Socially Unacceptable

idea_bulb

Remember a couple weeks back when Barack, Michelle and their media entourage flew to New York City one Saturday night for dinner and a show?  Imagine what would have happened if the following week David Letterman did a “Top Ten” list of the worst moments of their trip and said this:

Number 2 – Finding out that the restaurant didn’t serve fried chicken and watermelon

Not only would Letterman be retired right now, but so would the writers and producers of his show and the head of CBS would be offering profuse apologies to the Obamas. There would be protests, advertising boycotts, and denunciations of Letterman from the leaders of both parties. You can be sure Keith Olbermann would be ranting “How dare you sir!” and he wouldn’t be blaming the Obama’s for political opportunism. People would be outraged, and rightly so.

Not that long ago racism was socially acceptable and racial discrimination was legal.  Academics prepared scholarly treatises asserting the superiority of the white race.  Many (white) people believed that it was the “white man’s burden” to exercise control over the “lesser” races for their own benefit.

Senator Robert Byrd of West Virgina is a former member of the Ku Klux Klan. That was in 1942.  He is now third in line of succession to the Presidency. Former senator and Supreme Court justice Hugo Black is another prominent figure who once belonged to the Klan.

At it’s peak in the 1920′s the Klan had millions of members from all levels of society:

Indiana’s Klansmen represented a wide cross section of society: they were not disproportionately urban or rural, nor were they significantly more or less likely than other members of society to be from the working class, middle class, or professional ranks.

Once upon a time the Klan had major political influence in the South and Midwest. Nowadays the Klan is a fringe group that is viewed with disgust by the vast majority of the nation.

Continue reading

Hullaballo – A Fauxgressive Freeperville

(Do not watch the above video unless you have a strong stomach – I’m not even going to describe what’s in it.)

Last week we discussed Digby’s role in last year’s meltdown of progressive blogosphere.  Digby was one of the most well respected bloggers until last year and Hullaballoo used to be one of my favorite stops in Left Blogistan.

Not anymore.  Digby discusses Palin vs. Letterman in her post “On Nuts ‘N Sluts” and starts out pretty good:

First of all, Sarah Palin does not look or act like a “slut” and it’s nothing more than a sexual fantasy to think of her that way. She married her high school sweetheart and has five kids. She’s a born again Christian. She does not dress provocatively, and she has said that she put her hair up and wore glasses specifically to take her looks off the table as much as possible. She’s an attractive 40 something politician, she’s not a Playboy model (not that there’s anything wrong with that) and it would be nice if she didn’t have to put up with that stuff. She’s not trying to “sex herself up” for the camera or anything else. There’s enough to criticize her for.

But she soon takes a right turn onto WTF? lane:

And making Palin into a feminist hero because of this cheapens feminism. This woman is defending herself and her own daughter, but as Governor she never quite finds the voice to defend other women who have average real life problems, like workplace discrimination, rapes or unwanted pregnancies. Her complaints are not coming from feminist principle but rather political opportunism.

Yeah, we all know that Sarah Palin doesn’t care about feminism because SHE’S AN EVIL REPUBLICAN CONSERVATIVE!!!!

If Sarah Palin were exactly the same person with the same opinions but she had gone to some Ivy League university and had a “D” instead of an “R” after her name she would be the darling of the progressive blogosphere despite her stance on abortion. The A-listers in Left Blogistan would fall all over themselves rationalizing her conservative moderate views because she comes from a red state.  UInfortunately for her she’s a Republican with a degree from a state college so she’s a “hillbilly from Wasilly”

But it it’s the comment thread to Digby’s post that is sickening:

With Sarah Palin in charge, by the way, if her daughter did get raped, she’d have to pay the police for the cost of a rape kit.

—————————————————————————

That Bristol was the subject of the joke was clear. Palin and her husband are either

1) Incredibly stupid or

2) Incredibly dishonest and just using this as a way to keep the camera on themselves.

I’m voting for number 2 personally. I don’t think there’s the slightest bit of honest outrage on the part of the Palins here.

—————————————————————————

Sarah Palin is using the supposed insult to her 14-year old daughter to pick a fight with a media elite, singing to her victimology-loving base. Letterman’s jokes were in poor taste; he’s admitted that.

But that this story remains aloft is entirely due to Sarah and Todd Palin, who have proven (yet again) that they will use their own children to advance the Governor’s political ambition.

Who’s the exploiter now?

—————————————————————————

Yeah, well, I’d still tap it…….

—————————————————————————

Sarah Palin does not look or act like a “slut”

Yes, she does. She talks and sparkles and winks like a cocktail waitress with a table of out-of-town convention-goers.

—————————————————————————

Digs…puh-lease. You say Ms. Palin does not dress provocatively. I demure: her skirts are always ass-hugging tight, her jackets tailored to show off the boobage, and don’t get me started on those little fuck-me pumps with the painted toenails.

Now, it is true that Sarah’s ass, tits, and toes are very Christian, but she does thend to, as Rupaul would say, “work it.”

Are we to think this is professional attire for a vice presidential aspirant? Maybe Barack should have worn low hangers to the debates to work his ass crack for votes too.

Sarah Palin is a hypocrite and a light weight media creation; Letterman was and is spot-on. I salute his bad taste; his “apology” was more entertaining than the original jokes. And anyone who thinks he was actually apologizing is not hearing the words and the tone.

—————————————————————————

And you’ll remember the Clintons didn’t parade their daughter out all the time as a model for all children, etc.

Not that I ever loved the Clintons, but c’mon people, you know they didn’t ask for it like Palin has.

—————————————————————————

Sorry, but Palin does look like a slutty airline attendant. She acts like one as well. She cakes on the make-up, and the joke was about buying make-up. She works her looks to attract GOP males. She is fair game.

Change “Sarah Palin” to “Hillary Clinton” and “slut” to “lesbian” and the crap thrown at Sarah isn’t much different from the wingnut slime of the nineties. Crap like that is why we moderate comments. Hit the delete button and let the sexist slugs and low-life misogynists go exercise their free speech rights somewhere else.


Please — DIGG! & Share!!

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Furl | Newsvine

This is what a feminist looks like

Spare me the “she’s an anti-choice conservative” bullshit.  So is Obama.

Sarah said more in defense of women than NOW did.

From Transcript (unofficial):

Here’s the problem, Matt – the double standard that has been applied here. One, let’s talk politically, the double standard. First, remember in the campaign, Barack Obama said the family’s off-limits – you don’t talk about my family. And the candidate who must be obeyed – everybody adhered to that and left his family. They haven’t done that on the other side of the ticket, and it has continued to this day. So that’s a political double standard. But here again, the double standard when it comes to acceptance of a celebrity being able to get way with a disparaging comment that does erode a young girl’s self-esteem and does contribute to some of the problems that we have in society.

[...]

He doesn’t have to apologize to me.

I would like to see him apologize to young women across the country for contributing to that–kind of that thread that is throughout our culture that makes it sound like that it’s okay to talk about young girls in that way. Where it’s kind of okay and accepted and funny to talk about statutory rape. It’s not cool. It’s not funny.

FIRE DAVID LETTERMAN

Please Digg!!! and Share!!!

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

The Zombie Tribe

Obama!  Obama!  Obama!

Obama! Obama! Obama!

What’s so hard about condemning sexism and misogyny?  Does it really matter who the victim is?  John Cole gets it:

You know, I have no idea what the hell David Letterman is thinking or what he thinks he is accomplishing with crap like this, but this was inexcusable. He should be ashamed of himself.

And I’m not trying to sound like some politically correct scold, and I have no problem with comedians being comedians. There are lots of reasons to dislike Sarah Palin, there are lots of reasons to not be impressed with her leadership, her beliefs, or, well, anything about her, but when you start with the “slutty” crap, or are making jokes about her daughter getting “knocked up,” you’ve crossed a line. I have no problem attacking Palin for her idiotic proposals and all the stupid things she has said, but this just is the kind of nonsense that is no good for anyone.

Maybe I’m over-reacting, and I know I’m not always perfect, but I’m really losing my patience and tolerance for this kind of stuff. There was no place for this kind of stuff with Hillary and Chelsea, there is no room for it with Michelle and their kids, and the same standard should apply for Sarah Palin and her kids. Hell, it should apply to all women.

But some of his readers don’t:

She worked that slutty angle —and no way in hell can anyone say certain men didn’t respond. Starbursts, remember? It was an image she carefully presented and I don’t get all the vapors people here get for her getting called on it.

By the way, this whole ‘insulting to women’ chorus of protest is so fucking misplaced. You people seemed to missed that the very real and much more damaging diss occurred when Palin ran for VP using her best MILF act.

Part of the reason conservatives loves them some Palin is she is an anti-feminist. What could be a bigger diss than to get where she is because she has a vagina and men like her because she’s hot?

She made herself into the lapdance the rednecks couldn’t buy (while pushing her high heels into the face of every woman who ever fought to get their due for their competence, intelligent and capability, and not for being a hot mamma). And somehow, amazingly, a comedian joking about Palin’s carefully cultivated Fuckable Me image is the thing that is over the top.

Sheesh. Some of you really missed what Palin was up to. Palin was the manchurian candidate for feminism.

The hot fuck-me chick who can’t be fucked. Like a slutty stewardess. She’s got the fuck-me thing going on but what can you do? Bend her over one of the seats? Unobtainable Sex Object. Akin to the Hot Librarian with the Big Glasses. (Another stock male fantasy character Palin more than hints at as well). Cuz guys, you know when she takes off those glasses and lets down her hair she’ll fuck you so hard on the book stacks your dick’ll be bruised.

Sure that’s stereotype that demeans women. Hell yes. But Palin is totally reinforcing that one. She’s projecting it: This is the modern Conservative Woman.

It’s a feature not a bug that it’s undermes feminism. Why do you think conservatives love this exemplar of Woman? And where’s the vapors over that?

It’s actually interesting that Letterman said ‘stewardess’. No flight attendants for conservatives. Women are stewardesses. Waitresses in the sky.

You can get pissed at Letterman but I think he’s noticing something here. It says more about how conservatives see women than Dave does.

Letterman did wasn’t nice. But comedians often say harsh shit. A difference between comedy and a comedian making gratuitous insults is whether it was true or not. Good for Dave for calling her on it. She doesn’t get to have it both ways.

That was one of many comments in a long thread (361 comments) where numerous people defended David Letterman’s misogynistic comments about Sarah and Willow Palin.  What was so hard about denouncing something that is obviously wrong? Why would these people defend the indefensible?

The answer is tribalism

Continue reading

Why Alpha Males Rule Our World – and How We Can Begin to Erode their Dominance

saber-tooth

Readers: Please Note that this is an extremely long post broken into several parts which includes numerous links to background information.  I’ve chosen to post it in its entirety to allow the reader the option of reading it in total, or ‘nibbling’ on the parts.  If you’d like to read it in parts, I suggest you bookmark the page and come and go at your leisure.  All references to “culture,” with the exception of those specifically identified in the section on the baboon studies of Sapolsky, refer to human culture as a whole.

Your comments, feedback, and ideas on this important topic are welcomed and encouraged.  I especially recommend perusal of Part 5 which discusses the findings of Dr. R. M. Sapolsky.

Part 1.   Social Dominance Theory – the Basics[1]

Social dominance theory posits that once a group establishes dominance within a culture they will create and use institutions and legitimizing myths to maintain their dominance and control over the resources of the society.  There are  three basic categories where social dominance is exercised: age, gender, and arbitrary.  The dominant group uses its dominance to control access to the culture’s resources while subordinate groups have those resources meted out to them by virtue of rules established by the dominant group.

This dominance is supported by both those in the dominant group and those who are in the subordinate group(s) by indoctrination through ideologies and legitimizing myths.  (Some of you may have heard me refer to these legitimizing myths in the past as “patriarchal educational materials.”)  This indoctrination is effected through the establishment of institutions that are run by the dominant group such as governments and religious institutions.  Anyone who rejects or tries to change the legitimizing myths or challenge the ideologies are attacked and rejected by society as deviant and destructive or dismissed as odd and undesirable; however, the tendency for counter-movements to arise from out of the subordinate groups has been noted and the success of these counter-movement is directly related to the subordinate group’s ability to fend off attacks from those who wish to destroy them or takeover by those who are in or support the dominant group’s cultural status.

Continue reading

Button up. Your sexism is showing.

Sonia Sotomayor

Sonia Sotomayor

So now it’s Sotomayor. According to Jeffrey Rosen, who spoke to some law clerk, she’s not fit to be a judge on the Supreme Court because she has opinions, she expresses those opinions, she expresses those opinions forcefully and at length.

(Shows you how much I know about the law. I thought that was practically the description of the Supremes.)

Greenwald does one of his usual masterful takedowns, and adds a very interesting update at the end:

Jeffrey Rosen’s brother-in-law is Neal Katyal, the current Deputy Solicitor General in the Obama administration. If Sotomayor’s prospects are torpedoed, that could clear the way for one of the other leading candidates to be named to the Court: current Solicitor General Elena Kagan. The selection of Kagan (rather than Sotomayor) would almost certainly result in Rosen’s brother-in-law (Katyal) becoming Solicitor General. Additionally, Katyal himself was once a clerk for a Second Circuit judge, obviously raising the question of whether he was one of the anonymous sources for his brother-in-law’s hit piece disparaging Sotomayor’s intellect and character.

One can question whether this Rosen/Katyal relationship should have been disclosed by TNR (on balance, it was probably unnecessary), but at the very least, these are illustrative of the types of problems that inevitably arise when anonymous sources are used so casually in a political culture rife with incestuous relationships and conflicts of interest.

However, what’s a boring potential conflict of interest? Let’s talk about Sotomayor. She talks! She’s forceful! How awful!


And apparently that’s been enough to get the “keepers of conventional wisdom” (to use Greenwald’s words) riled up about the potential horrors of affirmative action. “Good God. You can’t waste such a vital job on some politically correct nonsense. The only criterion should be the best, um, person for the job. Why should a woman get it?”

As I said, button up. Your sexism is showing.

There isn’t one shred of evidence that women have inferior mental capacity to men. (Insofar as there is evidence, it’s actually on the other side. On average girls show earlier verbalization in infancy, better school grades, and higher test scores until, for some reason — possibly they talk too much and they’re too loud — they hit the job world and start getting paid less and promoted less.) So, in a reality-based context it’s safe to assume that women are at least the equals of men in ability. And yet the overwhelming preponderance of powerful positions are filled by men.

Yes, there’s affirmative action. And, yes, it does lead to less competent people being given jobs that are beyond them. It’s time to end that. We should find the best person for the job. Why should it be given to a man?

Read it and weep: “the seemingly unbridgeable chasm” that is the gender wage gap

Crossposted from Heidi Li on Equality at 51 Percent.

All quotes from Why Is Her Paycheck Smaller? By HANNAH FAIRFIELD Published: February 28, 2009 – The New York Times (Click graphic to go to large interactive chart). Full story here.

Nearly every occupation has the gap — the seemingly unbridgeable chasm between the size of the paycheck brought home by a woman and the larger one earned by a man doing the same job.

link to chart in New York Times on wage gap

“There’s no measurable way to explain the gaps within occupations,” said Barry T. Hirsh, a labor economist at Georgia State University. “Other wage gaps, like racial gaps, can be almost fully explained by factoring in the differences in education, geography and age.” (emphases added)

This is economic misogyny plain and simple; embedded in our economic habits deeply and seemingly insurmountably – although with enough political and legal action not actually insurmountable is a belittling of women’s work compared to men’s. This sort of systemic, measurable inequity is, to borrow a phrase from Mario Cuomo, a “sin against equality.”

Buncha Bigots

unicorn-rainbowEric Holder, America’s first African American Attorney General under America’s first black President, said in a speech to Department of Justice employees celebrating Black History Month, that we are a “nation of cowards”  because we don’t like to talk candidly about race.  This is wrong on so many levels.

Any time we still have to describe people and their accomplishments as “history making” based on skin color, we have a problem with race.  It’s 2009, for Goodness sakes, and we still have cause to celebrate racial “firsts.”  Not only that, we’ve barely scratched the surface; we have yet to have our “first black” lots of things, like, Senate Majority Leader; hell we’ve barely had any black Senators, given that the nation’s fifth is now president.  We, as a nation, have never had a Native American much of anything politically significant, either; the same is true for many other racially diverse groups.  And, as we all know, our history regarding women’s history, contributions, and employment issues, not to mention those of LGBT people living openly, and people living with disabilities, is woefully deficient.

But, does not talking about it make us cowards?  What good does endless recriminatory discussion do?  Does that really advance anybody’s cause, or does it merely inflame passions needlessly?

In this little community we’ve established here in this little corner of the blogosphere, nobody is required to declare their race, ethnicity, gender, or anything else, nor are they expected to check them at the door, unless they choose to, and we seem to get along pretty well.  Our commonality is based on things other than physical characteristics, like opinion and ideology.  How we think and feel is much more important than how we look, love or pee.

Barack Obama should not be president because he’s black, Eric Holder should not be attorney general for that reason, either.  Because that issue was promoted as justification for their attaining their respective positions, many of us were offended, while, to be honest, many more felt vindicated.  The disappointment was not limited to people of any particular group, though African Americans disproportionately embraced the counter opinion.  Just as many men felt, and still feel, that Hillary Clinton was the better Democratic choice, and many white Republicans felt similarly about John McCain, many black Americans, like me, feel that Barack Obama was not.  Race and gender most often had nothing to do with it.

I call our president Black Obama because his racial background played far too large a part in his election.  When he secured the nomination of his party, fraudulently in my opinion, that fraud was validated by “the historic nature of his candidacy,” blah, blah, blah.  His, and his campaign’s, deliberate, subtle, and blatant exploitation of his racial background was shameful to me.   Race should never trump integrity.  Just because we’ve never had a black president is no reason to embrace this one.

Yet, once he was elected, all sorts of racial baggage was either laid at his feet, or more often, exonerated, while the legacy of the Civil Rights Movement’s triumphs was awarded to him simply because of who his father happened to be.  His own lack of accomplishment, experience, preparedness and qualification was magically rendered irrelevant because he’s a black man.

Seems to me, as long as all we’re expected to do is talk about what’s wrong, and what has been wrong in the past, those things will continue to happen, and continue to be wrong.  Once we decide that these things don’t deserve discussion, contemplation, or consideration, there won’t be anything to talk about, anyway.  When it comes to equality and diversity, let’s all just shut up and do the damned thing.

That being said, when racism, sexism and/or any other “-ism” rears its ugly head, it should be immediately, and uncategorically, rejected by all.  The only caveat, and it’s a big one, is that “-isms” are like pornography, hard to define quantitatively.  While we claim to know it when we see it, ultimately, offense is in the eye of the beholder.  On those occasions, just like any other when one experiences hurt at the hands of another, protest is only to be expected.  Yet that protest should be limited to that particular incident; revisiting old issues only opens old wounds and diverts attention from the problem at hand, greatly increasing the odds that nothing will be resolved.  “You hurt my feelings,” will usually result in an immediate apology, “you always hurt my feelings,” will probably result in a fight.

Eric Holder said:

…”we, as average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race.”

I think he’s half right; we, as average Americans, don’t talk to each other, period.  If we did, race would probably never come up.  And when, and if, it did, we’d probably be able to work it out.

Cross posted at Cinie’s World with one modification; I removed a link to the post below, since, it’s the post below.

Wednesday: The Cost of Sexism

The Peapicker Mother by Dorothea LangeA lot of people don’t think there is any harm to a little bit of sexism. It’s no biggy. Actually, I don’t think many men (and some women) are aware of the sexism that occurs on a day-to-day basis that results in undermining the authority of many women. This isn’t the most overt type of sexism but it is the most pernicious.

Imagine what it is like to go to a meeting where you are one of less than a handful of females in a roomful of men. You have a presentation but as you begin to make it, several of the guys interrupt you. They smirk at some of your statements. They snicker at some prediction or proposal you make that they were previously unaware of. They terminate your presentation prematurely. When they are meeting with another department and you aren’t around, they commiserate with the other department members that you don’t know what you’re doing. They put you down.

A year later, everything you predicted comes to pass and it hurts your department in the end because work can’t proceed as smoothly as it should have. You get blamed for having a difficult personality that makes it hard for others to deal with you.

Ok, the scenario above has actually happened to me. I have the white paper that I painstakingly put together of the current working environment and policies to be implemented to improve it and it was completely ignored and ridiculed. The jerks, er, colleagues didn’t listen. They sympathized with the uncooperative department I had been working with to extract concessions. Nothing got done. We got screwed, majorly, when everything I predicted came true. Thank you very much, guys. It’s still a problem. They still haven’t learned. They are back to square one where they were two years ago.

The same thing happened to Hillary Clinton last year. Three months ago, during the bailout bill negotiations, she hit the morning TV circuit, speaking in her flat, midwestern policy speak (can’t you just see the Big Dawg doing a Gomez Addams on her? “Oh, Hill, I love it when you speak wonk!” ) She talked about refinancing mortgages, putting checks and balances in the bill, not handing the bankers a blank check, lowering expectations for investors, etc. And what did the guys do? Ignore her. Ridicule her. Smirk and completely dismiss everything she said. The didn’t implement any of her suggestions into the bailout bill.

Something similar happened with Sheila Bair, the head of the FDIC. Elizabeth Warren who heads up a Congressional Oversight Committee of the bailout bill described to Terry Gross’s Fresh Air recently how Bair has been working overtime to get investors to forgo the 15% return on investments they were expecting from their mortgage based tranches and how she has been rebuffed by those investors who insist on putting their short term interests first. To make matters worse, Tim Geithner, the new head of Treasury, is no fan of Bair’s and hasn’t been supporting her initiatives.

It all adds up. This morning in the NYTimes we have a picture of four guys sitting around a table to discuss the enormous deficit and an article titled, Obama Warns Trillion Dollar Deficit Potential. Let’s remember where Obama was during the negotiations of the bailout bill. He was on the campaign trail. John McCain thought the bill was serious enough that he suspended his campaign. I think McCain was acting responsibly, others think it was political opportunism. As a Republican, he was constrained by his party and his own past deregulatory rhetoric from doing much of anything about it. But he did give Obama a chance to lead on the subject. Obama’s response was inadequate and perfunctory. The bill was passed without many checks and balances. Instead of injecting liquidity into the markets, the banks lavished themselves with bonuses and sat on, are *sitting* on, the rest. That means it is harder for businesses that employ people to borrow money to operate. That means unemployment, fear, reduced spending and the beginning of a vicious cycle. Our own Dakinikat, also a girl with scary lady parts. has been reading the financial tea leaves and she agrees with Krugman. We are talking about a Depression.

Could it have been avoided? I don’t know. I *do* know that after the humiliating roll call at the DNC Convention, Hillary Clinton no longer had the wherewithal to promote much of anything. And yet, had the proposals she had obviously researched and put so much time into researching been implemented, there is little doubt that they would have slowed or prevented the situation we now face. It is clear that checks and balances would have directed the banks to lend. The HOLC plan would have gotten homeowners to pay their mortgages. Who knows? She might have worked with Sheila Bair to get the investors to take a loss on their tranches.

But all of that requires that the person making the suggestions have the support of her management or party or colleagues. Everytime her credibility is undermined by sniggering, dismissive behavior, the opportunity to make a difference in a timely fashion is lost.

So, the Obots who got erections from slam-dunking the women out of malice or stupidity this year should shut the F^&* up right about now. We’re all going to pay for it in one way or another.

Reminder: Don’t forget to register your vote for Best Liberal Blog (that would be The Confluence).  Do it HERE.

Let’s Stay Focused

Heidi Li linked to this video in a discussion thread last night, asking who was the most pitiful bigot. 

I responded that I couldn’t watch the whole clip, because I have a low tolerance for those staged arguments, but I told her it seems to me that Left Blogistan is angrier at Rick Warren than they are at Obama for inviting him. 

Rev. Rick-Roll is who he is, a religious fundamentalist, a homobigot and a sexist.  We have lots of those in this country, and he’s actually a relatively benign example of the species.  There are many of his ilk that are far worse, but hatred is hatred, even when it wears a smiling face.

I don’t waste too much time worrying about bigots just because they’re bigots.  Because of the “free country” thingie that’s part of our political philosophy, we have to tolerate the presence of haters and other undesirables.  We let Nazis, Klansmen and anti-semitic groups exist, along with cults, lawyers and mimes.  Like cockroaches, we’ll never be rid of them completely.

Obama is the one everyone should be angry at, because he’s the one giving Warren the high profile platform.  By doing so, he is tacitly endorsing the bigotry that Warren preaches from his Saddleback pulpit, as if it were nothing more than a difference of opinion on tax policy.  Despite all the talk about being inclusive, I doubt that Obama has invited any representatives from NAMBLA or the Ku Klux Klan.

The way you deal with bigots is to ignore them.  Oh, you may want to keep a watchful eye on them in private, but you don’t reward them with what they crave most, which is public attention.  This kerfluffle is giving Warren lots of attention, and it’s raising his prestige among the fundie crowd, and most likely his income too.

Anyone who thinks it’s going to help advance LGBT rights or end sexism is smoking too much hopium in denial.  The way to end homobigotry and sexism is to repudiate them, remove them from the protection of law, and make them socially unacceptable like we did with racism.

Racism, homobigotry and sexism are all separate and distinct from each other.

Separate but equal.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 433 other followers