Miss California Controversy (from Rumours)

[jwd]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I think her answer to the question and the subsequent reactions is the real issue in this thread.

Yep, you're right. I just think some of those subsequent reactions were misdirected, misguided, and over the top.

Rather, they wisely see that although the D's may not be perfect on this issue, the least the D's usually do in some nonaction as opposed to the R's who openly pursue anti-gay law.

DADT IS anti gay law. Nonaction is action.

[gldstwmn]

I wish she and Sarah Palin would just go away already. They are two little peas in the same pod.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by jwd

. . . DADT IS anti gay law. Nonaction is action.

So, there should be no endgame strategy at all. I think that is a very naive position Did you read the article Carrie posted?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

I wish she and Sarah Palin would just go away already. They are two little peas in the same pod.

Well, in Palin's case, Letterman brought it up. And, as for that crapola, Letterman clearly was talking about Bristol Palin (- the same Bristol Palin that has done numerous interviews, been on the cover of people with her out of wedlock baby, etc. ) Yet, the trash Palins act put upon when someone other than them brings her into the public eye

But, Palin sees a chance for the spotlight, so she goes for it and, hypocritically, at the expense of her older and younger daughter, the very ones she publicly states she is trying to protect. What a sow.

This chick is deluded if she thinks she can be President. Then again, never underestimate the wild eyed support of the white males who would vote for her just because they want to f*ck her.

[LikeAWillow]

Originally Posted by sparky

Perez Hilton, though he may be an entertaining blogger, is a sorry, cliched, and pathetic example of a gay man. All he does is reinforce the sad stereotype that a gay man is nothing more than a woman who was sadly born into a man's body.

Sparky--I strongly agree with the majority of your post, but I think another problem hindering the gay rights movement actually lies in what I've quoted. For many, hatred of gay men is really little more than an expression of misogyny. Your phrase "nothing more than a woman..." although certainly not intended to be sexist, cuts to the heart of the matter.

Judith Warner recently wrote a very interesting article on the topic that can be found here:

http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2009...u-calling-gay/

[strandinthewind]

^^^

I am unsure I would classify Sparky's comment as misogyny, which strictly means hatred of women http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misogyny.

I think Sparky meant (blue words added for clarification) "All he does is reinforce the sad stereotype that a gay man is nothing more than a bitchy and catty woman who was sadly born into a man's body." Women can be bitchy and catty. Acknowledging that does not on its face indicate a hatred of women. Moreover, many women acknowledge that aspect of their sexuality.

But, if the greater concept is that Sparky was insulting women by relating a gay man's attributes to all women in a negative context, then that perhaps could be construed, albeit loosely, as misogynistic. But, we are back to what is racism, what is misogyny, etc. I submit that once the textbook definitions are no longer applied, everything is everything, especially when a straight white male says it

I do think, however, that because few know the actual definitions of these words and the media and others' erroneous applications of these rather limited concepts for sensationalism (= ratings) -- gay men would be wise not to make such associations no matter how innocuous, etc.

[sparky]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Let me clarify. What I meant was that there is huge money in this issue and she, for the moment, was a hot (looking and socially) person to present it. So, the huge power players used her and she went along willingly because she will get some kind of book deal or make $$$ off of speaking engagements for a limited time off of this. So, she is getting something out of it though she is merely a pawn or footnote. I do not think there was ever any concept by the power players of her getting a career out of this. They are all about the cheapest bang for the buck off of which they will make millions in ad rev., fundraising, etc.

I agree. The people I was talking about who aren't so bright are the ones she has hired - management, etc.
None of this is going to get her any kind of lasting career or income.

[LikeAWillow]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

^^^

I am unsure I would classify Sparky's comment as misogyny, which strictly means hatred of women http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misogyny.

I think Sparky meant (blue words added for clarification) "All he does is reinforce the sad stereotype that a gay man is nothing more than a bitchy and catty woman who was sadly born into a man's body." Women can be bitchy and catty. Acknowledging that does not on its face indicate a hatred of women. Moreover, many women acknowledge that aspect of their sexuality.

But, if the greater concept is that Sparky was insulting women by relating a gay man's attributes to all women in a negative context, then that perhaps could be construed, albeit loosely, as misogynistic. But, we are back to what is racism, what is misogyny, etc. I submit that once the textbook definitions are no longer applied, everything is everything, especially when a straight white male says it

I do think, however, that because few know the actual definitions of these words and the media and others' erroneous applications of these rather limited concepts for sensationalism (= ratings) -- gay men would be wise not to make such associations no matter how innocuous, etc.

Oh, I would never say that Sparky intended his statement to be misogynist at all, and I made sure to point that out in my post. I do think you can see from his words, as you said, "loosely," though, that there is societal undercurrent that to be a woman is to be something less than a man, so to be a gay man is to be the same.

I'm a little unsure as to why you defined misogyny for me when you went on to say his comment could be construed as misogynistic Root words are my friends.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by LikeAWillow

Oh, I would never say that Sparky intended his statement to be misogynist at all, and I made sure to point that out in my post. I do think you can see from his words, as you said, "loosely," though, that there is societal undercurrent that to be a woman is to be something less than a man, so to be a gay man is to be the same.

I'm a little unsure as to why you defined misogyny for me when you went on to say his comment could be construed as misogynistic Root words are my friends.

I always cite the definition because I look it up first to make sure I know what the he'll I am saying LOL. It was no slam on you

[sparky]

Originally Posted by LikeAWillow

Sparky--I strongly agree with the majority of your post, but I think another problem hindering the gay rights movement actually lies in what I've quoted. For many, hatred of gay men is really little more than an expression of misogyny. Your phrase "nothing more than a woman..." although certainly not intended to be sexist, cuts to the heart of the matter.

Judith Warner recently wrote a very interesting article on the topic that can be found here:

http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2009...u-calling-gay/

I had read that, Willow. You have a point about the misogyny extension. There is really no doubt that much of the opposition to gay rights is rooted in something akin to misogyny. There is still, and I believe always will be, a strong current of disgust and hostility
expressed toward men who reject traditonally "masculine" bearing and behavior.

It is an extremely complicated subject. I can see both sides of the argument when it comes to the issue. For the sake of brevity that is all I am going to say about it.
The scope of that goes way beyond the topic of this thread.

The whole Prejean thing for me is part of a much bigger picture.
This incident is of interest to me because it draws attention to the larger cultural argument.

On a much more vast scale, and to address the Obama angle that has been brought up, I am furious at and disgusted by Barack Obama.

I was never much of a supporter. I never bought his act. Hope and Change, my ass. My vote for him was really a vote against McCain, and that backwater cut rate brunette Barbie doll Palin.

History may prove me wrong, and it would be a welcome surprise if it did. However, as it stands, he has turned out to be a lying manipulative SOS when it comes to DADT and DOMA. It appears that he pandered to the homos, took the money, and is tossing us under the bus. Just like Clinton did. Could he be putting off the real action until his potential second term? Perhaps. But the real fact is that ending DADT would cost him zero political capital. Even a majority of conservative christians support ending the policy. A policy, btw, that is costing our near bankrupt country millions and is likely even costing lives of our service men and women. Can our military afford to be kicking out dedicated soldiers when we are fighting what amounts to 2 wars? I don't think so.

He just doesn't have the guts. And that is the real letdown. Let me clarify again - I never had much faith in his propaganda in the first place. But this proves to me that Obama the candidate and Obama the president are two very different things.

So as I have said to others, f*ck that shape shifting, yellow bellied
half breed mother****er. I wish he and his wife's nasty assed underbite would have stayed in Chicago.

[sparky]

Originally Posted by LikeAWillow

I do think you can see from his words, as you said, "loosely," though, that there is societal undercurrent that to be a woman is to be something less than a man, so to be a gay man is to be the same.

There certainly is. IMO it isn't about "less than" so much as it is about differences.
That is how I see it, although much of society does and likely always will put a "less than" tag on the comparison.

The modern age is a blip in history, and a few generations cannot and will not erase thousands of years of genetic
and cultural experience that influence what we find attractive and impressive about the genders.

I am not saying it is right or wrong. It just is.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by LikeAWillow

I do think you can see from his words, as you said, "loosely," though, that there is societal undercurrent that to be a woman is to be something less than a man, so to be a gay man is to be the same.

I do not agree with the implication/association. I think it instead means that Perez Hilton is less of a man and more like a woman (effete, bitchy, catty, etc.) - without commenting on the equality of men and women. It is instead an insult to his manhood, machismo, etc. It's kind of a gay male thing to refer to another gay male in that derogatory context.

But, I do see how some might draw that from the association, though I think it is erroneous. On edit - there are many instances where men do see women as less than an equal, which is a bad thing. I am just saying this particular instance is not one of them.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by sparky

There certainly is. IMO it isn't about "less than" so much as it is about differences.
That is how I see it, although much of society does and likely always will put a "less than" tag on the comparison.

The modern age is a blip in history, and a few generations cannot and will not erase thousands of years of genetic
and cultural experience that influence what we find attractive and impressive about the genders.

I am not saying it is right or wrong. It just is.

And, let me just say once again that you are my bi*ch, you belong to me - capice

[carrie721]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

And, let me just say once again that you are my bi*ch, you belong to me - capice

don't you have a lawn jockey that needs to be driven around atlanta, suzanne?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by carrie721

don't you have a lawn jockey that needs to be driven around atlanta, suzanne?

Well, I moved to Manhattan on March 1.

However, my beloved, black faced law jockey resides on a plantation outside of Atlanta. I do miss it though. Maybe I'll haul it up here to the land of the enemy I did, however, see one the other day in some shop. Note - there were mammy fans for sale in the bucket affixed to said jockey. Ahhhh - the simple things bring great joy!