March 17, 2008
“JOhn Connors” (that’s how he spells it) writes:
As a gay man I’m stunned at the childishness of your anti-Obama campaign. It’s quite clear that this is the influence of the gender identity politics and narrow world view of many in the Lesbian community. It’s sad and sickening.
No, JOhnny, what’s childish is your straw-man extrapolation characterizing my opposition to Barack Obama as having anything whatsoever to do with “gender identity politics” (a favorite phrase, incidentally, of right-wing blogs, news sources, and other rabidly anti-Clinton outlets).
What’s sad and sickening is your broadbrush smear of lesbians. If I were a man, would you smear the gay-male community for daring to shine so harsh a light on your precious Obama? No, you wouldn’t — you looked for the handiest weapon within reach, and brought sex (sex, JOhnny, not “gender”) into this; rather than debate my points, you took the lowest road and attempted to dismiss my opinion wholesale because I am a lesbian.
What’s especially sad and sickening is that slamming my femaleness is more important to you than the fact that I have been defending your dignity as a fellow gay American, from the moment Obama threw you under the bus, right along with the rest of us. (Sorry to break the news to you, JOhnny, but “us” includes lesbians, too.)
I thought the stereotype of the lesbian-hating male had gone the way of the dinosaur. Sadly, sexism is alive and well, at least in JOhnnyLand.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
Barack Obama,
Women
January 25, 2008
I couldn’t agree more (probably because I can’t think of any more ways to say it than I already have) with Margaret Cho’s assessment of this CNN article:
Gender or race: Black women voters face tough choices in S.C.
. . .
Recent polls show black women are expected to make up more than a third of all Democratic voters in South Carolina’s primary in five days.
For these women, a unique, and most unexpected dilemma, presents itself: Should they vote their race, or should they vote their gender?
No other voting bloc in the country faces this choice. …
Writes Cho in today’s Huffo:
CNN received dozens of e-mails shortly after posting the story, which focuses largely on conversations about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama that a CNN reporter observed at a hair salon in South Carolina whose customers are predominantly African-American.
. . .
An e-mailer named Tiffany responded sarcastically: “Duh, I’m a black woman and here I am at the voting booth. Duh, since I’m illiterate I’ll pull down the lever for someone. Hm… Well, he black so I may vote for him… oh wait she a woman I may vote for her… What Ise gon’ do? Oh lordy!”
I too am insulted at the idea that just because I am a person of color and a woman that I should be expected to automatically vote for Obama or Hillary. Why are white men allowed to look at the issues and judge for themselves and the rest of us are expected to take sides grade school style? That is racist and sexist and dumb.
Amen to that. Detractors can believe it or not as they like, but I wouldn’t vote for a gay candidate just because s/he was gay, either. As I’ve said repeatedly, I don’t want a woman President, or a black President, or even a gay President; I want the best President — and if that President happens to be female, or black, or gay (or all three), then happy day in the morning! But assuming my vote has anything to do with race, gender, or any other incidental is indeed racist and sexist, and insults my intelligence.
Certainly, I will vote for a pro-gay candidate over an anti-gay candidate, but that’s not the same as voting for the woman, or the African-American, or the queer just because s/he’s a woman, or an African-American, or queer. (For the record, again, my ideal candidate this time around was Dennis Kucinich, the most pro-gay candidate of the bunch, who is a white, heterosexual male. Oh, yes, I’m still angry as hell with him, but he is still my ideal candidate.)
So, good on Notorious C.H.O., for reiterating what needs to be hammered into many skulls.
However: What in the world is Cho thinking (or, more accurately, not thinking) when she allows herself to be seduced by the utterly meaningless “hope” mantra of the Obama camp?
Still, I believe Obama and Hillary are the best candidates. …
Why Obama?
You’re right, Margaret: Neither gender nor race should enter into your decision — but I would think that as a bisexual woman yourself, you would take Obama’s repeated and continuous betrayals of the LGBT community into account.
And you would also notice that Obama, for all his pretty talk about “equality,” simply does not support full equality for LGBT Americans, period. In fact, he maintains a crystal-clear position: Even the most cruel, most active form of homophobia (short of murder — although I would argue that the “ex-gay” movement is nothing less than passive murder) isn’t nearly as terrible as any verbal slight against African-Americans. There’s no way to spin his double standard.
I hate that people are saying that Oprah is some kind of gender traitor because she is backing Obama. Don’t even talk about Oprah unless you want to fight. I got a brick in my purse so watch it (remember, ladies — something heavy inside something light = weapon). I think it is wonderful that Oprah is getting involved in politics. It is brave and exciting and gives me lots of hope for the future.
Oprah? I think it’s a wonderful thing when anyone gets involved in politics — but Oprah’s track record isn’t exactly consistent. Let’s not forget that Bush’s 2000 campaign was languishing, badly, until his milestone appearance on Oprah’s show; the Oprah Effect on Bush was summed up quite accurately by both Kate O’Beirne and Bill Press:
O’Beirne: “[The race between Bush and Gore is] terribly tight. But we might mark George Bush’s boffo performance on ‘Oprah’ this week as the beginning of his comeback. And he certainly had no trouble explaining to that audience of women his tax-cut plan, how a single woman would get a tax cut under his plan, not under Al Gore’s, and it was very well received by those women.”
Press: “If I were the Bush campaign, I’d put George Bush on ‘Oprah’ everyday, I thought he did great today. Al Gore is on ‘Leno’ tonight. So it’s going to be the campaign of the talk shows, and we’ll see what happens. But clearly, Bernie, as we said the last time I was here, it’s a close race now, it’s going to be close, I believe, all the way down to the end.”
(Sure, Oprah had Gore on her show the week before — but talk shows aren’t bound by any “equal time” rules; heck, there isn’t even a Fairness Doctrine anymore — and the Republicans like it that way just fine.)
On the same edition of CNN’s “Inside Politics,” Candy Crowley said: “If you’ve got a gender-gap problem, and George Bush does, ‘The Oprah Winfrey Show,’ with its large and overwhelmingly female audience, is the place to be. … And whatever your dreams, if your quest to be president requires female, suburban, swing voters, then upscale, family-friendly Oprah is the one to, as she puts it, get a sense of politicians as human beings.”
Sure, Oprah smacked down Bush, hard… later, after the damage had been done. But Oprah was just one of a lot of people who woke up only after BushCo had been given free rein to bring this country to its knees. That doesn’t give me a lot of confidence in Oprah’s ability to judge a candidate on his merits, or predict what he’s going to do once he gets in office.
And while Oprah has been tossing a few nickels (to Oprah, $10,000 is just a few nickels) at Democrats since backing Carol Moseley Braun’s Illinois State Senate run in 1992, let’s not forget that she previously backed the Republican leader of the Wisconsin State Senate, Susan S. Engeleiter — who lost her ‘88 race, but who was chosen by George H.W. Bush as the next Administrator of the Small Business Administration.
And let’s not forget that it was Oprah who singlehandedly gave Donnie McClurkin the break he needed to become a gospel superstar: “[The song ‘Stand’] received a critical endorsement from daytime television superstar Oprah Winfrey. McClurkin told Jet, ‘She stood on television, held the CD up and said, “This is my favorite CD in the world. After you’ve done all you can, stand. You all need to buy it.”‘ The popular reception for ‘Stand’ and ‘Speak to my Heart,’ the album’s other standout single, earned McClurkin a certified gold record and a Grammy nomination, positioning him among contemporary gospel’s elite.” [Musician Guide]
And let’s not forget that it was Oprah who introduced Donnie McClurkin to Barack Obama.
And we know how that worked out.
I won’t argue that Oprah doesn’t do some good with her show — but she’s best at tasks such as, say, raising awareness about anorexia. Some might says she’s at her worst when letting Tom Cruise bounce around on her couch like a hyperkinetic jumping bean, but in reality, she’s at her worst when she uses her enormous influence indiscriminately. In endorsing Barack Obama — a candidate running on some fluffy cloud of good vibes, with virtually no plan behind his ethereal promises of “hope and change” (hope for what? change what?) — it is impossible to believe that Oprah has made any serious effort to pin down what Obama intends to do. The Big O has, like every other groupie, been seduced by a nice voice and good looks, happily oblivious to the lack of substance under the pretty surface.
Which brings us back to Margaret Cho:
I think that is what I love about Obama — he represents hope.
Hope for what, exactly?
He is all about change — a new beginning.
What kind of change? No matter who gets into the White House, Democrat or (God forbid) Republican, there will be change.
The question — for every Obama supporter, not just Cho and Winfrey — is: Exactly what kind of change are you expecting? That’s a difficult question to answer, because Obama himself has never offered a clue as to what kind of “change” he intends to deliver; at this late date, it’s obvious he doesn’t know the answer to that himself.
So, let’s try an easier question: What kind of change are you even hoping for?
And another hard question: What has Obama said or done that indicates he will deliver the kind of “change” you want? I want specifics. “He’s so inspirational!” just doesn’t cut it. L. Ron Hubbard was inspirational, too. So is the Dalai Lama. So is Suze Orman.
The difference is that I can tell you, specifically, what each of the three aforementioned leaders is all about, in ten words or less. I can’t explain Barack Obama after two full years of listening to him talk. Can you?
His youthful optimism appeals to me and his hope for the future enthralls me and these issues transcend race completely.
Arrrrrgh! Attraction to his “youthful optimism” and being enthralled by “his hope for the future” are not “issues” — they are emotions. An issue is healthcare. An issue is the war in Iraq. An issue is marriage equality.
I don’t care why you like him — I want to know why you support him. Hell, I like Cameron Diaz, but I wouldn’t support her if she ran for President on nothing but her good looks and charm.
On the flip side, I don’t like Hillary Clinton — I don’t find her particularly warm or endearing — but damn it, I know what she stands for. I don’t agree with her on everything (in fact, there’s a whole lot I don’t agree with), but I know what I’m getting, and I know I can live with it.
So my choice really for the next president is going to be very well thought out; I am between Barack and a familiar face.
Margaret, if your choice really “is going to be very well thought out,” then you’ll be voting for Hillary, not Obama.
Put the Kool-Aid down now, and start paying attention to what Obama is really saying — and not saying.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
"Ex-Gays",
Barack Obama,
Bisexuality,
Celebrities,
Christianity,
Dennis Kucinich,
Donnie McClurkin,
Election 2008,
George H.W. Bush,
George W. Bush,
Hillary Clinton,
Homophobia,
Marriage Equality,
Race/Ethnic Issues,
Women
September 22, 2007
Praise Jesus, it’s the collapse of evangelical Christian rule in America. Rejoice!
. . .
Do you know this clenched and panicky group? Of course you do. They’re the throngs of megachurch lemmings Karl Rove masterfully manipulated and rallied and whored to Bush’s very narrow advantage in two elections.
They’re the ones who’ve made all the headlines and influenced all sorts of laws and national policy changes lo, this past half-decade concerning everything from stem cell research to gay marriage to evolution, sanitized school textbooks to failed abstinence programs to RU-486 restrictions to silly anti-science rhetoric, the ones who gasped in horror at a woman’s bare nipple and made a disgusting mockery of Terri Schiavo and actually applauded when John Ashcroft spent $8,000 of taxpayer money 
to throw some heavy drapery over the shamefully exposed breasts of the bronze (female) Spirit of Justice statue in the Hall of Justice. And so on.
. . .
Apparently, Bush’s GOP has let them down. They have not been content with BushCo’s anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-sex, pro-abstinence, anti-women, anti-science, pro-war, God-hates-Islam stance, nor have they been content with having their trembling hands around the throat of the preceding Republican Congress for half a decade and clearly they have been insufficiently humiliated by the happy slew of right-wing preachers and politicians who’ve been revealed as meth-loving, restroom-lurking, boy-fetishizing gay hypocrites.
According to the new plan, any current GOP candidate who now wants the valuable evangelical vote will have to prove himself not merely guided by conformist religious zealotry in all things (Hi, Mitt!), but will have to prove his unflappable support for the GOP stance in key issues across the evangelical board, primarily regarding the Big Duo: abortion rights and gay rights. Or, more specifically, the total annihilation of both.
Do you see? This is exactly why we can now rejoice. Because this is the delightful thing about the fundamentalist worldview (and, for that matter just about any strict religious worldview you can name), the thing that absolutely and forever guarantees its frequent and eventual downfall: It can never be sated.
. . .
And why? Because the fundamentalist mind-set is not so much a firm and rational set of beliefs based on thoughtful interpretation of strict Biblical screed as it is, well, a paranoid wallowing in fear. Fear of the Other, fear of change, of progress, of the new and different and young and the sexual and the truly spiritual. And as we all know from almost seven years of Bush, fear knows no reason. It knows no stability. Fear is simply insatiable, voracious, and about as un-Godlike as Jesus with a machine gun. …
Much more — and, as always, well worth the full read
Discuss this story
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
Christianity,
Creationism,
Education/Schools,
George W. Bush,
Homophobia,
Karl Rove,
Marriage Equality,
Mitt Romney,
Radical Religious Right,
Republicans,
Women
