There’s been much mischief made of late by critics of the “Freedom to Marry, Freedom to Dissent” statement that I and other nonleftist gay writers (among others) recently signed, linking it to a supposed defense of all manner of anti-gay or otherwise scandalous misbehavior.
The statement argues, among other points, that it’s wrong to pressure companies to fire executives because they don’t personally support marriage equality. It was a response to boycott threats against Mozilla that led to the forced resignation of CEO Brendan Eich over a $1,000 contribution he gave several years ago to support California’s Prop 8 initiative (through which a majority of Californians banned state recognition of same-sex marriage, until the Supreme Court ruled otherwise).
That doesn’t mean boycotts are never justified; some certainly are, while others are an overreaction, or may be purely unjustified. And some are arguably justifiable but still very bad strategy if the goal is to build a broad majority consensus for gay legal equality.
From what I’ve read, for instance, I wouldn’t give my business to nor oppose the boycott of the Beverly Hills Hotel, owned by the Dorchester Collection, which is owned by the Sultan of Brunei. The sultan, who is dictator over his realm, recently moved to institute Sharia law there, which calls for stoning to death gays and adulterers, among others.
The sultan’s ownership is a few steps away from direct, but the nature of his evil actions is so great that it calls for a strong response. If enough pain is exerted, the Dorchester Collection may sell the property, or the sultan might even sell the Dorechester Collection. It’s probably folly to think that the sultan will stop persecuting gays and others, however. Also, we should at least be mindful that hotel employees, through no fault of their own, could be out of a job while the point is being made.
Of a different magnitude altogether is the ginning up of a boycott threat that led HGTV (the home and garden network) to cancel an upcoming flip your house show with the brothers David and Jason Benham, over their conservative faith-based opposition to the homosexual “agenda” and abortion.
This is somewhat akin to the recent “Duck Dynasty” controversy, which engendered such a backlash that family patriarch Phil Robertson was restored to the show despite his faith-based opposition to homosexuality. That show is all about the Robertson family and its personalities, so I didn’t have an issue with people telling A&E they no longer wanted to watch the brood (if they ever had). Whereas the Benham brothers show, “Flip it Forward,” was to be about helping “lower-income families purchase fixer uppers and transform them into dream homes.”
That’s a difference. And even if you think the brothers’ views are beyond the pale, they’ve gone from being just two of the many, many, home fixer-uppers and house flippers that populate HGTV to being a culture war cause celebre, “swamped with media requests for interviews.” CNN being just one example.
Recent weeks have seen former Secretary of State Condolezza Rice’s withdrawal as commencement speaker at Rutgers University following protests by leftwing faculty and students over her role in the Iraq War, and Brandeis University’s decision to cancel Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s honorary degree because leftwing faculty and students protested her impassioned criticism of Islamic brutality against women. As Ruth R. Wisse notes in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, “those who admit no legitimate opposition to their ideas feel duty-bound to shut down unwelcome speakers.”
These actions by universities surrendering to activists of a totalitarian bent who want to keep students from hearing viewpoints with which they disagree (legitimate opinions, even if debatable) is the company with which gay rights supporters are now being compared.
More. With hindsight, I’d now say the “Duck Dynasty” boycott call was inappropriate and, ultimately, counter-productive. Exposure, criticism, and the resulting plunge in ratings would have been a more judicious and adequate response than pressuring A&E to order Phil Robertson off the show, and would have avoided the network’s subsequent retreat in order to placate socially conservative viewers and fans (which many/most of the protestors never were).
Boycott threats work both ways, and often backfire by turning their targets into victims of the politically correct thought police. And thus do rightwing ideologues become free-speech martyrs (Chick-fil-A being another case in point).
Furthermore. As if to demonstrate the above, when the controversy erupted SunTrust Banks pulled all of its listed properties with the Benham brothers—provoking a predictable backlash that led to the bank’s reversal, announcing: “SunTrust supports the rights of all Americans to fully exercise their freedoms granted under the Constitution, including those with respect to free speech and freedom of religion.”
36 Comments for “Boycotts Aren’t All the Same”
posted by Doug on
“That doesn’t mean boycotts are never justified; some certainly are, . . . ”
Let me guess, those boycotts that are justified just happen to be those that you approve of and those that are not justified, you just happen to not approve of.
Sorry, I’ve heard that tune before and I’m not dancing to it.
posted by Houndentenor on
By the time gay bloggers had posted a link to the article about the HGTV twins, the network had already canceled the show. We had nothing to do with that. Saying we did is a flat out lie.
Dr. Rice deserved to be shunned by society. She was part of a deliberate effort to lie to the American people to justify a war. She should be in prison, not giving speeches. Unless she’s going to apologize for her incompetence and lies, she has nothing say that is worth hearing.
I do agree about Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She is a brave person. Why some leftists (not all by any means) are so blind to the horrors that go on in parts of the world due to “cultural relativism” baffles me. We should be for human rights for everyone and not make excuses for people because of their religion and/or culture.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
I find Miller’s obsession with the left acts as a blinder to the facts of some of the above examples he listed. (He begins by reminding us that he and other “nonleftists” signed the dissent.)
The Ayaan Hirsi Ali situation was trumpeted by Sullivan as a gouging by the “hard left” against Ali. But when you look at the specifics of the situation – a single female Muslim student at Brandeis started a petition. (And she never indicated her ideological orientation.) A little over 600 students signed the petition. The CAIR (American-Islam organization – whose members are far to the right of the average American on social issues) got involved, asking its members to sign the petition.
I think Ali is a courageous person. But she does more than just criticize Islam’s relationship with women. She denigrates Islam in every way. And while she will acknowledge the similar ‘crimes’ of Christianity against humanity and history – she qualifies them with a jarring lack of consistency when compared to her take on Islam.
Her lack of critical consistency is understandable. But for a Muslim student – perhaps it is also understandable why they would not want her recognized by their university.
I’m guessing that Brandeis didn’t really vet Ali’s complete portfolio. Stupid. Yes. But a historically Jewish college – which sees itself as inclusive and reaching across ideological boundaries – suddenly realizes it is about to honor a person who has said essentially nothing but vile things about Islam.
Hmmm. Maybe this isn’t about left and right. The actual sequence of events might indicate a college that made a numbskull move on its vetting process – and then realized it didn’t want to be seen as endorsing Ali’s hardline stance on Islam.
That Miller would ignore the facts of the case – while also ignoring Ali’s more exhaustive critique of Islam – seems to me to say that Miller is the one with the agenda here.
And the HGTV situation?
Right Wing Watch (RWW) is the group that broke the story. HGTV was looking at producing a series with the brothers. RWW did what its charter is about – and noted the radical homophobia and anti-Islam rhetoric of the family.
Again, similar to Brandeis – the vetting process by these organizations is really abysmal. HGTV’s audience has a significant ‘gay’ demographic. Maybe a business organization suddenly realized it had screwed up – and decided not to run with the show.
I don’t recall any boycott ever being even mentioned. There wasn’t any time. HGTV reacted to RWW’s press release almost immediately.
What I don’t see these “nonleftists gay writers” realizing is what Dan Savage calls the “tipping point”. Perhaps certain industries in the US are deciding that they don’t want to be seen as endorsing any type of homophobia. However loosely that term is defined.
Rather than celebrating the fact that at least some businesses are standing against the anti-gay crowd – our “nonleftist gay writers” are attacking the “left”, the lgbt community, and the businesses, for acts that in a different light are rather remarkable. (Really – this is an amazing cultural moment. Rather than see each of these situations as they should be seen – as unique moments that might possibly indicate a cultural trend towards rejection of the anti-gay – this becomes fodder for the “nonleftists”. (and yes, that phrase is just too telling…)
If there’s any ‘agenda’ here – it’s on these ideologically-obsessed “gay writers”. If I were to venture a guess, I’d say that these “nonleftists” run the risk of consigning themselves to history’s dustbin. Every civil rights movement (be it women’s suffrage, racial equality, etc…) has had members of the minority group in question stand up for the status quo – even though the status quo was directly harmful to them, and denied them equality.
I am starting to think that these writers might just join history’s bin. And really, now – how often do you hear about the upper-income women’s groups which worked so tirelessly against a woman’s right to vote? Or the African-American organizations that supported segregation? They existed in fact during the years these issues were front-page news. but now? Yeah, I thought so. History’s dustbin.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
I am somewhat skeptical of the idea that the HGTV network was too worried about boycotts from the gay community (especially when they later stated that their official reason for not giving the reality TV show the ‘green light’ was because the brothers looked gay)
I can appreciate the argument that proposed reality TV show did not seem to have much to do with anything tied to religion or politics.
I can also appreciate the argument that a network like HGTV has to mold and craft its ‘brand’ and is not obligated to give anyone their own reality TV show.
The Council On American-Islamic Relations does have some good people involved with it and does some some good work trying to counter certain stereotypes/prejudices directed at Muslims.
ANYTHING that involves an Islamic group and a Jewish group (or a historically Jewish college) is probably going to be a wee bit complicated and messy.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
A further thought re: Ali.
First, as I recall, wasn’t it a ‘leftist’ (since Miller, Sullivan, etc. describe all Brandeis students & faculty as such) who submitted Ali for the honorary degree in the first place? (For her work re: women’s rights.)
And for Miller to omit the reason for rescinding the honor is a bit telling. Ali has stated, unequivocally, that “we are at war with Islam.” Oh yes, and that “there is no moderate Islam”.
I think it was a bonehead move to honor Ali – for Brandeis. They realized she was not a good fit for Brandeis’ endorsement. Despite the leftist admin & faculty which initially supported her for said honor.
Some things in life do not fit so neatly into Miller’s left/ right view if the world.
posted by Jorge on
One of your better posts. You often get accused of making wild statements. Here you document the pattern and portray how it leads to your conclusion.
Dr. Rice deserved to be shunned by society. She was part of a deliberate effort to lie to the American people to justify a war. She should be in prison, not giving speeches.
Bull****. There is no evidence that the Bush administration lied in order to justify the Iraq War, and no speculation that Condi Rice herself lied about the Iraq War. The justification Bush gave in his memoir Decision Points matches the justification the Bush adminsitration gave at the time.
I do agree about Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She is a brave person.
I don’t. Which is why Mr. Miller’s post is well-stated.
And even if you think the brothers views are beyond the pale, they’ve gone from being just two of the many, many, home fixer-uppers and house flippers that populate HGTV to being a culture war cause celebre, “swamped with media requests for interviews.”
Hmm……
Then I say, prove that their views are beyond the pale. Fight for that position. If their views are beyond the pale, that would justify the action taken against them. There is no need to make this personal or nasty. Part of the deal in trying to prove that their views are beyond the pale is that they get to provide evidence that they are not (which they seem to be trying to do). This country would be well-served by a genuine dispute over the actual content and gravity of their views, regardless of how it ends up. One side will have to realize its overeach, or else both sides will know their limit.
posted by Houndentenor on
The Bush administration leaked lies to Judy Miller at the NY Times and then went on tv and referenced those lies as if they were from a legitimate source. (It’s why so many of no longer view the Times as credible.) Why would someone telling the truth use such a tactic. Of course Bush’s story is consistent. I’m sure he had a whole team of lawyers think up a rationale. Lies can be consistent. Bernie Madoff’s certainly were. Consistency is not evidence of truth.
posted by Jorge on
…Why would someone telling the truth use such a tactic.
How cute. A Washington outsider.
If that was your best shot, it’s a disappointment. We still have no evidence that the Bush administration lied in order to justify the Iraq war, and no speculation that Condi Rice herself lied about the Iraq war.
Best I be specific about what I mean about Bush’s justification.
1) Weapons of Mass Destruction. Not only did the Bush administration have faulty intelligence, Colin Powell personally reviewed and presented only the most credible of the intelligence findings to the UN (Bush alludes to this and Powell describes this explicitly). Those mobile weapons lab vans that Sean Hannity kept looking for in Syria were not leaked to the NY Times.
Not only did the Bush administration have faulty intelligence of WMDs, Sadaam Hussein had actually used WMDs in the past in the Iran-Iraq war.
2) Avowed enemy of the United States. Not only so, but Iraq had actually made an assassination atempt against a sitting US President.
3) State sponsor of terrorism. Iraq wasn’t merely interested in harboring international terrorists. Iraq actually paid the families of suicide bombers.
If you want to claim that the Bush administration, and Condi Rice in particular, lied about Iraq, you’re going to have to connect the dots better.
posted by Houndentenor on
The case for going to war with Iraq was so weak that they kept having to come up with new ones. There were worse threats to peace and security (both our own and that of the region) than Iraq. I’m not saying that Saddam Hussein was a good guy. Far from it, but this is a perfect example of a decision in search of a reason.
About Colin Powell’s powerpoint presentation to the UN. I was in Germany at the time. His “facts” were immediately attacked with many being shown to be dubious at best. That was hardly reported in the US. What a sad time in our country that people had to seek out foreign news sources to find out what was going on.
You obviously aren’t going to change your mind, but facts are facts. We were told not only that SH had the WMDs but what amounts and where they were. It turned out not to be true. That’s undeniable. (And the Sean Hannity reference is meant as a joke I assume. I remember him having “experts” on his show. Surely if there were anything to the claim that the WMDs had been moved to Syria immediately before the war, the Bush administration would have made that argument to avoid being seen as fools and/or liars.)
posted by Jimmy on
So evidence is now an expectation? Obvious stuff is obvious. The nation and the world was with us when we went into Afghanistan. Those rallies of support morphed into protest demonstrations when W. Cheney & Co. began to enact a business plan involving Iraq that had already been drawn up, awaiting execution. Given the number of Saudi hijackers, we’re were more justified invading Saudi Arabia, changing THAT regime.
I refuse to forget the way that administration used 9/11 to justify Iraq. It was sickening. Their crass campaign to tag those who disagreed with the invasion as un-American was awful. How Hillary Clinton allowed herself to get suckered still compromises her (Benghazi!!..beat you to it.)
posted by Carl on
Then I say, prove that their views are beyond the pale. Fight for that position. If their views are beyond the pale, that would justify the action taken against them.
There’s no ability to “prove” their views are beyond the pale, because it wasn’t up to us. It was up to HGTV. There were no boycotts. I don’t believe a single gay group said a word about this.
Yet once again Stephen Miller is using this to try to prove some point about how everyone has gone too far.
posted by Jorge on
There’s no ability to “prove” their views are beyond the pale, because it wasn’t up to us. It was up to HGTV. There were no boycotts. I don’t believe a single gay group said a word about this.
If their views are not beyond the pale, then their show should be put back on the schedule, Right Wing Watch condemned as a deceptive hate group, and the gay groups need to speak up. I’m not going to stick my neck out for them because I think they do have a lot of explaining to do. But if they explain it well then the judgment will have to be made that Right Wing Watch jumped to the wrong conclusion and HGTV did an unjust thing, and they will need to be held accountable for it.
posted by Carl on
The problem is the condemnations of these brothers were due to anti-gay, anti-abortion, and anti-Muslim controversies. There was never any explicit pressure because of anti-gay views, as there was with Eich.
So should gay groups jump in to defend these men just to prove they aren’t like other groups? Even then, I have a feeling Miller and others would say this isn’t enough.
What is supposed to be done here? That’s what I’m waiting for Stephen Miller to say. Is he going to come out with a new petition supporting these men? Is he going to come out with a petition criticizing HRC, GLAAD, etc. for not supporting these men?
What is the next step?
If this is such a huge watershed moment then doesn’t it warrant more than a “tut tut” post?
posted by JohnInCA on
Whether their views are “beyond the pale” or not is a subjective judgement. All RWW did was quote them. So whether you agree or disagree with that judgement, I’m not sure why RRW should be “condemned as a deceptive hate group”.
Again, because this is absolutely important: all RRW did was quote them and source their quotes. If that’s makes them a hate group, then what does that make the people they’re accurately quoting?
posted by Lori Heine on
The real value of these stirred-up controversies — which are happening now almost daily — is that they afford us to opportunity to point, laugh and think.
How many of us are going to support boycotting a TV show — especially one we wouldn’t watch, anyway? How many are clamoring for critics of Islam to be disinvited from speaking on college campuses? Who is the audience of IGF, and what is really going on here?
What about cases, like the HGTV “controversy,” where there were no boycotts at all — and none of us even knew what was happening until it had happened?
The bloggers are trying to prove their bona fides as conservatives. To people who don’t care, and won’t believe them anyway.
It is not useful to political manipulators for human beings to be recognized as individuals. We can’t be herded unless we’re lumped into over-generalized groups. Therefore, legions and hordes of militant gay liberals demanding boycotts must be invented every time one of these bread-and-circus stories is thrown out there.
What would be far more useful to the American, nonpartisan LGBT public would be encouraging them to think. Not taking a side — the Yankees against the Sox — and doing the bidding of the manipulators. This is not a game. I’m tired of being handed a pair of pom-poms and instructed when to cheer and when to boo.
posted by Jorge on
I’m tired of being handed a pair of pom-poms and instructed when to cheer and when to boo.
I like that. May I steal it for work?
It is the blogger’s job to ask themselves the questions and meander out loud. We’re left out in the cold. The idea that important people care what the blogger thinks… is something I’m a little naive to.
posted by Houndentenor on
For the most part the mainstream media hates the blogosphere. They only quote them when they want to report a story that they can’t verify. (Then they claim “reportage”… “I only reported what someone else said!” It gets them around problems with libel and slander lawsuits.
As for boycotts, unless there’s a substantial drop in sales, no one cares. The Southern Baptist boycott of Disney in the 90s is a good example. Disney had no noticeable change in sales. Yawn. More recently there were several religious right calls to boycott Starbucks. (Videos of people dumping coffee down the drains made me laugh. They already paid for the coffee. What does Starbuck care if they drink it or dump it?) The only really effective one I can think of was the Tuna boycott in the late 80s/early 90s. That one had a serious impact on the industry and as a result they finally started using nets that made it easier for dophins to escape being killed along with the tuna. (Or at least they claimed they did.) People across the spectrum like to call for these boycotts. They almost never have any impact and companies mostly ignore them. That’s why I call bullshit on claims that a blogger or two calling for boycotts against A&E or HGTV are taken that seriously, especially when decisions are made so quickly in most cases (and before calls for boycotts are even made). This is more about not wanting to be associated with people or groups that are bad for PR and therefore tarnish the “brand”.
posted by Carl on
I’m surprised it took this long for IGF to make this into the newest example of McCarthy gays going too far.
These actions by universities surrendering to activists of a totalitarian bent who want to keep students from hearing viewpoints with which they disagree (legitimate opinions, even if debatable) is the company gay rights supporters are now being compared with.
Who is making this comparison? Are the people making these comparisons people who have ever supported gay rights?
You do realize that most of the public likely has never heard of Ayaan and likely haven’t thought of Rice in nearly a decade?
Does this mean we’re going to get another petition? Is Andrew Sullivan upset again?
posted by craig123 on
Who is making this comparison? Are the people making these comparisons people who have ever supported gay rights?
People who have not supported gay rights are exactly the people we should be trying to win over and convince to support gay rights.
To read missives from HRC and others you would think all we have to do is mobilize the liberal pro-gay base — there is no thought that maybe we should try to expand that base of supporters, that maybe even conservatives can be pro-gay, if they don’t see the gay movement as just an adjunct to the left wing of the Democratic party (which is where so many activists seem to prefer it to stay).
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The only reason that the gay movement can be seen as “just an adjunct to the left wing of the Democratic party” is that Democratic gays and lesbians worked hard to turn the Democratic Party over the course of three decades of hard work, and Republican gays and lesbians did not. As a result, the Democratic Party’s mainstream has embraced “equal means equal”, while the Republican Party remains, for the most part, mired in the rhetoric and politics of hard-core social conservatism.
It did not have to turn out this way. As recently as the 1990’s, the parties were not too far apart on equality issues, as Stephen and other conservative gays and lesbians used to delight in pointing out. I am convinced that if pro-equality Republicans had fought hard against the anti-marriage amendment strategy a decade ago, Tony Perkins would not have been the proud author of the “social issues” part of the Republican Party’s 2012 Platform. But Republican gays and lesbians elected not to fight — witness GOProud’s record — and denounced the few from LCR who elected to fight as closet liberals.
I would challenge your assertion that the American people see “equal means equal” as adjunct to the “left wing of the Democratic Party” at this point in time. The polls (and in particular the polling trends) suggest that “equal means equal” has become a mainstream American value. Social conservatives may still be stuck in the faulty perception that acceptance of “equal means equal” is confined to “the radical homosexual activist community”, but the American people are not.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
For as long as I’ve been an adult, social conservatives have depicted us as depraved, child-abusing pedophiles, diseased perverts who want to destroy morals, marriage and Christianity, building a web of lies based on junk science and horror stories, creating a powerful political apparatus that (and I mean this quite literally) wrote the 2012 Platform of one of our two major political parties. Less than a decade ago, social conservatives used the web of lies and their political power to enact anti-equality amendments in a majority of our states.
Little by slowly, individual gays and lesbians convinced the American people that we were not depraved, child-abusing pedophiles, diseased perverts who want to destroy morals, marriage and Christianity, and the tide of public began to turn in our favor. In the last few years, good lawyers committed to equality exposed the web of lies in open court, and we began turning the tide of legally imposed inequality. At this point, both the public and the courts are ready for equality.
In response to our success, social conservatives turned up the heat in a last-ditch effort to bring us down. Now, in addition to being portrayed as depraved, child-abusing pedophiles, diseased perverts who want to destroy morals, marriage and Christianity (if you think that is excessive, read Brown, Fischer and Perkins), we are described as shameless totalitarians, determined to destroy freedom of speech and silence our opposition, McCarthyites who will go to any length to punish Christians, and akin of Robspierre, ready to foist a reign of terror on the country. A remarkable number of conservative gays and lesbians sing right along. Why?
The accusations are as false as the earlier accusations, trumped up nonsense. So why? What do conservative gays and lesbians like Stephen think they will gain by signing along?
We are not going to win over hard-core social conservatives. If we all lived as long as Methuselah, then maybe, just maybe, social conservatives would be ready for equality. But not in any of our natural lifetimes. So why sing their song?
posted by Houndentenor on
I remember in early 1990 ABC ran an episode of thirtysomething with mostly PSAs rather than ads because advertisers had been pressured by religious right groups to pull their support for the episode. I still think it was uncharacteristically brave of ABC to go ahead and show it but it cost them to do so. The episode was not seen again until the show went into reruns on Lifetime a few years later. That’s just one of many examples. So I don’t have any tears to cry now that the very same people are now on the receiving end of their own tactics, nor do I have anything but contempt for the people calling foul.
What do Stephen and company think they will gain? This is an old meme in the gay community. There have always been people who moved in conservative (though usually not socially conservative) circles who felt threatened by the activists who “caused too much trouble”. They felt safe in their world and believed (often naively) that their powerful friends who protect them. That leaves the rest of us on our own but then none in that circle seem to give a crap about the rest of the gay community anyway and never have. This goes at least back to the 60s and 70s when people like Rock Hudson and Liberace were terrified that the gay rights movement would pull back the closet doors and they’d get exposed in the process and lose everything. In short, it’s not what they think they will gain. It’s what they’re terrified they will lose.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
If a “totalitarian bent … is the company gay rights supporters are now being compared with” it is due, in part, to the ‘non-leftist gay writers’ who have joined the social conservative chorus.
And, like you Tom, I wonder what the agenda is for ‘homocons’ like Miller.
This insistence on blaming the ‘leftists’ for controversies – fueled in no small part by these conservatives – is a bald attempt at doing something – I’m just not sure what they actually gain.
If nothing else, the continued insistence that the ‘left’ is always at fault for something – weakens their argument before it is even out of the gate.
And the arguments are disingenuous re: this damning of those pesky ‘leftist’ gays.
What have the ‘non-leftist’ gays done recently, but criticize their own community? e.g., Do Sullivan and Miller note that it was a ‘leftist’ faculty/administration that initially submitted Ali for the honorary degree? Is there a ‘non-leftist’ institution that has even considered honoring an African female who is supportive of gay rights and women’s choice?
I’ve noticed that in defending their signing of the ‘declaration of dissent’ Sullivan, Rauch, Olson – all noted that the actual events, the facts of the road, didn’t quite jive with their initial furor.
Sullivan would relent and agree that it was not the “gay left” that booted out Eich; Rauch would note that, yes, there were some real similarities between the civil rights struggles of African-Americans and lgbt, etc. – but that would not stop them damning those ‘uppity gays’ who, you know, demanded equality like other citizens have throughout our history.
I’m also really annoyed at the parsing of the truth in these events by Miller. I’ve ranted about the Ali situation – those who opposed Ali didn’t do so for her ‘impassioned critique of Islam and women’. Ali’s progressive support for women’s rights was the reason she was chosen in the first place.
But Ali’s statements (“we are at war with Islam”, “there is no moderate Islam”, etc…) – really upset the Islamic student who initially started the petition. And would draw condemnation from other students and faculty as well. But it would take the involvement of CAIR to really tip the scale for Brandeis.
Do we get honest depictions of the events? No, we get spin. And somehow Brandeis decision to disinvite Ali – invited for her progressive support of women’s rights, disinvited for her radical (though understandable) hatred of Islam – is tied to gay rights.
???
Because those of us who aren’t ‘non-leftist gays’ are somehow responsible for all of the above.
That kind of tortured logic indicates, to me, some kind of agenda. I just wonder if the ‘non-leftists’ like Miller have any idea where that agenda will take them…
posted by Tom Scharbach on
And, like you Tom, I wonder what the agenda is for ‘homocons’ like Miller. This insistence on blaming the ‘leftists’ for controversies – fueled in no small part by these conservatives – is a bald attempt at doing something – I’m just not sure what they actually gain. If nothing else, the continued insistence that the ‘left’ is always at fault for something – weakens their argument before it is even out of the gate.
I have no idea what is going on, but I am beginning to suspect that we are witnessing an internal dialog within conservative circles, something akin to the implicit “Democrat gays and lesbians are our common enemy” tact that Carl DeMaio seems to be taking to win over social conservatives in his congressional district.
Maybe so, maybe not. But something is driving this, and it is obviously something to which those of outside conservative gay and lesbian circles are tone deaf.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
One other thought.
I’ve been wondering if what we’re partly seeing with the entrenchment by conservative gays against this cultural movement is a sign of the generational differences.
With the Mozilla situation, it became readily apparent to those of us who didn’t need to see this as a ‘totalitarian expression by the gay left’ – that there was a community that really opposed Eich’s homophobia (manifest in his support of Prop 8, Buchanan, and other anti-gay politicians).
I found it amazing that a predominantly ‘straight’ community (that ‘techie left’ Sullivan would eventually describe as being behind the Eich resignation) would coalesce behind a pro-gay equality idea.
The homocons would find it an abomination.
Let me take a jump in thought here. The past 2 – 3 years I’ve been randomly watching some of the Youtube’s lgbt community.
Do you guys know there is an incredible network of young lgbt people who vlog regularly? This community – of high school, early college lgbt folk – doesn’t see the necessity of waiting for some bigots to get on board.
There is a national conversationj among lgbt youth in this country that’s happening outside the homocons jurisdiction. And it doesn’t see the need to invalidate itself in order to placate those who hate us.
posted by Jorge on
There is a national conversationj among lgbt youth in this country that’s happening outside the homocons jurisdiction. And it doesn’t see the need to invalidate itself in order to placate those who hate us.
Methinks it needs to learn, lest in its zest for dignity of the self it stray into an un-American disdain for the dignity of others, religious and political tolerance, and intellectual discourse. Most youth come to grow up eventually and learn these things.
posted by Houndentenor on
I find it ironic that the religious types who call for tolerance for their own beliefs show absolutely none for the beliefs of others. I say this from hearing the sermons first hand (and recently) not from some assumptions about what people in some other part of the country are actually saying. You have every right to believe whatever you want. That does not mean others don’t have the same right to criticize those beliefs. It also doesn’t mean that you have any right to impose those beliefs on those who do not share them. The last two of those seem completely lost on the religious right.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
As I think about this, I am really troubled by the conservative gay choral chorus of ‘leftist gays are totalitarians’. This meme by ‘non-leftists’ – that there is a concerted effort to deny discussion by the ‘leftist gays’ – doesn’t stand any rigorous scrutiny.
Duck Dynasty – that national ‘discussion’ is the reason DD’s ratings dropped. Once Robertson’s religiously-rationalized bigotry became public, once his political efforts were known – something approaching 30 % of the audience would migrate away. Criticizing Robertson’s language was part of the national discussion.
Chick-Fil-A – the CEO recently stated that CFA would not be contributing to the anti-gay orgs. Obviously the company is trying to make nice in order to gain entry to the urban markets they have their eye on.
But do you think CFA would have stropped their significant contributions to these anti-gay, anti-equality orgs if there hadn’t been a ‘boycott’?
[As a qualifier – I am also in agreement with Tim Gill of the Gill Foundation. Who notes that this ‘inevitability’ of lgbt equality that is being sounded is not necessarily true.
All it would take is a current Republican candidate (any of the current crop) to win the presidency and then replace a liberal SCOTUS justice with a conservative. All of the current Republicans show no indication that they would nominate anyone BUT a social conservative to that highest legal bench.
Mozilla – I encountered nothing but vigorous debate and discussion over Eich on every lgbt web site I regularly visit. Depending on the site, the percentages would vary from strongly against Eich’s appointment to some solid arguments in favor of supporting Eich as CEO. Including an acceptance of Eich’s apology by the original ‘leftist’ application developers who started the boycott.
Ali – Brandeis was going to give her an honorary doctorate. That is, in essence, an endorsement by Brandeis. There was no ‘debate and discussion’ prior to the leftist submittal for recognition. Brandeis realized how Ali didn’t fit with their ‘mission statement’ – so even though it was grossly mishandled, the end result was probably true to the school’s philosophy.
On the other hand, that ‘leftist’ institution Harvard named Ali as a Fellow at the JFK School of Public Policy – where her ideas can and will be debated and discussed.
Has any ‘non-leftist’ institution done anything similar with Ali?
In other words – these ‘non-leftist gay writers’ have to parse the facts of each situation, and then hold a remarkably short-term view of the fall-out, in order to justify their ‘declaration of dissent’.
I don’t think it is necessarily the lack of debate and discussion that frustrates these ‘non-leftists’.
I am starting to believe it is the outcome that has them worried. As the country moves along, as businesses and institutions find less room to accommodate anti-gay rhetoric – these ‘non-leftists’ are finding themselves trying to defend their family, friends and peers who are decidedly not on board with this cultural shift.
And rather than think about how we can go forward – their efforts are directed at holding everyone else back.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
Oops. The comment re: Tim Gill is obviously misplaced and out of sequence. I was trying to cut, edit and paste while my 8-year old was demanding my full attention.
So, as you can see, I can’t juggle very well. Sorry about that.
But the Gill quote – in essence, that we’re one Republican president away from a possible realignment of the SCOTUS and any ruling on equality – is a reminder of how precarious our rights still are.
The ‘non-leftists’ do not want a discussion of any of the issues they have latched onto recently. They want a certain silence to the demands of equality. Staring at the reality of the contemporary Republican Party, they align themselves with those who want us quiet.
As if our being quiet would ensure anything but further denial of our rights.
[Again, sorry for the scattered posts this morning.]
posted by Houndentenor on
I shudder to think what kinds of rulings we’d have had the last six years had John McCain appointed the last two justices instead of Obama. Well, we don’t have to guess since we have minority opinions as evidence of what the majority opinions in those cases would probably have been.
posted by Lori Heine on
The way this post describes disagreement with the “Freedom to Marry, Freedom to Dissent” statement is as “mischief” being made. As if anyone who might disagree is an unruly three-year-old, to whom a gentle but firm “tsk, tsk” or a trip to time-out is appropriate.
I will make a bold prediction. Nothing those who disagree have to say will be taken seriously. Certainly it will not be addressed.
The meme being pushed, that mobs of “homofascists” are oppressing and persecuting Christians, is not playing very credibly to anybody not already inclined to agree with it. Claims of victimhood don’t generally work very well for those who’ve spent years oppressing and persecuting others.
But the IGF bloggers, and those who think like them, buy into the psych-out. I don’t know whether this is because they think they’ll change the minds of those who hate and fear us or because they’re afraid a mass of undecided people will believe the propaganda. Whichever the case may be, issuing statements, circulating petitions and haranguing the rest of us only serves to give longer life to anti-gay lies.
I think it was Mark Twain who said that a lie can get halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on. IGF and Co. are serving as travel agents for lies.
I will make another bold prediction. These incidents, in which hordes of “homofascists” persecute poor little anti-gay Christians, are going to keep right on happening. We’ll continue to see a new one just about every week. Some loon somewhere will always say or do something in overreaction to what an anti-gay person or organization does.
I haven’t discovered the magical incantation that would make such overreactions cease to happen. “Bibbity-bobbity-boo” doesn’t work. Neither does putting on ruby slippers and clicking my heels, like Dorothy, or wiggling my nose, like Samantha.
There simply is no way to stop them from happening. So, again, we’ll get a new one of these every week or so. Immediately followed by yet another hysterical post at IGF disavowing the threat and magnifying it. The Visigoths will always be portrayed as being at the very gates.
For every overreaction, there evidently is an equally-extreme overreaction in reaction. It seems to be a law not only of physics, but of politics.
posted by JohnInCA on
Re: Flip it Forward
I keep up on lots of LGBT news. At most I fall two days behind. And I didn’t hear a thing about Flip It Forward until it was cancelled. In the autopsy all I can find is the RWW post and then the cancellation.
Is there something I’m missing? Or, like Eich (and pretty much every other “fascist lefitist” controversy since Chik-Fil-A) is this another case of the LGBT heavy-hitters (such as they are) being uninvolved but blamed anyway?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Is there something I’m missing? Or, like Eich (and pretty much every other “fascist lefitist” controversy since Chik-Fil-A) is this another case of the LGBT heavy-hitters (such as they are) being uninvolved but blamed anyway?
It is most definitely the latter. No involvement by LGBT groups, no boycott, not even a (as Stephen spins it) “boycott threat”. As you pointed out, RWW quoted the Benham brothers and sourced each quote. The quotes were devastating, even though Tony Perkins has been characterizing them as “orthodox Christian beliefs”. HGTV took a look and cancelled the Benham brothers’ segment for its own business reasons.
That was it. The right wing can spin until they are dizzy, and it won’t change the facts.
posted by Houndentenor on
Reading comments about the HGTV matter is rather funny. People really don’t know either the Constitution or the law. The brothers have no right to a tv show. The first amendment rights in this matter belong to HGTV. They have ever right to cancel the show or renew it according to the terms of their contract with the stars of the show. If people have a right to a tv show, then where’s mine?
posted by Jimmy on
When I started reading IGF, I wondered what “Forging a Gay Mainstream” meant. I still don’t know. I suspect it is a reaction to the fact that the already existing gay mainstream is not conservative enough in Mr. Miller’s opinion.
I don’t know who got the whole boycott thing going, but I seem to remember the Moral Majority being innovators. Once it was been established that a brand can be attacked, and potentially suffer, because of it’s stance on the social issues that our culture was debating, it would continue to be so. I’m still boycotting BP and that chicken shack.
I would be interesting if HGTV played us all, and used those twin ginger straight bro dudes ( direct from casting, if you’re casting several genres in gay porn) to get some media attention. Could cable TV honchos be that crass?!
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
1. Officially, HGTV did not ‘green light’ the brother’s reality TV show because they felt that the audience members might believe that the brothers were gay and would then — I guess — be pestering the network about why they didn’t have their shirts off and didn’t do whatever it is gay couples on HGTV are suppose to do. So, either too gay or not gay enough? Hmm.
I actually do like — most — of the HGTV programming. Their have been gay couples on HGTV shows before. I would presume that their have been conservative, man-woman married couples on HGTV shows before as well.
Most of the time — no matter the show — the focus is on a couple or two brothers or what-have-you trying to fix up a house or buy a house or sell a house or add an apartment or a deck or do some nice landscaping or gardenign or what not…