what about me? I know we haven't talked as much as you and AJ or Brad or anything.... 
but yeah. I have noticed that cattiness too, the intensity of the anger just seems so far out of proportion for the 'transgression'
No Jess, of
course I'm not talking about you. I was talking about something very specific, viz, that it seems to be just okey-dokey for gay men to refer to women with whom the disagree politically as
BITCHES, and this seems to get a free pass, because gay men, as we all know, are members of a persecuted minority, et cetera.
What I said was that I, as a gay woman, most certainly do not recognize this free pass. When I hear, "
BITCH" thrown into the mix of criticisms leveled at a woman for her political views (and not some specific wrongdoing that she
personally has committed against against the critic) even if I disagree with those views, it tends to turn me against the one tossing the slur, even if I may have been sympathetic to his original position.
When I hear "
BITCH," you've lost me. But you know how us women are, we're such emotional creatures, we take everything personally
.
It's interesting to me that the Herr, Brokeplex & Inject are saying Perez as evil because he called Carrie a bitch.
Yet, you think its okay to let Savage spew his hate. Never mind all his rants about muslims and gays... what about poor UK Home Secretary Jacqui Smith? I mean, after all, Savage called this good Christian girl Jacqui Smith a witch and a lunatic in the same sentence! 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5288279/Michael-Savage-brands-Jacqui-Smith-a-witch-over-Britains-banned-list.html
I don't get it either. Self loathing perhaps? the need to fit in and be accepted by ones perceived "in-group" who approval one seeks, even if it means denigrating oneself by defending hate-mongers like Savage.
No, it's because Perez Hilton is a screaming-sissy-queer-effeminate-queeny-bitchy-faggoty queen, and they don't like screaming-sissy-queer-effeminate-queeny-bitch-faggoty queens.
Congratulations, all, on missing the point. And where did Michael Savage come from?
and pussies.
Gawd, no comment. Except maybe, this might apply
here:
I don't get it either. Self loathing perhaps? the need to fit in and be accepted by ones perceived "in-group" who approval one seeks, even if it means denigrating oneself ....
Well I guess that was a joke gone bad, LOL! My humour rarely seems to translate well online.
I thought my post managed to be funny while making a point about what I've noticed on this site lately: blatant & virulent anti-gay sentiments.
It's like it's suddenly open season on gays or something. Some of the posts I've seen are so offensive that they would probably create controversy on a FOCUS ON THE FAMILY forum, yet here, they barely raise an eyebrow. [*see note below].
Of course, this anti-gay faction denies that they are being homophobic. They claim that stereotyping and insulting men who don't measure up to their acceptable level of masculinity is not homophobia. I think that is complete bullshit. Anyway, regardless of what you call it, it's still pretty offensive as are these examples:
Openly gay Perez Hilton is completely reviled, seemingly because he is not masculine enough, while über homophobe Michael Savage is defended as a free-speech activist. -This one just makes my head spin.
The word 'gay' is defined by listing all the negative stereotypes associated with gay men, exactly the same way bigots do it. Then being so repulsed by this definition they do everything they can to disassociate themselves from it. They become 'androphiles' and 'men-who-have-sex-with-men'.
Anyway, it seems my suspicions have been confirmed, when you scratch a conservative, whether hetero or homo, you reveal a bigot underneath.
This gay guy's "hissy fit", as I'm sure this post will be reduced to, is over.
(I'll be in my blog, which I've called the Sissy-Boy Slap-Party specifically as a statement against all the macho posturing.)
NOTE: I wrote the above response BEFORE seeing all the "raised eyebrows" that were posted today. Reading them was a real tonic, I thought I was going insane there for a while, LOL!.
Yeah, I get all that. I'm not that dense in real life, though I do like to play devil's advocate, what can I say, I'm a Libra. And yeah, I get the whole gay vs. andro thing--you guys are welcome to slug it out to resolve it,and frankly I think that's all that's left to do, I've heard that's how men settle their differences, since agreeing to disagree, as someone said waaaaayyy back there, does not seem to be an option.
That Perez Hilton is openly gay and a walking stereotype is beside the point, and Michael Savage (how does he figure in this again, and how did he end up in the middle of a beauty pageant?) has a right to believe...whatever he believes, again, beside the point.
My
point was that "Perez Hilton" made a name for himself with his blog, which is disproportionately devoted to saying cruel things about women in the nastiest way possible, despite the fact that he personally is <<ahem>>nothing special in the looks department and decidedly on the chunky side.
So he's not quite on the same footing as Oprah, or even Al Gore, to be taking anyone to task for anything in the arena of personal morality or integrity, and then to top it off, instead of enumerating the pain and suffering caused by denying gay people the right to legitimize their relationships in the eyes of the law, instead, after this hapless beauty queen answered his question honestly and politely, he called her a "dumb
BITCH." Which of course put him right in the stratosphere with other civil rights pioneers like MLK Jr. and Gandhi (not).
And he was echoed, in a completely gratuitous swipe at Gov. Sarah Palin, herself a former beauty queen and born-again, for having the temerity to come to Ms. Prejean's defense, right here.
Yeah, it was a joke, hear me not laughing?
As to the above justification, believe it or not, I get the "gay" side just as well as the "andro" side, though since I don't have a dog in that fight, I can also see the willful blindness on both sides, and that there is plenty of bias to go around several times. As I said earlier, I really don't see it ever being resolved.
But this does come down to a discussion of gay/andro/whatever rights. Homosexual rights, to use a term that hopefully can be agreed on. Just remember, that half of all homosexuals are female, and us humorless lesbians aren't right-on, post-feminists who "get it" about those women who aren't deserving of respect and can therefore be casually dismissed as "bitches." We're liable to go all miltant and Molly Yard about how an insult to one of us is an insult to all of us.
And funny thing, it's not coming from the right-wing-all-things-girly-despising-androphiles, either. Wonder why that is (non-sarcastically)?
Discuss--if you can manage it without killing each other.
