this “butch versus femme” crap is so inauthentic (to borrow Stephen’s initial verbiage).
To the self-described “butch straight-acting gay men” — you’re nowhere NEAR as “masculine” and “manly” as you think, especially after you’ve had a couple of drinks or get agitated enough for your fake-o “big man” mask to drop.
To the self-described “feminine men” — you’re nowhere NEAR as “noble and oppressed” as you claim to be, and are often as bitchy and petty as the worst stereotypes.
To both groups — most of us don’t care about your need to create and maintain an inauthentic facade dictated by politics and self-awareness issues rather than by genuine expression of the self.
posted by Samantha on
Ok, “normal” is being as masculine as possible, Stonewall was a step backward, and transexuals don’t exist.
Rev. Dobson would welcome that kind of mindset with open arms. All you need to do is go one more tiny step further and say that gays don’t exist either, and you’ll get your fundie card.
As far as the parades, yeah they are a bit outlandish. But you know what I often wonder? Why don’t all the gay stockbrokers, lawyers, governors, senators, priests, pastors, football players, doctors, judges, etc. have a parade on national television? Gee, I wonder why they don’t do that.
posted by Ashpenaz on
My coming out process has involved more nasty remarks like the ones above from gay people than anything negative from straights. Straights are cool with who I am. Gays can’t stand gays who don’t sign onto issues which have nothing to do with being gay. I never got the toaster, but I sure got the list of talking points. Go ahead and believe what you want–but don’t expect me to care about your issues any more than you care about mine. What are you going to do about it? Beat me up until I change?
posted by Charles Wilson on
Ashpenaz, a question: Have there been any good arguments raised here against your point of view?
posted by Charles Wilson on
I forgot to tell you something, Ashpenaz. I have not one, but two recliners. But, being the fag I am, they’re made by Stickley. Real men sit in Lazyboys.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Ashpenaz, if manliness is your thing, I guess you’ll just have to join the college Republicans, huh? They’re a ruff ‘n tuff crowd, I’ll tell ya.
posted by ashpenazorjames? on
James (or ashpenis), why do you always post to this board under different names? Isn’t it a little dishonest to post identical messages under different names? Why do you do this? Is Omaha really that boring?
posted by Brian Miller on
My coming out process has involved more nasty remarks like the ones above from gay people than anything negative from straights.
Sorry kiddo, the Victimhood Express left two hours ago, and the seats were oversold.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Pity the poor uber-masculine homosexual male, who is so misunderstood and unappreciated within the tribe. If only those limp-wristed bitches would stop being so, well, so female, then all would be well among the real men who like to bump crotches, and more, with other real men. It’s unfair, I’ll tell ya. So unfair.
posted by Sean Kinsell on
Ashpenaz:
“That’s why I don’t understand the gay left’s desire to affirm exotic, flamboyant behavior. It seems artificial. They seem to be trying to be as different as possible just to annoy people. If they were true to themselves as guys, they’d probably be sittng in a recliner with a bowl of chips and a remote. Like I’m about to do now.”
You’re running together two kinds of people.
There are plenty of gay advocates (mostly leftist, yes) whose demeanor is pretty ordinary who nevertheless think non-conformist behavior should be defended on principle. You can certainly argue that they should be distinguishing between acceptance of gays in general and acceptance of every gay subculture explicitly. But maybe they’re willing to recognize that what would be “artificial” in themselves is, in fact, entirely natural in others.
One of my dearest friends is among the queeniest guys I’ve ever met: voice as shrill as all get-out, hands constantly fluttering all over the place, shirts that look like an explosion at the pinata factory. Sometimes, frankly, it drives me nuts. But we’re friends because he’s shown himself to be a rock in time of need and a man of honor when things get beyond having a good time at the bar on Saturday night. I’m willing to trust that he knows his own mind and how his personality is to be authentically expressed. For every queen who’s pushing the fabulous-class-clown thing for “artificial” dramatic effect, there’s a butch thing whose mask of studied gruffness is betrayed when he erupts into squeals at the new Rihanna video.
And I don’t think Stonewall bears as much blame as you seem to think for the image gays have. Most heteros in Middle America, I’d wager, have no idea where Stonewall is and what happened there. In every country I know of, male homosexuality is reflexively associated with drag and effeminate behavior. As Samantha implied, part of the reason for that is that queens have usually been the only people known to the community as gay; those who could pass often built careers and reputations that gave them a lot to lose if they came out.
posted by Bobby on
ETJB, in Venezuela where I lived for 20 years, there is no press 2 for English, no voter guides in English, no report cards in English, if you want English, you either pick up an American newspaper or send your kids to a private American school. America used to be the same way, that’s why most Italian-Americans don’t speak Italian. But now, thanks to the left, there’s a lot of self-hating Americans that want their country to become something else. They want a radical culture change, and because most of the media favors their views, they have a lot of bully power.
White priviledge existed in the 1960s, now the CEO of American Express is an African American. I don’t think he got his job because American Express wanted a black president.
“If 6 white kids had beaten up a black kid, there wouldn’t have ben 20,000 people marching for them.”
Well, in such a case the KKK and other such organizations would have probably showed up.
—No, the reality is that white people don’t go around rallying for criminals. Only liberal blacks and liberal whites would rally for the likes of convicted cop killer Mumia Abdul Jabbar. You don’t get it because it doesn’t affect you, but if a white lesbian was raped by 6 black men and the media started portraying the black men as victims because the DA wanted to charge them with 10 years in prison, then you’d be outraged.
The Jenna 6 hoods are no saints, they’re as bad as gay bashers, and if you have any sense of fairness, you’ll condemn their cruelty as such and hope for the maximum penalty. You know, plenty of countries have had slavery, plenty of countries have mistreated black people, but only in this country you can use race to excuse bad behavior. Only in this country black people call themselves African-Americans. I’ve yet to me an African-Dominican or an African-German, or an African-Irish.
posted by ETJB on
You said: ETJB, in Venezuela where I lived for 20 years, there is no press 2 for English, no voter guides in English…”
How many new Venezuelan are their each year in terms of immigration? I doubt that Venezuela is a well known nation of immigrants.
You said: America used to be the same way.”
No, many first generation Americans did not speak English, certainly not well, unless they came from a nation where the langauge was common. 2nd and 3rd generation Americans will learn to speak and read English.
White privlege has always existed in America and it still does.
To suggest that it does not exist now, or some existed in the 1960s is just plain dishonest.
“White people don’t go around rallying for criminals.”
Well, I have already pointed at the KKK as a fine example.
I will resist the urge to offer other examples, i.e. Oliver North.
“If a white lesbian was raped by 6 black men and the media started portraying the black men as victims because the DA wanted to charge them with 10 years in prison, then you’d be outraged.”
Really? You can read my mind? Oh, wait you are just being a jerk. What evidence would the DA have to charge them with the crime? Was the Constitution being followed?
I said: The Jenna 6 hoods are no saints.
I never said that they were saints or that the people who commit crimes should not be punished. What seems to ruffle your feathers is the notion that the Constitution applies to all citizens. In fact their are specific provisions that come into play when a citizen is accused of a crime.
The students that made the death threats were not saints either. The DA clearly was not a saint either.
You said: Only in this country black people call themselves African-Americans.
Well, if they were not American or of African descent then it would be a rather odd for them to call themselves that.
I said: I’ve yet to me an African-Dominican or an African-German, or an African-Irish.
You need to get out more then.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Hey Bobby, keep it up. I, for one, am not either a Republican or a Log Cabinette, so when I see, uh, the “independent” homos going after the Hispanics I smile at their stupidity.
You are so ignorant of your own country’s history! The U.S. is a nation of immigrants. They’ve come here in wave after wave, and when they did there were foreign languages spoken all over the place. There was plenty of government business conducted in languages other than English, too.
I grew up in a city where, at one point, there were 14 German-language newspapers, and where, during my childhood, there were some areas of town where Polish was the first language and English was the second language. Somehow, everyone survived.
Oh, and remember the Italians? A hundred years ago, there were people just like you who thought, or at least acted, as if the Italians were a different, and inferior race. The first I.Q. tests appeared to confirm it, at least until they were re-normed.
So, Bobby, please, by all means keeping taking those nice, big, fat “independent” shits on the Hispanics here. As you do so, my side will be welcoming them to the party, and for the next 50 years you and your tight-assed successors will spend every post-election night wondering how Bobby and his pals could have been so stupid.
posted by Bobby on
Actually Charles, you’re the ignorant, nobody’s denying America is a nation of immigrants, but most of those immigrants came here LEGALLY.
And while German Americans had german newspapers, they never demanded that public schools send grade reports in german.
And unlike you, I know a thing or two about hispanics because #1. I am white hispanic. #2. I work in hispanic advertising. #3. I lived in Venezuela for 20 years. Can you say the same? No, your impression of hispanics probably comes from vacationing in Miami and visiting Costa Rica, buddy, you don’t know shit, and somebody who doesn’t know shit, has no business calling anyone ignorant.
posted by Bobby on
ETJB,
“How many new Venezuelan are their each year in terms of immigration? I doubt that Venezuela is a well known nation of immigrants.”
—You’d be surprised, before Chavez, Venezuela was flooded with Colombians and people used to complain about colombians taking their jobs and causing crime. In fact, most Latin countries are nations of immigrants because before Christopher Columbus, only indians lived there. It’s very stupid to assume that only America is a nation of immigrants. In fact, by that standard, Canada should also be called a nation of immigrants.
“Really? You can read my mind? Oh, wait you are just being a jerk. What evidence would the DA have to charge them with the crime? Was the Constitution being followed?”
—The beating of the white kid was on video tape. That should be enough. Remember Rodney King? Same crime, different race.
“The students that made the death threats were not saints either.”
—Hanging a nooze and beating a person are two different things. Do we want to become like Australia where someone who wrote a letter to the editor telling “pofters” to watch themselves ended up facing charges? If liberals take over, real crimes will be ignored and thought crimes will be invented. It’s already happening in Canada where homophobic clergy can be prosecuted. If the price of free speech is homophobia, I’d rather have homophobia, racism, and all those evils that are important in a free society. I only draw the line at actual violence.
God help us if we end up like New Jersey, where they have decided to make the hanging of a nooze a criminal act. Our country is going insane, and conservatives and freedom loving people need to rise up and stop this madness.
posted by ETJB on
Bobby:
Venezuelan may have immigrants, but it probably does not hold itself up to the entire world as being a proud ‘nation of immigrants.’
In the United States 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants always learn to read and write English as well as other children who grew up in the nation and went to our schools.
If it is actually on tape, and clear enough to make an ID, then that is enough evidence to charge them with several crimes and probably convict them.
You said: Hanging a nooze and beating a person are two different things.
That was not the point. People who beat up some one or make death threats are not saints. Yes, both present different legal/ethical problems, but we should not be painting either as saints.
You said: Do we want to become like Australia where someone who wrote a letter to the editor telling “pofters” to watch themselves ended up facing charges?
(1) Apples and Oranges. Australia does not have a Bill of Rights, much less our First Amendment.
It is one thing to use offensive/hate speech per se. It is a different thing to threaten some one with bodily harm for doing something that they are entitled to do.
Canada is also not the United States. They do have a Bill of Rights, but a much, much weaker 1st Amendment.
posted by Bobby on
ETJB,
“Venezuelan may have immigrants, but it probably does not hold itself up to the entire world as being a proud ‘nation of immigrants.'”
—Let’s agree on this, America is the #1 nation in the world, so if they hold themselves as a nation of immigrants or as the leader of the world, people tend to believe it. However, that doesn’t make it so. America has had a turbulent immigration history, including the Nativist movement, the Chinese Exclusion Act, jewish quotas during world war II. The words on the statue of liberty are just that, words. Although Canada has strict immigration laws, they’re a lot more welcoming, for example, if you go to college in Canada, you get a work visa at graduation and after a few years, you can become a citizen.
“In the United States 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants always learn to read and write English as well as other children who grew up in the nation and went to our schools.”
—Yes, but things have changed. Now there’s bilingual education in high school, report cards being translated to other languages. Even the republican debate was transmited in Spanish, live!
“Canada is also not the United States. They do have a Bill of Rights, but a much, much weaker 1st Amendment.”
—True, but our first amendment is being weakened, specially if states start passing laws banning the displays of noozes. I think everyone needs to develop thicker skin, our nation is becoming overtly sensitive.
Look at what happened to Don Imus. While comedy central can do a cartoon of 3 comedians entering the president’s anus (watch Last Laugh 07) and finding his brain there, Imus got suspended for saying “nappy headed ho’s.”
posted by Kellie on
I find it sad that some who are- rightly- dismayed over being dismissed by the larger “community” for holding Right-leaning views are similarly dismissive toward transfolks, seeming to wish (much as the GLBT “leadership” would toward conservative GLBT folk) that we would disappear. It’s not whining about so-called “transphobia” or anything else; it’s simply expecting that some of those who are marginalized by the larger “community” would not engage in similar marginalization.
I’m a libertarian/conservative transgender woman who often supports Republicans for the same reasons most of you others do: on balance, their- stated- policies on issues of importance are usually closer to mine than those of their Dem opponents. You think gay men have a diff time voicing their conservatism? Try doing so among some of self-annointed leaders of the trans “community”
posted by Charles Wilson on
And while German Americans had german newspapers, they never demanded that public schools send grade reports in german.
My report cards were in German. “A” is a German letter.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
So, Bobby, please, by all means keeping taking those nice, big, fat “independent” shits on the Hispanics here. As you do so, my side will be welcoming them to the party, and for the next 50 years you and your tight-assed successors will spend every post-election night wondering how Bobby and his pals could have been so stupid.
Except for the annoying little fact that, unless you specifically give it to them, the vast majority don’t have the right to vote. Short of fraud, of course, which is why the Democrat Party so strenuously opposes requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote or photo identification and being registered to cast votes. It’s also why they push for automatic cross-the-border citizenship, with no requirement that you actually come into the country legally.
For those of us who have actually lived in Hispanic areas and among Hispanics, an interesting set of facts emerges; unlike black Americans and gays, Hispanics are much less willing to let their ethnicity trump destructive and criminal behavior. For instance, in the 2004 vote on Arizona’s Proposition 200, a measure which requires proof of citizenship to register to vote or to receive public benefits, mandates voter identification at polling places, and requires state agencies and law enforcement to report illegal immigrants to the Federal government for deportation, was favored by 47% of Hispanic voters. They are just as tired as Anglo and other voters of illegal immigrants.
Under the current LEGAL system, you must demonstrate that you have the education, skills, and background to support yourself in this country and avoid criminal behavior. Unfortunately for the Democrat Party, what that also does is ensure that you are much less susceptible to manipulation than, say, an impoverished, illiterate, non-English speaking laborer from central Mexico. The Democrats are merely repeating the Boss Tweed politics that they used so effectively in previous immigration cycles of using unfamiliarity with American customs, lack of education and skills, and whatnot to create a malleable mob of voters that will rubber-stamp whatever their masters tell them.