Welp, Time to Close Up Shop

'Cuz yet another anti-feminist, this time Rush Limbaugh, has declared that feminism may be "dead."

His evidence is a Super Scientific article in the conservative Washington Times, which cites a poll of Internet users stating that 28% of Americans identified as feminists. Nevermind that 57% of respondents would identify as feminist when presented with the "dictionary definition" of the term, today I want to observe how this declaring of feminism to be "dead" happens from time to time and perhaps infer some lessons from it all.

The claim about feminism being dead is never, first and foremost, a reflection of reality.

That seems weird to have to say, but I think maybe some anti-feminists don't really.... get that? Or, do people exist who actually believe that Rush Limbaugh, or any anti-feminist, has the power to erase feminism, let alone actual feminists who actually live in the real world, from existence just by saying it aloud?

The claim about feminism being dead is a fantasy. A wish. A dream. Nothing more. And purveyors of it seem to be unwilling or incapable of distinguishing between reality and their own imaginations.

Yeah yeah yeah, who cares, I know.  It's just Rush Being Rush.

However, whether we like it not, he and his viewpoint are influential.  Rush has certainly done much to stigmatize feminism and feminists, I agree with him there as he proudly boasted about it, with his long history of using his large platform to feed into white (especially) male (especially) anger, entitlement, and false sense of victimhood. His audience and small-time bloggers take their cues from him. Take, for instance, the Christian male blogger who doesn't actually know anything about feminism, but who loves referring us as "hairy-legged feministas" and "abortion lustists."

The Illusory Superiority with which he influences is, of course, so typical of anti-feminsts that it's not even all that fascinating (indeed, why women might be fans of his, let alone married to him, fascinates me much more than Rush himself or his rhetoric does).  But alas, I do enjoy pointing out the self-indulgent, cartoonish stereotypes about feminists that anti-feminists like Rush continually draw. It's like, hmmm, whenever they talk about feminism, what hodge-podge will they throw at the wall to see what sticks?

So, the first lesson here is that the way a person characterizes (or generalizes about) feminism is a good indicator, to me, of their knowledge of the field.

In his latest screed on feminism, for instance, Rush shows how he oh so truly has his finger on the pulse of modern feminism by citing "bra-burners," referencing Gloria Steinem, and fantasizing about How Very Angry they/we must be about this poll.

What next, is he going to call us lesbians who worship Valeria Solanas? I mean, the nuance is just so lacking, his rhetoric so unserious, and yet, such a man is one we are supposed to take seriously as having insight into the ups and downs of feminism these days?

Ha ha ha, okay.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the biggest failing of many anti-feminists isn't that they critique feminism or think it's stupid, it's that they don't bother to understand or learn about feminism well enough to render adequate critiques of it in the first place.

I mean, from whence did Rush even glean his knowledge about feminism? Which feminist texts has he read? Which feminist blogs does he read?  Which feminists does he regularly engage, so he can be kept honest in his "counter"-arguments? Can he find anything redeeming about any aspect of feminism, or is the entirety of it so very threatening to him that he has to lazily and wholesale dismiss the entire field?

His comments, not only this latest but also his previous, about feminism, suggest to me that his "knowledge" about feminism is incredibly superficial, not nuanced, and largely caricatured. As much anti-feminist commentary is, I'll add.

I've been in or seen so many conversations with anti-feminists who will casually offer a mansplanation along the lines of, "Feminists who believe in gender rolls [sic] would probably call me patriarchist, or whatever." So, I guess another lesson here is that it can be somewhat productive to directly call the ignorance, so at least the ignorance is highlighted.

For, when I've asked such folks to elaborate upon their knowledge base regarding actual feminist works, as opposed to MRA interpretations of such works or Wikipedia summaries, such folks are often stopped in their tracks (*cricket cricket cricket*).

Lastly, when we consider this Illusory Superiority and the nonchalant way that ignorant people nonetheless feel so entitled and competent to dismiss an entire field and get away with it, it becomes apparent how truly privileged and rewarded the anti-feminist viewpoint is.  Like, people - men and women alike - have built really successful careers out of doing it.

Indeed, while feminists are oft accused of Just Making Shit Up in pursuit of social engineering, political correctness, and turning men into arch villains, those accusations actually start to look a lot like an enormously successful bit of unexamined projection on the part of many anti-feminists.


Related: So, You Want To Teach the Lady Feminists?

Trolly McTrollertons

I'll just assume that the preponderance of  trolls in the comments as of late means I'm striking a nerve deep into the heart of the heterosupremacist patriarchy.

I consider that a win.

Seriously, though. If people have sincere disagreements to make, they are welcome to make them. If a comment consists of ignorantly braying on about "leftards" or talking about how icky gay pride parades are,  I'm totes okay with banning someone. And, I'm completely unsympathetic toward consequent and 100% predictable whinging about censorship and a troll's precious First Amendment Rights.

See, average troll's perception of the First Amendment is something along the lines of "The bloggers shall implement no policies at their own blogs about what are and are not acceptable ways of interacting with others."

But, how it works is, there's this service called Blogger where one can start one's own blog if one wishes!

And the best part for trolls is, if they have something super-duper important, aggressive, asinine, witty, snappy, snarky, mean, homophobic, misogynistic, or annoying to say, they get to say it! I guess the only downside is that the Troll Blog lacks an audience, and saying asshole things in front of a progressive audience seems to kinda be the whole point of trolling.

So let me be clear, my blog and the work I put into it, is not an affirmative action program for ignorant, mean-spirited trolls oozing with illusory superior fantasies of setting the progressives straight about how we're too PC to understand "the trooth" about stuff.  Stick that in your libertarian pull-yourself-up-by-your-own-damn bootstraps narratives.

In Which Humorless Feminazism Yet Again Becomes a Self-fulfilling Prophecy

Looks like there's more trouble in that feminist paradise that is social conservatism.

Apparently, "The Fox and Rice Show," which consists of commentators at the conservative site Human Events have jokingly conceived of a "Babes of the DNC Calendar," in which they mock the looks of various liberal women.

Their reason for this immature attack? Because liberals do it too:

"Certain conservative women are under attack. Why is that, you ask? This election season, FRX wants you to remember that it’s not simply the fact that women like Nikki Haley, Christine O’Donnell, and Sarah Palin have defeated and made a fool of moderate Republicans, Democrats, and the liberal kook media. It's not simply the fact that they are accomplished campaigners. Oh, no; in many cases, these women are despised JUST because they are HOT. And let’s face it: liberal women tend to be a bunch of hideous chuds.

Now, FRX doesn’t have many friends...at least, not people who would say so aloud. But who would YOU rather communicate with: Monica Crowley, Andrea Tantaros, and Amanda Carpenter (three beautiful and accomplished conservative women), or Rachel Maddow (who looks like a carny that should be running the ‘Dime Pitch’ or ‘Duck Pond’ game at the traveling fair)? It's time to ask: who ARE the real beauties of the left? And, just in time for the election and this holiday season, you can click the player below...to discover liberal women acting liberally!"

The silence of all of our self-proclaimed loud and proud conservative "red-state" feminist sisters, in the face of these attacks, is deafening. One day maybe the feminist ladies on the conservative side of the aisle will step away from the "conservative women tend to be total babes [unlike liberal women/feminists]" head-patting and actually do something about male attempts to keep women firmly fixated in the sex class.

Oh wait, everybody just calm down. "The Fox and Rice Show" is just joking:

"The Fox and Rice Experience is for entertainment purposes only, even though it's not all that amusing. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead is purely intentional. If offended, seek treatment for Humorless Liberal Syndrome. Side effects of HLS may include headache, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abnormal vision and in some cases, death. To avoid long term injuries, seek immediate medical help if you experience Liberalism lasting longer than 4 hours. Ask your doctor if FRX is right for you."

Humorless Liberal/Feminism Syndrome. It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy, no? Let's be assholes to liberals and feminist women and then call them humorless when they don't think our aggression is funny. It's fool-proof!

So, it's not this asinine thing called "The Fox and Rice Show" that sucks for being mean, sexist, immature, and not at all funny. It's you who suck for not finding them funny.

The Christian Way of Opposing Everything Gay

I first saw the following absurd American Family Association quote at shakesville:

"So Hitler himself was an active homosexual. And some people wonder, didn't the Germans, didn't the Nazis, persecute homosexuals? And it is true they did; they persecuted effeminate homosexuals. But Hitler recruited around him homosexuals to make up his Stormtroopers, they were his enforcers, they were his thugs. And Hitler discovered that he could not get straight soldiers to be savage and brutal and vicious enough to carry out his orders, but that homosexual solders basically had no limits and the savagery and brutality they were willing to inflict on whomever Hitler sent them after. So he surrounded himself, virtually all of the Stormtroopers, the Brownshirts, were male homosexuals."—American Family Association Director of Public Policy Bryan Fischer.

Like I asked before, is the elimination of LGBT people the end goal of anti-gay rhetoric and advocacy? What other conclusion can be drawn from a totally fucking made-up compilation of sentences, uttered by a Christian man whose organization and religion claim to hold a monopoly on morality, which blames one of the worst atrocities in human history on "homosexuals," a group of people he claims are inherently more savage, brutal, and vicious than heterosexuals? Whereas in reality most acts of viciousness and savagery have been committed by heterosexual men, since heterosexual men vastly outnumber "homosexual" men, Fischer's claim whitewashes and invisibilizes the history of heterosexual male violence, effectively centering and privileging the male heterosexual as Normal Civil Human Being.

You know, if I were writing a novel and trying to conceive of a mustache-twirling anti-gay villain, I would consider Fischer's monologue too exaggeratedly anti-gay to be realistic. But Brian Fischer's statement is a real thing in the real world uttered by a real person! It is a statement that demonizes "homosexuals" and, incredibly, offers no citation or source for such a claim. That is the entitlement and power the Normal Christian Hetero Male Voice has to turn actual human beings into horrific Others that is on display here. His voice, the narrative goes, is objective, authoritative, and moral, therefore he can say such things without even backing them up.

Which brings me to a pressing question. Where are self-proclaimed Nice And Civil(tm) anti-LGBT activists Maggie Gallagher, Brian Brown, David Blankenhorn, and even amateur "family values" bloggers calling their allies out on this dishonest, irresponsible, and unconscionable rhetoric?

Is Fischer not smearing what it supposedly means to be a Christian? Or is Christianity now defined by the most outrageous shit a person can make up in the name of anti-gay Christian Family Advocacy?

My "Marriage Defense" Referendum

I have decided to initiate a new "marriage defense" referendum that will piggyback off of California nad Maine's referenudms that de-legalized same-sex marriage. My referendum will be nationwide in scope and will prohibit reality television shows that center around two heterosexual parents and their children.

My reasons are simple:

1. First and foremost, the way that heterosexuals parade their sex lives in everyone's faces for fame and money is disgusting.

I don't care what people do in their private bedrooms, but I for one am sick of heterosexuals flaunting their sexualities in public. An innocent shopper can't even make it through a grocery store line without, on the cover of virtually every gossip rag, seeing those 8 little reminders of the fact that Jon humped Kate. Whilst flipping through the channel menu on the television, one cannot but be reminded of the fact that Mr. and Mrs. Jim Bob Duggar have had sex at least 18 times (and counting).

There is a concept called "too much information." Fame-seeking families and television producers should become familiar with it, instead of coming up with cutesy hyper-sexualized names for in-your-face television shows revolving around the sexualities of heterosexual couples and their litters.

2. When reality television parents break up, which they almost inevitably do, it severs the link between procreation and marriage. Americans everywhere learn that marriage is not about having and raising children, it's about how to best market one's family for purposes of reality television opportunities.

We must defend marriage, and indeed all of society, from the dangers posted to it by unscripted television programming.

Please, won't somebody think of the children?

The Party A and Party B Kerfuffle

Those sensitive marriage defenders are in an uproar over the fact that California now issues marriage licenses that, reflecting the state's legalization of marriage equality, say "Party A" and "Party B" rather than "groom" and "bride." Of course, as PZ Myers states, this is perfectly legitimate since a state-issued marriage license is "a state-mandated contract." Contracts, of course, are agreements between parties. In my opinion, acknowledging this basic fact is a step in the right direction in getting the uninformed public to realize that civil marriage is distinct from religious marriage.

Yet, marriage defenders are acting as though these new labels mean that they, their families, and their places of worship are not still free to call the parties getting married "bride" and "groom." It's weird. Perhaps they believe they will be hauled off to torture camps if they utter the words "bride" and "groom." It's all a slippery slope, you know.

I think they're confused.

See, recently a pair of heterosexuals have refused to get married because this linguistic change so offends their sensitive sensibilities. They are voluntarily giving up the privilege of marriage because it hurts their feelings that their marriage license will say "Party A" and "Party B" rather than "bride" and "groom."

Perhaps this is that never-pinned-down "proof" that same-sex marriage harms heterosexual marriage? One guy thinks so:

"Those who support (same-sex marriage) say it has no impact on heterosexuals," said Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute. "This debunks that argument."

Whoa whoa whoa. Let's just back up the gravy train. For those operating in the normal world of logic, it is just not legitimate to blame same-sex marriage for harming heterosexuals just because some heterosexuals are now voluntarily refusing to get married because they don't like what's on their marriage license. As PZ puts it, these two people have "voluntarily slap[ed] themselves with a penalty so they can claim genuine damages." That's like a bratty child refusing to go to school because he doesn't like his strict teacher, and then blaming the teacher for "harming" his education. It's not the fault of same-sex marriage that these two crazy kids are choosing not to marry, it's their own fault for choosing not to marry!

Secondly, having to endure the small indignity, if it is even a real one, of having your marriage license refer to you as "Party A" rather than "groom" in no way outweighs the indignity of denying equal rights to a group of people.

One pastor is actually encouraging masses of heterosexuals to refuse to sign the marriage license because it is so offensive. His reasoning? Uttering the hyperbole of the week, he says:

"If ever there was a time for the people of the United States to stand up and let their voices be heard - this is that time."

Don'tcha think that's going a little too far? I can think of many things in the world that are more worthy of "standing up for" than keeping "bride" and "groom" on a piece of paper.

Get a grip, people.

"Journalist" Ignorant of Standard Journalism Procedure?

When a "news source" includes an article entitled "Fat Lesbians on Crack," that's a pretty good initial clue that you probably aren't going to find accurate, legit, or honest information within the article. Thus, there are two, and only two things worth noting about an article with that very headline written by conservative commentator (and Professor at University of North Carolina-Wilmington) Mike S. Adams, who seems to be pining for some sort of Ann-Coulter-Asinine-for-Attention Award.

One, the actual topic of his article has nothing to do with "fat lesbians on crack." The good professor briefly mentions obesity and then crack cocaine, but the real topic is a rant about how gay people are so intolerant for not tolerating intolerance of themselves in a health care setting. Perhaps Adams thinks he is being clever or funny. And hey, maybe this sort of schoolyard "humor" does pass for "wit" among the anti-gay crowd. In my opinion, though, the professor is acting more like a bratty child who calls people names on the internets just because he can get away with it. Yes, technically, writers can use whatever headlines they want on their articles. But it's generally accepted in the world of journalism that a headline indicates the nature of the article below it. That's not a law, of course. So maybe Adams breaks with standard practice just because he can. Heck, maybe this "creative" man is pioneering a new conservative avant-garde movement or something.

That brings me to point two about his "article." When it comes to journalism and ethics, OneNewsNow has a tendency to make up its own rules. The purpose of this "news source" is not to inform, but to sensationalize and distort truth in order to promote its Christianist anti-gay agenda. OneNewsNow is sort of a hellmouth of rightwing propaganda whose very "journalists" automatically discredit themselves solely by virtue of the fact that they post there. What credible news source would condone the use of such an utterly irrelevant headline?

G-A-Y wonders if the headline "is intentionally over-the-top in hopes that it'll prove provocative." Perhaps. It's clear that after reading the provocative headline and being drawn into the story you see that it is essentially more of the same ol' Christian Persecution Complex schtick we can expect from this crowd. Maybe they believe that if they can draw enough people in, more will start agreeing with their old-hat arguments. Like, if we hear the "gays are going to get us" scare-argument a couple more times, we just might start believing it! A lie told often enough, after all, becomes truth, right?

Or, perhaps this is all a bit more benign. Maybe OneNewsNow and Mike S. Adams just don't know that headlines are typically used to indicate the content of the related article. Honestly, I don't know which is worse. An intentionally dishonest writer or a bleeting, ignorant man who has a platform.

Rightwing Roundup: Lesbian "Terrorists" and Fires

1. Hyperbole of the Week

When you see a headline like "Lesbians Terrorize San Diego Community" you definitely have to read the accompanying article. I mean, I for one get scary images of hoards of evil lesbians wielding machine guns and wreaking havoc through a city. You know, sort of like Heath Ledger's sociopathic Joker blowing up hospitals and planting bombs on boats just for the fun of it.

Yet, upon reading that very headline and associated commentary at some guy named James Hartline's blog I realized there was a profound disconnect between his reporting of the San Diego Dyke March and the reality of what occurred that day. His "objective" eye describes this dyke march as a "terrorist" event in which "some" parents "were forced to keep their kids off the streets so that they would not be exposed to these lesbians carrying obscene signs." Ohhhhh yes. Not only that but it was a "nightmarish event" full of (vague and unnamed) "disgusting activities." It was a "vile event" and "perverted escapade" in which women professed to love their "boobies!"

[WARNING WARNING This article includes links to photos of happy lesbians and families! WARNING WARNING]

Peruse the pictures that Hartline links to and see it all for yourself. Try not to laugh, though. See, I predict that anyone with any grasp on reality will quickly realize that Hartline's descriptions of the parade are slightly unhinged.

When I look at the pictures I, for one, see smiling toddlers walking hand-in-hand with their mothers. I see women dancing in the sun, laughing. I see women holding up placards peacefully walking through the streets. I see women on bicycles and women in wheelchairs waving to the cameras. In fact, the only thing I saw that was remotely "nightmarish" about the day's activities were the photos of the two white mom-aged women awkwardly dancing in the sun.

But seriously, when a person has to so profoundly exaggerate and vilify lesbians to advance his anti-gay "Christian" crusade, I can only think that he has no legitimate way to do so.

But I suppose we knew that already, didn't we? And by the way, is anyone else as sick as I am of the gays as terrorists "metaphor"?

James Hartline, get a fuckin' grip.


2. Must Have Been Those Lesbo Terrorists

In "breaking" news, Fred Phelp's Church of God-Hates-Fags caught on fire a few days ago. The Phelps' clan apparently believes the fire is a case of arson. In fact, the good reverend posted a really Christian message on YouTube saying that the fire was "no doubt the work of fags or fag sympathizers" and he has requested that the US Attorney General investigate the fire as a hate crime!

Oh, but in less exciting news, the fire marshall who investigated the fire said "it didn't appear that accelerants were used to ignite the fire."

Sorry, Fred. Sometimes bad things just happen to bad people.


3. That's All

Hi, dear readers. I just got back from womantopia. Thus, while Rightwing Roundup usually has at least 3 featured pieces of rightwing asininity, the above two are all I can muster right now. It's all about easing back into the "real" world in a healthy manner.

Peace.

Rightwing Roundup: Guns, DADT, and "News"

1. People who carry guns in their purses and then forget that they are, in fact, carrying a deadly weapon are probably a bigger threat to our nation than gay people.

Yes, I'm referring to anti-gay Sally Kern. Who was just caught by security for the second time for trying to carry a gun into the state Capitol building. Her excuse? And I quote, she "forgot" it was in her purse.

LOL, oopsy-daisies.


2. Just Keep Talking

Earlier, I wrote about military "expert" Elaine Donnelly's wacky testimony regarding the military's Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT) policy. A transcript of the full testimony can be found here (PDF). It's not to be missed. Some highlighted statements include:

"[F]orced cohabitation in military conditions- which offer little or no privacy- would force persons to live with persons who might be sexually attracted to them." [emphasis in original]

The minor default of this argument is that hellloooooo gay people already are in the military living with "persons" who they might be sexually attracted to. Whoop-dee-doo.

And then, citing the 1974 case where a woman was allegedly assaulted by a "group of lesbians," Donnelly also writes:

"[The allegedly assaulted woman] predicted that if professed homosexuals serve in the military 'An assault like the one I endured would be 'de-criminalized,' on the grounds that the victim is a 'homophobe' if they won't just 'relax and enjoy' being sexually assaulted."

What a crock of shit. I'm sorry, but that's just simply a big fat crock of shit. Thousands of lesbians and gays currently serving in the military, and the best Donnelly can do to "prove" that gays and lesbians will assault other soldiers is to cite a case from 19-flippin-74?! She should be ashamed of herself. Besides, as members of Congress noted when they heard this ridiculous statement, the military would punish homosexual conduct the same way it punishes heterosexual misconduct. Get a grip.

In all seriousness, Donnelly's argument against gays in the military hinges mostly on her "forced cohabitation" argument. To that argument I can only say the following. If the readiness of our military is so severely compromised because some of its members have to endure the awkwardness of living with people who might, might, be attracted to them, then our national security is already in serious trouble.


3. A Quick Thanks

Today, I would just like to give kudos to "LGBT news correspondent" Peter LaBarbera for running a website that serves as a phenomenal aggregate for breaking LGBT "news." That website? The Americans for Truth [sic] About Homosexuality.

Some journalists bravely go to scary places like war zones, but our favorite "journalist" takes it a step further by bravely wading through "extremely vile content" in the media, frequently going so far as valiantly attending and reporting back on LGBT events such as the "tragic" female-to-male transgender conference in Washington DC, the "gay pride" parade in Chicago, and Folsom Street Fair in "Sodom-by-the-Bay, San Francisco."

Thank you Peter, for bravely going where hundreds of thousands of people have gone before.

"Deep" Thought #19: Farmer Explains Birds and Bees

Check out this YouTube video that totally speaks truth to power.

In it, a farmer sings a lil' ditty inviting gay couples down to his farm to see how "it's done" in nature. "It" meaning procreation. The gay community's quest for marriage equality, you see, has arisen because gay couples are confused, un-educated, and/or ignorant about how reproduction works. Maybe we missed a key class in sexual education when we were younger. Thus, we constantly need people smarter than us, especially blue-collar folk, to teach us about male-female coitus, reproduction, and biology.

Let's all take a moment to thank this farmer and give him kudos for his expert biology knowledge. Particularly "deep" is his argument that since two bulls can't make a baby cow, gay people should not be able to get married.

I didn't get it before. Now I do.

Gay? Lesbo? Go down to the farm. Watching animals engage in coitus will definitely change your mind about wanting the legal benefits, rights, and protections of marriage. Wait.... wait just a second! Does anyone else smell the opportunity of an ex-gay farm venture? Oh wait. Nope. That's just the putrid smell of stale cow manure. My bad.

You know, given the high rates of teen pregnancy these days, one would think that a song inviting teenagers down on the farm to educate them about how babies are made would have been more appropriate. That's okay, though. We understand. Joking about unfortunate out-of-wedlock births and teenagers having sex before they're ready wouldn't have been as "funny" as ridiculing gays, would it? Silly faggot, dicks are for chicks, right? Hardy-har-fuckin-har.

We'll just take one for the team here while you family values folks have a hearty laugh.


Yeah, gay people seek marriage because they just don't understand how procreation works. "Deep" thoughts.

RightWing Roundup: Hypocrites, Doooooods, and Gay Mayo

1. Oh Hell No!

It is often claimed that gay men and lesbians don't know what marriage is. See, if we only knew that marriage can only exist between a man and a woman, we would know that only a man and a woman could get married.

Thankfully, some members of our Congress who really know what marriage is all about are sponsoring a Marriage Protection Amendment that lays it all out: "Marriage in the US shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman."

This language was surprising to me.

See, when I saw who two of the sponsors were, David Vitter and Larry Craig, I at first thought that this resolution would seek to protect marriage by making it illegal for married men to seek the services of prostitutes or, perhaps, from soliciting sex from undercover male police officers in public restrooms. But alas, we can see that allowing same-sex couples to marry poses a much larger threat to married couples than does adultery. Obvi.

In all seriousness, both Craig and Vitter should have resigned long ago and are in no position to impose their values on our Constitution. That these two alleged adulterers are charged with "protecting" an institution that they have proven unable to protect in their own personal lives shows that the gay marriage "wedge issue" is nothing but a political football tossed around at politically convenient times. Like every four years or so.

What really chaps my ass about the whole ordeal is that both of these men, neither of whom allegedly respected their legal marriages, are accorded the significant rights of marriage while hundreds of thousands of law-abiding, committed, and faithful gay and lesbian couples are not. And further, both of these men seek to deny loving, law-abiding couples from having the same benefits of marriage that they, alleged criminals and adulterers, get solely by virtue of their heterosexuality or "heterosexuality."

It just doesn't get more ironic and hypocritical than this, folks.


2. The Stereotype Just Writes Itself


What's more funny than one of WorldNetDaily columnist Vox Day's articles to his mostly male readership "explaining" why women pretty much suck at life?



Reading his "Best 25 games" article wherein hundreds of his fellow woman-hating gamers discuss the pros and cons of "Sonic the Hedgehog" and "Space Battle (Intellivision)".


I can haz teh smart too? Nope. I's just a womyn.


(I refuse to embed a link to this misogynist crowd. http://voxday.blogspot.com/2008/07/best-25-games.html)


3. Don't You Hate it When Your Mayo Has Homos in it?

The blogger Happy Jihad, whom I appreciate for regularly saying things I'm too polite (yes really) to say, recently noted a humorous Christian headline from propaganda site OneNewsNow. But first, for some background, a Heinz advertisement recently featured a gay male couple making sandwiches for their children and then ushering them off to school. Predictably, this did not sit well with the American Family Association (AFA), which accused Heinz of pushing "homosexual 'marriage.'"

The "creative" AFA/OneNewsNow headline?

"Heinz in Pickle Over Homosexual-Laced Mayo Ad."

Happy 4th of July, everyone! Enjoy your picnics and fireworks. But beware. Check your mayo jars for homasexuls. Those sneaky suckers have a tendency to pop up in the most unlikely of places.

RightWing Roundup: "Homos" and Hitler

1. Don't You Hate it When Being Disrespectful Makes You Look Like an Ass?

I have long maintained that calling people by their preferred names and/or labels is an important step in promoting civil, respectful dialogue. It's a small concession that one can make at little or no cost to oneself. However, some anti-gay groups stubbornly insist upon calling gay people "homosexuals." I have explained before why many gay men and lesbians find the term "homosexual" offensive- namely because it invokes pathology.

Yet, we often find the most staunch anti-gay and marriage defense groups using the term anyway. For instance, OneNewsNow, which claims to bring us a news from a "Christian perspective," automatically replaces the word "gay" with the word "homosexual" in any of the Associated Press articles it runs.

In a priceless piece, Right Wing Watch has captured something that has become the laughingstock of the internets:

"In addition to blocking traffic from websites they don’t like, it looks like the web-geniuses behind the American Family Association’s OneNewsNow site have a few other tricks up their sleeves, such as automatically replacing any use of the word 'gay' with the word 'homosexual' in any of the AP stories they run … leading to instances in which proper names are reformatted to meet their ridiculous standard, such as this article about sprinter Tyson Gay winning the 100 meters at the U.S. Olympic track and field trials in which he is renamed 'Tyson Homosexual.'"

Check out Right Wing Watch's screen shot of this tiny error. The original article is here. Obviously, OneNewsNow has since edited the piece.


2. Oh, the Irony!

In one of the more ironic argumentum ad naziums I've seen, anti-gay blogger "On Lawn" warns us that John, a gay rights advocate he likes to argue with, is a little too much like "someone from 20th century history" whose name rhymes with Gaydolf Titler. After first saying that his article is "tongue in cheek" yet paradoxically also "gravely serious"(!) Lawn even goes so far as quoting the "First they came for the Jews" poem.

Oh dear! Leftist Gender Warrior, (wo)man your battle-station!

Seriously though, if "Lawn" were more credible I'd be offended on my friend John's behalf. But alas, I can only laugh and say, "mkay 'Lawn' if you say so." This "Lawn" character, after all, regularly vilifies the gay community, mis-uses virtually every study he reads to support his anti-gay opinions, and falsely accuses his adversaries of a wide range of evil and grossly exaggerated motives. Why is all this ironic? It means that under "Lawn's" criteria as to what makes a person similar to Hitler, he pretty much embodies those very characteristics.

That being said, I have to ultimately disagree with "Lawn's" criteria as to what makes a person Hitler-esque (a-der). The main reason being that I think the key traits that make a person resemble Hitler are being a totalitarian dictator and acting out a belief that millions of minorities and other "undesirables" should be exterminated. I mean seriously, get a grip.

Besides, it's sort of a fact that a Hitler/Nazi analogy sort of cues you to stop taking a person seriously.


3. Hitler Again?!

"Lawn" also recently compared me to Hitler. Why? Because I believe the preposterous notion that gay people have historically been victimized. Hitler, too, believed that he was victimized. Therefore, I am like Hitler. Obvi.

"Lawn's" tactics remind me of the example in my grade school logic book in which a propagandist accused a vegetarian of being evil because, dun-dun-dun, Hitler was a vegetarian too!

What is most funny, ironic, and sorta sad is that our Master of Projection fits, once again, his own Hitler criteria. For, he firmly believes that heterosexuals are really the ones who are oppressed at the hands of oppressive homosexuals. Again, I don't agree with his Hitler criteria, I just think it's funny that "Lawn" meets his own definition of what makes a person like Hitler.


4. More Hyperbole!

Speaking of Hitler analogies, remember this gem of a Pat Robertson also (in)famous Nazi allusion:

"Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history."--Pat Robertson, 1993 interview with Molly Ivins

It really is too bad that evangelical Christians these days have to go to gas chambers, "showers," and concentration camps. What is happening to them now is totally not in the least bit different at all compared to what happened during the Holocaust.

But seriously. Unless you're describing something that is genuinely horrible and close to equivalent, does everyone get how ridiculous Nazi/Hitler analogies are?

Take it down a notch. I mean, someone really needs to do a study on why some anti-gays are so prone to exaggeration.

H Hall of Shame: On Opportunistically Using Our Soldiers

Whenever those opposed to gay rights begin randomly talking about our Brave Soldiers Fighting For Our Freedom (tm), I have to admit that the hairs on my neck stand up. Also, it cues me to think of Fred Phelps and his reprehensible message that "God hate fags" and, because (some) of America accepts fags, then God also hates America.

Thankfully, Phelps, a bona fide member of the asinine for attention club, isn't taken very seriously by pretty much anyone anymore. In fact, I give props to Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth [sic] About Homosexuality for calling Phelps out on his asininity:

"Phelps is an opportunist who is now using the funeral services of our heroic American soldiers to promote his twisted messages that 'God Hates Fags' and 'God Hates America.'"

Indeedely doodely!

It is quite necessary for bigots who want to be taken seriously to distance themselves from Phelps as much as possible. Unfortunately, and what puts LaBarbera in my Hypocrisy Hall of Shame, LaBarbera couldn't resist sort of doing what he denounced Phelps for doing. See, although Peter runs a single-issue group dedicated to opposing the "homosexual agenda" he found it fitting to remind us all, on his group's website, to honor our fallen soldiers on Memorial Day. It's an admirable goal, to be sure. But, unsurprisingly, LaBarbera's message quickly became less about the troops and more about advancing his politics. Alas, after reminding us to honor our brave soldiers, where a non-opportunist would have ended his message, Pete continues:

"The Western Left is wrong and cruel to assert that [deceased soldier used to advance Pete's agenda] and thousands like him died in vain — even as they agitate to effect an abrupt pullout of American power from Iraq which, like it did in Vietnam, could lead to mass slaughter and despotism."

Yes, we know. "Leftists" and those who want this war to end are unpatriotic, un-American, hate our soldiers, and probably eat puppies. Yawn.

See, Pete's quote is just him being an opportunist who is using a day meant to honor the men and women in uniform to promote his political agenda of opposing "The Western Left." (Whatever that is).

Congratulations.

"Deep" Thought #15: Same-Sex Couples Are Just Friends

An oft-used way that those opposed to gay rights disparage the love that members of same-sex couples have for each other is to insist on referring to our relationships as mere "friendships." Friendships are wonderful things, no doubt about it. And, like our heterosexual counterparts, we too, are friends with the people we are in relationships with. Likewise, even though we can't make babies together, we are also more than friends. No too difficult a concept.

Concerned Woman for America Matt Barber, however doesn't get it. In his latest piece of "humor," he asks us to consider Ellen DeGeneres in light of the recent California marriage ruling. While Barber admits that he "doesn't dislike" Ellen (I'm sure she's relieved!), he informs us that Ellen recently announced "that she intended to 'marry' her friend, Portia DeRossi (a woman)."

While I applaud Barber's ability to discern that the foxy Portia is indeed a woman, I can only laugh at his clumsy suggestion as to what Ellen should do instead of marry Portia:

"If Ellen wants real happiness, the kind of happiness that's accompanied by 'the peace which surpasses all understanding,' I pray she'll have a conversation with Jesus Christ."

The successful end result, of course, would be for Ellen to repent, turn straight, and end up marrying a man. Such a relationship, of course, would be much greater than anything Ellen had with Portia and would then be worthy of the title "marriage." Hilarious! I mean, let's face it, to anyone who's had the misfortune of watching Mr. Wrong, I can only say that there aren't more things unnatural, counterfeit, or fraudulent in this world than an Ellen-on-man romantic "relationship."

Speaking of Mr. Wrong, sorry Matt, but our relationships are real no matter what you say and no matter how much you imbue God with your own unfortunate bigotry. See, another fun thing going on this article is Barber's conviction that he's merely God's messenger on this issue. For instance, in the midst of an article full of name-calling and judgments, he steps back, puts his hands up and says, whoa there:

"For those who disagree, your gripe isn't with me; it's with your sovereign Creator who loves each of us in spite of ourselves."

Being on the alleged right side of God, apparently, justifies belligerence and denigration of the love that two people share for each other.


Yeah. Two people of the same-sex cannot possibly have more than platonic love for each other because some small-minded people who have created God in their own image and imbued him with their own human bigotry say that God says so. Deep thoughts.

"Deep" Thought #14: Children of Gay Parents are "Robbed"!

I simply love it when the bigotry that is always brimming just below the surface of one authoritarian homophobe's every writing rears its ugly head. Recently, in his article discussing the importance of genetic counseling in cancer screening, our always-respectful-and-definitely-not-bigoted buddy "On Lawn" threw in this gem:

"Children who are robbed from part of their heritage so that two mommies or two daddies can pretend to be a complete marital unit might not have that benefit."

For starters, "Lawn's" latest reminds me that June 2 is official Blogging for LGBT Families Day the purpose of which is to honor families who do not fit the traditional model of one mother and one father. I look forward to showing the world how I pretend to have a family.

Because the bigotry in "Lawn's" statement is likely not apparent to him, let's walk the fellow through it. "Lawn" indicates that children of gay parents "are robbed" of their "heritage" in order for gay parents to create make-believe families. Using the un-incriminating passive voice, it is unclear who "Lawn" believes is doing this insidious robbing, but I'll venture a guess that it's probably the gays.

But aside from this mystery robber, the most deafening indicator of "Lawn's" bigotry is his silence with regard to heterosexual couples who raise non-biological children. While informing us that children of "two mommies or two daddies" are robbed of their genetic heritage, he makes no mention of whether non-biological children of heterosexuals are robbed as well. Perhaps in "Lawn's" world, it's just a fact that only children of gay parents are "robbed" of their genetic heritage. For magical reasons, non-biological children of heterosexual parents are not.

If it wasn't so obviously mean-spirited, "Lawn's" insistence on relating every article, study, and blog he reads to opposing gay marriage would be amusing. I mean, if he truly is concerned about the lack of cancer screening opportunities for adopted/donor-conceived children, I sincerely hope he improves his "analysis" and expands it to include children raised by heterosexual couples. I think it's pretty clear to anyone who isn't "Lawn" that all he's doing here is opportunistically showing concern about cancer screening, something that affects children of gay and straight parents, for the sole purpose of taking a swipe at gay parenting.

I mean, let's think this through. Is "Lawn" suggesting that children should remain in orphanages rather than be raised (and robbed!) by non-biological parents? Does he mistakenly believe that all gay couples use anonymous donors to conceive children? Is he advocating a ban on the use of egg and sperm donors? If so, would such a ban only apply to same-sex couples? What is the solution? Oh my! I think I've thought this through more than "Lawn" himself did when he whipped up his latest ignorant "blog post."

In fact, if "Lawn" would remove his anti-gay-marriage goggles for a quick second, he could perhaps see how merely blaming this "problem" on selfish gay couples constitutes a woefully inadequate analysis. For, access to birth certificates, genetic information, and data of biological parents is part of a much broader discussion involving a complicated, thoughtful weighing of individual rights, confidentiality laws, health law, and civil rights. While in "Lawn's" head, the issue is a simple (to paraphrase!) "gay parenthood robs children of their genetic heritage," the reality is that it is confidentiality laws that "rob" children of their genetic heritage- whether their parents are gay or straight. Why "Lawn" has blamed this complicated issue, with his flippant comments, on gay parenthood is strongly indicative of bigotry. It is also indicative of how he so willingly settles on "easy"-yet-ignorant explanations.

The second key indicator of Lawn's bigotry is his word choice. First there's his laughable use of the word "robbed," which invokes images of greedy gays stealing children in some queer Raising Arizona scenario. Such inflammatory word choice and obvious attempt to appeal to emotions pretty much automatically discredits a person's argument. And that goes double for the for the rightwing's creepy tendency to use baby talk in their anti-gay-parenthood "analyses." It's cute and all that grown men still call parents "mommies" and "daddies," but it'd be refreshing if they would at least try to speak in a non-emotionally-manipulative manner. Speaking of which, let's look at "Lawn's" use of the word "pretend" in reference to same-sex families. In true authoritarian fashion, "Lawn" lets us know that our relationships, families, and parenthood are just make-believe. I mean, he's only telling it like it is. He knows the truth, after all. Especially when it comes to "defending marriage on the firm ground of reason and respect for human dignity."

[Insert laughter]


That's right, everyone. Children of gay parents "are robbed" and gay families are just "pretend." Deep thoughts, buddy. Deep thoughts.

Dog Poop Awards

One of the... "fun" things about writing a blog is that you encounter all sorts of people and internet personas. I have written before about the internet fuckwad phenomenon whereby anonymity plus audience magically turns "normal" people into "fuckwads."

Well, a related blog phenomenon is where a person anonymously or, more interestingly non-anonymously, leaves a comment that is the internet equivalent of lighting a paper bag of dog turds on fire, leaving it on someone's front porch, and running away. Just as a note of full disclosure, I read this analogy in a comment thread at another blog but can't for the life of me find it. I suck. But I'm going to expand on it and turn it into an award. See, dog poop commenters have no intention of engaging in actual dialogue or debate on an issue, rather, they just want to drop off their asinine statement(s) and then hide in the bushes watching people frantically try to put out the fire.


So, here are the first annual (or monthly, whatever) Dog Poop Awards.



May I present second runner-up "Ian":

After my post about a recent denial of death benefits for same-sex partners in Illinois, "Ian" valiantly said "The injustice would be requiring taxpayers to pay more of their hard earned money to support immoral homosexual behavior" before scurrying away.

Neat-o. When "Ian" was pressed for more of an argument, we were met with resounding silence. Good talk, good talk.


The first-runner up goes to "Sparky," author of this witty question after my post about Mike Huckabee winning the Iowa primary:

"Is this a dyke blog?"

It's an understandable question. Most heterosexual women write as much about homos, lezzies, sports, and feminism as I do.


And now, may I present the super-duper grand champion Dog Poop Award winner to "John Lofton" for the longest string of non sequiturs, irrelevant comments, and condemnations to Hell after one of my book reviews. What this commenter did was a fun variation on the dog poop game called "let's light a bunch of sequential bags of dog poop, leave them in Fannie's Room, run away, come back, ignore the little fires that Fannie put out, leave more little turds, run away again, and so on."

Beginning here with his irrelevant spam-like proclamation "Bulletin! This just in! All of us are creatures, not the Creator. We live in God's world governed by God's Law. To deny this is not to change this fact-of-life. You do not have to believe in Hell to go there" and ending 60-some comments later by bringing sexy back with a John 3:36 quotation, this "interaction" was a dictionary definition Dog Poop experience. Although this man quoted many Bible verses, his irrelevancy and troll-like behavior failed to distinguish him from those men who come to your door trying to sell you Christianity.

*Sigh* I love the internets and, dear winners:




Congratulations all around.

Whistle Blowing or Windmill Fighting?

Today, I want to take a brief moment to thank WorldNetDaily for so reliably being on the constant lookout for danger to Society, America, the Family, and the Children. I myself am part of society, America, and a family, and so it makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside knowing that my being is safely nuzzled within the vigilant watch of WorldNetDaily. This media machine is so concerned for the public interest that it even has a special (subscription-only!) magazine called Whistleblower that calls itself "credible, independent, and fearless." And we all know that if a magazine calls itself credible and independent it logically follows that it must be credible and independent because, of course, it's credible and independent.

But more importantly, this magazine is fearless!

First, there's the title of the magazine. The term "whistleblower" allegedly "derives from the practice of English bobbies who would blow their whistle when they noticed the commission of a crime. The blowing of the whistle would alert both law enforcement officers and the general public of danger." I like that explanation, so I'm going to go with it. See, surely we can rest assured that a magazine calling itself Whistleblower alerts us to danger, especially danger that the mainstream media is too scared to report.

And folks, danger is lurking everywhere, didn't ya know?

For instance, the latest edition proves- that's right proves- "once and for all" that Hillary Clinton has more in common with the fictional "malevolent cyborg" in Terminator than she does with the fictional protagonist in Rocky. Why? According to Whistleblower, Clinton is a "pathological liar," she has a "foul mouth," and basically she's just sort of all-around scandalicious. (Disregarding the fact that a strong case could be made that the distinction of resembling said Cyborg more appropriately belongs to a certain governator,) Oh dear god, America, did you hear that?! Do you know what this means? If Clinton is elected, a future in which evil cyborgs take over the military and launch a war against humanity is all but inevitable.

Hold me.

And lest you think that other Democratic contender is any better, another issue toots its whistle about Barack (Hussein) Obama's "secret life." This issue explores the question of whether Barack (Hussein) Obama, a man who one day might command "the mightiest military in world history," harbors "an ominous secret agenda few understand." Highlighted articles include forays into Obama's alleged "Islamic youth," Reverend Wright-gate, and Obama's alleged support for the "gay agenda." All of this reveals, that's right reveals, Obama to be "one of the most dangerous men ever to be considered for the presidency." Oohhhhhhhhh mama.

But the danger is not limited to politicians. The March 2006 edition, for instance discusses the "endless streams of female schoolteachers having sex with their underage male students" and how this "problem of school teachers molesting students dwarfs in magnitude the clergy sex-abuse scandal that rocked the Catholic Church." Wait, did Whistleblower just conflate the few man-bites-dog cases of female teachers having sex with male students with the much more prevalent dog-bites-man cases of male teachers molesting female students? *PEDOPHILE PEDOPHILE PEDOPHILE* What's that, you say? It doesn't matter. What matters is, oh dear god, the world is a scary place!

Wah.


Cost of a 1-year subscription to Whistleblower magazine: $49.95

Learning about threats on which the mainstream media is too "scared" to report: priceless!

RightWing Roundup #6: Conservative Hate, Slippery Slopes, and Paranoia

1. Being Peaceful is, Like, So Immature

If you remember, my biggest qualm with Washington University in St. Louis' granting of an honorary degree to Phyllis Schlafly is not because she espouses anti-feminist views, but rather because she perpetuates an angry, divisive, us versus them, simplistic way of thinking that distorts feminism rather than informs. So, kudos to the students, faculty, and family members who peacefully and silently protested WUSTL's conferral of the degree. When a speech honoring Schlafly was read:

"about a third of the graduating students draped in the school’s green and black robes turned their backs to her, along with some faculty members sitting on the stage behind her. Many family members in the audience also took part.

Three faculty members made the extra point of walking off the stage and then turning their backs from the audience."

Unlike other protests where students have disrupted free speech, silent protest is a respectful way to demonstrate that you oppose a person or his/her views while still letting that person have a platform. Phyllis Schlafly, unsurprisingly, takes another view. Of her detractors, she said:

"I’m not sure they’re mature enough to graduate."

And the culture of hate lives on!


2. It's All a Slippery Slope, My Friend!

Now that same-sex marriage is legal in California, we can all take a deep breath and focus on our true ultimate goals of legalizing polygamy, man-on-goat marriage, and incest. Okay, seriously. After the California decision, we can pretty much cue a revival of these shrill slippery slope "arguments" from those opposed to gay rights. It's Only a Matter of Time (TM).

Legal Commentator Dale Carpenter gives a good rundown of arguments as to why same-sex marriage does not, contrary to the scare tactics and misunderstandings of others, automatically lead to polygamous nuptials. One of the strongest arguments, I believe, is that "there is nothing in principle that necessarily leads from the recognition of a new type of monogamous union (same-sex unions) to the recognition of polygamous unions."

A-der.


3. When Your Inaccuracy and Paranoia Automatically Discredit You

Speaking of the slippery slope, read what the Traditional Values Coalition (TVC) says is the true goal of same-sex marriage advocates:

"Homosexual activists are now beginning to openly admit that they don't want to marry just to have a normal home life. They want same-sex marriage as a way of destroying the concept of marriage altogether-and of introducing polygamy and polyamory (group sex) as 'families.'"

The TVC is a Christian organization and, because it's un-Christian to lie, what the TVC says must be true.

[Insert laughter]

But seriously, what's most funny about this TVC "fact" sheet is that most of the "homosexual activist" quotes they provide don't even support TVC's conclusion that the gays are really out to legalize polygamy. For one, the quotes are largely taken out of context. And secondly, since when is one person the spokesperson for any minority group? Sure there are gay people who have no problem with the legalization of polygamy, just as there are heterosexuals who have no problem with it, but they don't speak on behalf of "the gay agenda." No single person or group does.

But, of course, any thinking person knows all of this already. Contrary to its stated goal of empowering "people of faith through knowledge," TVC woefully misinforms its members- many of whom are probably decent, trusting people. Unfortunately, I think many Americans swallow the lies hook, like, and sinker. For instance, in the past "Reverend" Sheldon of the TVC has stated,

"A dangerous Marxist/Leftist/Homosexual/Islamic coalition has formed – and we’d better be willing to fight it with everything in our power. These people are playing for keeps. Their hero, Mao Tse Tung is estimated to have murdered upwards of 60 million people during his reign of terror in China. Do we think we can escape such persecution if we refuse to fight for what is right?"

That quote is uncannily similar to the paranoid comments of our blogger friend "Fitz" (two-time winner of Fannie's Room's Red Scare Awards) who never fails to discuss this alleged Leftist/Marxist conspiracy in virtually any comment or article he writes. Here, for instance, he "informed" me that Critical Race Theory has Marxist roots (a-der), dismissed the theory on that sole basis rather than substantively addressing it, and as if reading a TVC script he repeated the "50 million people [who] were slaughtered and countless more held in bondage" bit. Continuing to show that he's eaten up the Commies Are Under Your Bed theory of what's wrong with America, Fitz is also responsible for inspiring the Leftist Gender Warrior Chronicles, as he believes "leftist gender warriors" are pretty much ruining everything.

I don't write this to pick on the fellow. Rather, he's the perfect example of a real person who lets these vague conspiracy theories do the thinking for him. Pretty much whenever I hear someone "warning" us about the commies, the only thing red I see is the warning light telling me that I'm not dealing with a rational thinking person.

In short, it's unfortunate that groups like the TVC are seen by some as legitimate and trustworthy sources of news and information. No news source is completely objective, but when one regularly lies and misrepresents, that has tangible consequences as it affects the thinking of real people.

And You Too Can Be a Useless Politician!

Walter Bayes, a 70-year-old "retired blue-collar worker" running for a seat in the Idaho House of Representatives, has odd priorities. For instance, in his campaign literature he wrote:

"It is absolutely wrong to force any student to share the same bathrooms and showers with homosexual teachers or students."

Oh look, another guy whose status as "blue-collar average joe" apparently qualifies him to spout ignorant "I'm-afraid-of-teh-gay-sex" ideas that pass as "traditional values" of "the people." Lest anyone be mistaken, having blue-collar roots myself, I'm not mocking his socioeconomic status. Rather, I'm mocking how his less-than-well-thought-out bright ideas for saving the world pretty much turn him into a flannel-wearing-twangy mountain-man caricature of a bigot.

Observe.

After stating how wrong it is to "force" homos and heteros to share bathrooms and showers, he continues:

"I don’t really have an answer for it."

Oh dear god, whatever shall we do! Bayes just told us about this ginormous problem, but he doesn't *gulp* have an answer. I hope those Idahoan schoolchildren will somehow muster up the courage to go on living. Don't worry, kiddies, Bayes is on top of it. He continues:

"But we’re going to have to do something if there’s going to be a considerable number of our people who are going to go that way (homosexual). We’re going to (need) some kind of separation."

Yes, we have to do something about this newfangled gayness. It's a big problem and I don't know what we should do, but we best do something!

Now, to be fair, maybe Bayes just brought up the gay wedge issue as a way to let his voting base (assuming he has one) know that he disapproves of teh gays. If so, he should re-think his strategy 'cuz nothing says "you too can be a useless politician" like telling us about a "problem," admitting you don't know how to solve it, and then offering no solutions for it.

Weirdly, Bayes also gives us an extra special glimpse into his worst nightmare by stating that it would have been "an absolute catastrophe" for him to have showered with girls when he was 18. Cool beans. My first question, of course, is in what universe does a heterosexual 18-year-old male not want to shower with "the girls"? But more to the point, how does his statement relate to having separate bathrooms for homos/heteros? Um, if gay people shower with straight people, then boys and girls will have to shower together? I dun't get it.


In related news, none of Bayes' Republican opponents agree with him about the dire need for hetero-only facilities. As another candidate, Jeff Justus, says:

"We have a lot more important issues than that."

Hmm, ya think?

Phyllis Schlafly's Feminism: Good Enough For Her, But Not For Other Women

I was perturbed upon learning that one of my alma maters, Washington University in St. Louis, is about to bestow an honorary doctorate (in Humane Letters!) upon the anti-feminist, anti-gay Phyllis Schlafly at this year's commencement ceremony. I suppose it's only fitting that shrill NBC commentator Chris Matthews, who has a pattern of making sexist comments when referring to women, will deliver the commencement address and also receive an honorary degree of his very own.

But enough about Chris. I suppose the world won't come to a crashing halt now that WUSTL is going to honor Schlafly who, after all, is a well-known alum. Honestly, I can't say I'm surprised by the decision (which the university is standing by despite threats of protest.) I'm sure there's a special penthouse in Heaven reserved for those who reserve honorary doctorates from [insert elite accent] Washington University, but in the grand scheme of things here on Earth, who cares? Honestly, I would have been none the wiser about the "honor" had I not read about it all over the blogosphere.

Likewise, I would like to bestow my own little honor on Mrs. (definitely not Ms.) Schlafly: Induction into Fannie's Room's H Hall of Shame.

H stands for hypocrite. And Schlafly, as she will tell you, knows full well that liberals and feminists call her the H word. And wait, let me guess, I suppose "the feminists" call her names because they don't have genuine arguments against her.

Not quite. As we will see, Schlafly's arguments (as much as stereotypes, overgeneralizations, and caricature-creating can be deemed arguments anyway) are faulty. It just so happens that in addition to her irrationality, she's also a hypocrite.

1. "The Feminists" (tm)

First, as some background, Mrs. Schlafly touts herself as a conservative, "pro-family," "articulate and successful opponent of the radical feminist movement." Her anti-feminist schtick over the years has been to blame most social ills on "radical feminist" caricatures while adamantly trying to convince us that women are mothers and wives "first." Yawn. It's an old song and dance, really, so I'll refrain from analyzing Schlafly's "husbands are allowed to rape their wives" quotes. Although speaking of which, aren't "pro-family values" fun?

This general misogynistic jig is one that Schlafly choreographed and one in which the likes of Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham continue to dance in all their woman-against-feminism glory. It's a simple, black/white, right/wrong, and good/evil world as far as these ladies are concerned and pretty much every polemic they write is a massive clusterfuck of stereotypes and generalizations about "feminists" and "liberals" that reflect this angry bipolar worldview. What's that? "The feminists" hate men? Wow. What's that now? "The feminists" lack common sense? If you say so.

See, how this hate club discredits people is, first they decide they don't like someone's position on an issue, then they label her a "feminist" (or sometimes a "liberal"). I mean it's pretty clear that for magical reasons, the very definition of a "feminist" is pretty much anyone who disagrees with Phylis Schlafly, Ann Coulter, and Laura Ingraham.

But seriously, reflecting a fundamental misunderstanding of feminism, these women in their typical un-nuanced manner (disingenuously?) speak of feminism as though it's a monolithic radical ideology in which all people who call themselves feminists hold the exact same "anti-family" beliefs. In logical terms, it's a fallacy of composition: What Schlafly does is imagine that "the feminists" are a ginormous amorphous blob. From there, she reads some writings of more radical feminists. Then, she believes that these beliefs are true of all feminists simply because they are true of some feminists. Does she do this on purpose, or is she simply ignorant?

What is both funny and sad is that I'd take a gander to say that if these anti-feminist ladies would stop drawing cartoons for an iota of a second, they would find that they and teh feminists actually agree on quite more than they would care to admit.

So, what disappoints me most about this "honorary degree" fiasco is that an institution of higher education is set to honor a founding mother of the conservative hate culture whose writing distorts rather than informs. Schlafly is notable because she notoriously contributes to this simplistic and pervasive "us" versus "them" framework of thinking about social problems that divides our nation rather than unites it toward realistic solutions.

I could end my complaint of her there. And for those women and men against feminism who will immediately discredit me for calling Schlafly a hypocrite, you can just stop reading now.


2. Hypocrisy

The rest of us will continue by wondering how Mrs. Schlafly became worthy of her honorary doctorate while at home raising her children and being a little wifey-poo, as she gave other women permission to do. (Because, didn't you know, women weren't allowed to "just stay home with the kids" before Phyllis Schlafly came along. What's that, Phyllis? Women can just stay home and raise the children!? How very revolutionary.).

Unfortunately, it is time for the ginormous elephant in the room that is socioeconomic class in America to rear its bloated head. For, while Phyllis Schlafly has spent her life arguing in strong terms that the feminist claim that women can have it all is a lie, Phyllis Schlafly was simultaneously living the feminist dream of having it all. It's true that Schlafly put herself through undergrad by working full-time. Kudos. And yet, for those who dare to be poor and have babies, the plot thickens. Schlafly, for instance, opposes government-funded daycare programs, programs that would help all women, especially low-income ones, advance in their careers and educations, on the ground that taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for "babysitters" for other people's kids. See, Phyllis, some women don't have the luxury of choosing to stay home with the kids. Whether they're single moms or one-half of a low-income family, some women by necessity must try to "have it all" no matter what feminists or anti-feminists say about it.

It's understandable that Schlafly's anti-feminism would be as imbued with the same class privileges with which some feminism is embued. See, by the time Schlafly had children, she was married to a wealthy attorney and didn't have to worry about juggling a career, continuing her education, and paying for childcare. Sitting next to 2001's welfare reform, which pretty much tells low-income women with children that they are lazy for not working, Schlafly's message is unrealistic and problematic. We get it: Women who don't raise their children are "bad," but poor women who don't work are also "bad." A gal can't win.

But back to Schlafly. In between admirably rearing 6 children and having a 44-year marriage, Schlafly somehow found the time and money to get out of the kitchen and receive a BA from Washington University, a JD from Washington University, and a Master's degree from Harvard University. As her biography on The Eagle Forum's (an organization she found time to create) website attests, supermom also found time in between changing Pampers to write or edit 20 books on a variety of subjects. During her accomplished life she has been a lawyer, a presidential appointee, and a three-time candidate for public office (she lost). These days, she writes a monthly newsletter, a syndicated column, and has a weekly radio talk show.

Minus the, erm, content of Schalfly's books, articles, and speeches, these are admittedly admirable accomplishments. Yet, none of these accomplishments would have been possible without at least "some" influence from feminism- as long as we're defining feminism as what it really is (a myriad of different ideas united by a commitment to seeking equality for women), rather than what Schlafly tries to tells us it is (insert extreme 1960s radical feminist claims and pretend they are representative of all feminists).

All of this brings me to why she's a hypocrite: Because while Schlafly insists that feminism is not good for other women, society, or The Family(tm), she has proven it to be necessary and infinitely valuable to her own life and ambitions. Ironically, just as Coulter and Ingraham do today, she takes advantage of the opportunities that feminism has afforded her by making a career out of misrepresenting feminism. It's smart, I suppose. After all, is the profitability of assuring males in a male-dominated society that there's something pathological and scary about women seeking more power and equality really all that surprising?

Thank you, Mrs. Schlafly for showing us that, thanks to feminism, (upper-class) women these days really can have it all! In fact, Leftist Gender Warrior salutes you.