My friend Kathy of Birmingham Blues wrote an interesting diary over my pad about Hardaway and columnist Leonard Pitts, Jr.’s take on it, Homophobic outburst may do some good. I took the liberty of adding to the bottom of her post the contrary, homophobic bleatings of Michael Medved at Townhall.com, who actually says Where Tim Hardaway Was Right because you just can’t get a better juxtaposition than this.
Leonard Pitts: Good for Tim Hardaway
Kathy: Ummm, wait a minute — that doesn’t sound like my beloved Leonard Pitts. And actually, it isn’t how it sounds. Mr. Pitts points out that Hardaway’s honest, in-your-face homophobia helps to rip the socially acceptable veil off this particular bigotry, just as Bull Conner and his dogs showed the true face of segregationism.
Let me tell you a story. It’s about a man named Bull Connor. In 1963, he was the police commissioner of Birmingham, Ala. Back then, Birmingham was pleased to be considered the most segregated city in the South. Then civil rights demonstrators under the leadership of Martin Luther King Jr. came to town. Connor directed the city’s response.And perhaps Tim Hardaway and others like him will do the same for homophobia. It’s easy to hold onto casual disdain and erroneous assumptions when the people around you support your cruelty and self-deception. Who’s being hurt, after all? As long as the victims are invisible, unknown Others, it’s no big deal. Anyway, why can’t thoseWhen you see those famous images of dogs attacking unarmed marchers and firefighters directing high-pressure hoses at men and women singing freedom songs, you are seeing Connor’s work. He was a hateful cuss, but there was a useful purity in his hate: The sheer violence of his response to the civil rights movement brought international condemnation and irresistible pressure for change.
Segregation was, for many people, still socially respectable in that era. Politicians defended it with honeyed euphemisms like ‘’state’s rights,'’ and preachers assured their flocks that it was God’s will. So you could be a segregationist and still feel good about yourself, still feel moral.
Connor inadvertently made that impossible. How moral can you feel when a guy is loosing dogs on children in your name? Connor stripped segregation naked. He made people face it for what it was.
But then the world sees Bull Connor siccing dogs on children, spraying them with high pressure hoses, treating them as less than human while they respond, as they’ve responded for so long, with dignity and courage. Much the same way the world heard Tim Hardaway go after John Amaechi, who had done nothing more than publicly acknowledge that he’s gay:
This wasn’t some socially acceptable expression of discomfort — it was flat-out “I hate you, and I wish you didn’t exist.” And it’s the true feeling that lies behind a lot of the “hate the sin, love the sinner” crap that gets dished out by people like James Dobson, who insist they only want to “cure” a “disorder”.‘’I hate gay people,'’ he said, “so I let it be known. I don’t like gay people and I don’t like to be around gay people. I am homophobic. I don’t like it. It shouldn’t be in the world or in the United States.'’
And you — all of us — can fight it.There is something bracing in the matter-of-fact clarity of Hardaway’s declaration. He cut through the clutter of weasel words and half-truths that traditionally surrounds homophobia, showed us what lies behind honeyed euphemisms ('’traditional values'’) and claims to speak for God.
…So often, we use words to distance ourselves from what we feel, to hide our true meaning, even from ourselves. Hardaway used words to say exactly what he felt, and it is possible to abhor what he felt and yet appreciate that he does not make you guess or infer.
Think again of Connor, screaming obscenities under an Alabama sun. To hear him, to hear Hardaway, is to know that you have finally come down to it, finally met the beast that lives behind euphemism and weasel words.
***
From Pam, your editorial blogmistress: Instead of writing a separate post on this topic, I thought it might be appropriate to juxtapose the thoughts of Leonard Pitts to the those of Michael Medved, who directly challenges a comparison of homophobia of Hardaway situation to racial animus of years past.
Read after the flip.
Michael Medved clutches his pearls; he is worried about sex-obsessed gay men getting a woody in the locker room when looking at all those straight guys.
In response to the Hardaway controversy, several sports columnists compared his resistance to the idea of playing alongside gay teammates to the racism of previous years when white players tried to avoid competing with (or against) blacks.Criticism of this nature says a lot about the homophobic mindset — that straight guys are all irresistably attractive, and that somehow there aren’t any gay men in the locker room or in the the military already.The analogy is ridiculous, of course. There is no rational basis for discomfort at playing with athletes of another race since science and experience show that human racial differences remain insignificant. The much better analogy for discomfort at gay teammates involves the widespread (and generally accepted) idea that women and men shouldn’t share locker rooms. Making gay males unwelcome in the intimate circumstances of an NBA team makes just as much sense as making straight males unwelcome in the showers for a women’s team at the WNBA. Most female athletes would prefer not to shower together with men not because they hate males (though some of them no doubt do), but because they hope to avoid the tension, distraction and complication that prove inevitable when issues of sexual attraction (and even arousal) intrude into the arena of competitive sports.
But wait, it gets better. Medved adds such a heaping dose of sexism in the next paragraph that it takes your breath away.
You can sense Medved protectively grabbing his ‘nads. Hardaway may be revolted, but what about “the distraction” faced by all the closeted gay colleagues who played alongside him or on other teams? He’s ok with that? Despite the “male bonding” through collective homophobia in the forms of manly joking and banter, these closeted players, because of people like Hardaway, suffered in silence, yet still performed their jobs on the court each game.Tim Hardaway (and most of his former NBA teammates) wouldn’t welcome openly gay players into the locker room any more than they’d welcome profoundly unattractive, morbidly obese women. I specify unattractive females because if a young lady is attractive (or, even better, downright “hot”) most guys, very much including the notorious love machines of the National Basketball Association, would probably welcome her joining their showers. The ill-favored, grossly overweight female is the right counterpart to a gay male because, like the homosexual, she causes discomfort due to the fact that attraction can only operate in one direction. She might well feel drawn to the straight guys with whom she’s grouped, while they feel downright repulsed at the very idea of sex with her.
…When Hardaway says “I hate gay people” what he suggests at the deepest level is that he feels revolted by the very notion of same-sex eroticism and that he’d prefer not to face the distraction of such thoughts in the locker room or on the court.
Medved spills out so many irrational fears in this essay that you have to wonder about the man’s comfort with this sexuality. His “proof” of his analogy is so retrograde and incredible that you can’t believe he committed the words to the keyboard — the “Astronaut Love Triangle” represents the danger of men and women fraternizing is “a pointed reminder of the way that even disciplined military careerists can be diverted, even ruined, by attraction, eroticism and romance.”
Is Medved saying all gay men (lesbians naturally don’t factor into Medved’s untethered panic) are the equivalent of Lisa Nowak, the clearly mentally ill astronaut who drove 900 miles in a NASA diaper to allegedly kidnap/kill her perceived romantic rival? Even worse, is he calling for women and men not to work together because of individuals who are unglued?
Given that the rape of women in the military is a big problem the Pentagon has had to address, does this mean women are to blame for their predicament because of their mere existence on a base? Medved’s answer would have to be yes; men simply cannot control themselves so the arousing presence of women must be eliminated. This is absurd.
How does he explain all the countries where gays and lesbians calmly and competently serve alongside their straight fellow service members in the military, showering and sleeping in the same spaces without the world coming to an end? And we’re not just talking about other countries — though DADT is in place, many openly gay and lesbian soldiers are accepted by their straight colleagues without incident — it’s certain members of the Pentagon brass holding their ‘nads, not the boots on the ground. People in the line of fire couldn’t give a damn about someone’s sexual orientation when they are facing IEDs and gun battles each day.
People like Medved believe that their repulsion to the thought of being in close proximity to gays in the locker room is something they are entitled to, because they truly believe it’s about biology — humans cannot control their sexual impulses and are in a constant state of sexual alert in the military and in the locker room.
61 Responses to “The Hardaway saga: the view from Leonard Pitts and Michael Medved”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Could whoever stole Michael Medved’s brain please bring it back? Thanks!
Huh. Pretty weak arguments on Michael Medved’s part. I remember a few locations back with my karate school. There were no separate changing rooms for men and women; we all just changed together in the back room. No particular discomfort, no particular distraction, and no guys popping a woodie from all the women around him.
Just didn’t happen. Wasn’t an issue. And for a while I was the only straight man in a gay men’s chorus. In the dressing room before a show? Nobody cared; we were busy getting ready, getting costumes organized, reviewing the running order, doing all that last minute prep work. Not once was I made to feel uncomfortable (though I certainly got more than my fair share of good-natured teasing at rehearsals).
I can’t speak for team sports, but I know in martial arts it just isn’t that big a deal who’s what orientation in the locker room. I don’t think any gay men are currently in my class, but I know there’s one lesbian and at least two bisexual women. Nobody cares, it’s a non-issue.
There is truth to the idea that naked bigotry can create progress against istelf. Hardaway’s actions caused the NBA and many advertisers to cut their ties with him and explicitly state they do not support his point of view.
Basically one jerk twists in the wind while everyone else moves forward a bit. From a utilitarian standpoint it is good.
On a different topic, One comment that is odd is:
many openly gay and lesbian soldiers are accepted by their straight colleagues without incident — it’s certain members of the Pentagon brass holding their ‘nads, not the boots on the ground
I’m skeptical. I know the multiple of anecdote is not evidence (as someone on this board so eloquently stated), but I know many service men and women of many different ranks. Most are adamantly against it. Some are not against it or for it (agnosts, if you will). I have met very few servicemen in favor of it, and most of them come from a “we need more fighters, I’ll get over it” standpoint, but would prefer to fill the ranks with straight men if that were an option. The situation is somewhat similar to when the army was racially integrated.
Oddly, the breakdown seems to happen geographically, not with rank. Seems that by the time people are 18 they have decided whether they are comfortable with the idea or not, and aren’t as likely to change their minds. Also, I have noticed (hold onto your hats) that the officers these days tend to be a bit more progressive than the fighting man. Maybe that bodes well for the future?
If the issue really had more to do with comfort in a locker room than with prejudice akin to racism, wouldn’t Medved be advocating separate locker rooms for gay players rather than straight out not allowing said players to “play alongside” straight players? To look at the man-woman anology he claims is representative of his views, he appears to be arguing that women (gay men) should not be allowed to play sports period because men (straight men) don’t want them in the men’s locker room. Buhzah?
No, I think the racism anology is far stronger than Mr. Medved’s locker room excuse.
Somehow Medved’s reaction reminds me of a college incident a friend saw, where a very homophobic young woman was visiting a fellow classmate in the latter’s dorm common room. The conversation was something like this:
Homophobic Young Woman: Somebody told me there are lesbians in this dorm.
Classmate: Yes, there are.
HYW: Really? (looks around nervously) Are there lesbians on this floor?
C: Yes, there are.
HYW: (now looking very nervous) Are there lesbians in this room?
C: Yes, there are.
HYW: (trembling voice) Are you a lesbian?
C: Yes, I am.
HYW runs screaming from the room, straight to the RA, who, as luck would have it was also a lesbian. “The lesbians are after me!” The RA gives her a slow up and down and responds “Honey, don’t flatter yourself.”
Michael Medved seems to have a very flattering notion of his own sexual attractiveness.
In no way whatsoever does that sound even slightly a little bit almost familiar.I always thought that locker rooms were gender-segregated because of the different anatomies, not due to fear of uncontrollable lust. Why else would we not have coed bathrooms in kindergartens and elementary schools? The implication behind the man-in-the-women’s-showers argument thus seems to be that gay men have lady parts (that that constitutes an insult is its own issue, but in this context, it does):
In contrast, of course, to differences in sexual orientation, which are indisputably significant, right?I can see how this kind of open hatred can lead to greater tolerance, but it would be even better if all bigots could have names like “Bull.”
Every survey that I’ve seen that has anything to do with attitudes toward homosex has been almost straight-line age-correlated. Younger people are hugely more accepting (sorry, I hate the word “tolerant,” for all its connotations), and every older cohort gets increasingly more homophobic. The homophobes are literally going the way of the dinosaurs.
That’s not to say full equality isn’t worth fighting for in the here-and-now, and fighting as strongly as possible. But it does mean that, whatever our short-term fallbacks or successes, on a long enough timeline, the problem will rectify itself.
It always comes down to the ‘men can’t control themselves’ comments. All of society has to have repressive, regressive attitudes thrust upon them because some men think that they don’t need to be in control of their own urges. Even more there are people who think that they can legislate permission for men to continue to live unexamined lives but forcing others to do it for them. It is a sorry state of affairs.
Medved’s an idiot. The women and gay men examples are not the same thing.
Women are segregated from men because it is the men who are typically the perpetrators of any sexual harassment. Women are usually on the receiving end of harassment. Separate locker rooms are much more for the sake of women than men.
When’s the last time Medved has been in a men’s locker room. There aren’t a lot of gay guys hitting on all those manly men because just like women, it is the gay guys who are usually on the receiving end of harassment by straight guys. If we needed to segregate straight and gay men, it would be for the gay men’s sake, not the straight men’s sake. But seeing as gay guys don’t really have a problem sharing locker rooms with straight guys, there’s really no need for separate locker rooms.
Also, for any straight guys who think they will feel uncomfortable in the locker room with straight guys, unless your God’s gift to gay guys, you’re probably flattering yourself just a little too much if you think you won’t be able to take your shower without a bunch of gay guys assaulting you.
What? Medved’s has a brain?
SmartAlek: I agree with you. I quit using the word “tolerance” some years ago as, to me, it implies that I am still making a judgement and finding whomever/whatever lacking but by saying I am “tolerant” about whatever, I can puff my chest and show how big-hearted I am.
I instead TRY to be accepting of others, whatever their differences may be. Am I always successful? Of course not; I’m human. But I do make the effort.
As far as Mr. Hardaway and his stupid comments, I’ve noticed that his apologies have all been along the lines of his being sorry he allowed his alligator mouth to overload his hummingbird a**, not that he was truly repentent for his hate. And that is no apology at all
So Medved believes that men are to women as gay men are to straight men? And that gay men are analogous to women? And that his position is supported by this Earth thing called “logic”?
Wow, good points about the word tolerance. One of the many reasons I love this site is that it keeps giving me occasion to think about the implicit underpinnings of words I use without thinking. Engaging my linguistic nerdiness and my progressive slant, what could be better? (free ice cream with every pageview?)
And what Hawise said.
Homophobia in locker rooms is something I’ve been intimately familiar with for years, even as a woman. Junior High, High School, you couldn’t change in those locker rooms without being accused of being a dyke for so much as looking at another girl changing or daring to remove all your clothes (all of us perfecting the art of changing one’s shirt without one’s breasts showing, first before any of us had the breasts for bras, and even later. No one showered naked, we all wandered around sweaty afterwards unless we’d been swimming and could shower in swimsuits). Even if I hadn’t despised all the other things about gym, I would never have voluntarily done anything athletic requiring being in those locker rooms, for fear of getting called a dyke. Much as the straight girls feared being called a dyke (like being called fat, ugly, or slutty), knowing I wasn’t straight terrified me. Being found out terrified the crap out of me through most of my childhood, even though I wasn’t remotely attracted to any of the other girls, because I watched those accused be shunned and driven to depression with whispered rumors.
Esme,
I am a straight white man (damn, I’m getting tired of typing that) but I understand a lot of what you are saying. I went through puberty and started getting body hair at age 11, which made me different from the rest of the boys.
However, I attended a private boys only military school in the late 60s where you were forced to lose all modesty about everything because everything was open. By that, I mean, open showers and open toilets without even dividers. I know there pretty much had to be some gay cadets there during my time but the only time it was ever raised as an issue was when a couple of pedophile teachers were discovered and immediately fired. There were other instructors that cadets thought might be gay but since they weren’t attempting to seduce students, it was a non-issue.
By this logic, it should be perfectly fine with Dear Little Michael if fat ugly lesbians shared the men’s locker rooms, then. Because there would, in his opinion, be no attraction from the women to the men, or the men to the women.
But you know his screams at this scenario would be even louder than before.
These stories make me realize what a deluded idealist I am. I’ve always dismissed the theory that says that straight men are anxious in the presence of gay men because they know that, in the presence of their desired partners (women), they would be aggressive and inappropriate, and they project that behavior on to the gay men and thus feel vulnerable. I also like to believe that people give up on the idea that all gay relationships have someone as “the guy” and someone as “the girl” around the same time that they give up on the Tooth Fairy, but that’s apparently not true, either.
How did I ever become so very, very wrong? People! Listen up! If you have changed your clothes in front of a group of people of your gender, you have probably already changed in front of someone with a sexual/romantic preference for your gender. And most likely, nothing happened. Right? You might not even know. If you are a straight man, other straight men have probably looked appraisingly at your nakedness, not just gay men. Women, same deal. In locker rooms and changing areas, you will see semi-clothed and naked bodies. Do not touch unless you have permission. Be a grownup.
I feel the irrational need to apologize on behalf of straight people everywhere for our irrational belief in our own physical charms and sexual irresistability. Ugh. I also think I need a shower.
Ultimately I can’t help but think of homophobia from men as outrage at the violation of their privilege not to have to endure the indignity of the potential that a man may penetrate them — something that is the reality of women’s lives (whether desired or not). In other words: Fear of rape.
It’s an outrage! That is, unless it happens to a woman. Right, Michael?
Either that or the fear that they actually may like it. (Another projection men like to throw onto women who are raped.)
I wonder how old Medved was when he decided not to lust after boys anymore and just lust after girls.
To me, the most revealing part of Medved’s essay was this little parenthetical throwaway:
Most female athletes would prefer not to shower together with men not because they hate males (though some of them no doubt do)…
In other words: DYKES!!!!!
Medved’s homophobia is no real surprise to anyone who followed his first career as a humorist chronicler of “bad film culture.” His prose was larded with fag jokes (as well as xenophobia and teeth-grindingly obvious puns). He chose easy targets, like Ed Wood, then and he’s choosing them now—although he no doubt thinks of himself as a courageous moral crusader.
If some straight guys have sensibilities so frilly that…
…they’re nearly overcome with ‘the vapors’ on the verge of entering a locker room, I suggest:
The Anal Butt Patch ™, which is guaranteed to preserve straight guy chastity.
And if you phone within the next minutes (1-800-BUT-CORK), we’ll also send you ABSOLUTELY FREE our Anal Butt Patch Extra Adhesion Glue 2007(TM), for that sense of security every homohysteric craves and deserves.
P.S. - I like what Erin wrote. And I’m cyber-hugging Esme. Sorry it was so scary for you, Hun.
I hope everyone is familiar with George Takei’s response by now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA20dKc3kK8
Unmissable.
Always knew that Medved was a bizarre twerp (I learned that the hard way whilst listening to his radio program) but this is unusually nauseating even for him.
So, being in the presence of (let’s say “being in the same room with”) people who lust after one but after whom one can’t be expected to lust in return is an ordeal so intolerably offensive that one is naturally justified in wishing that these same people (who lust after one but after whom one cannot be expected to lust in return) should cease to exist. (And is, furthermore, naturally justified in desiring that they should cease to exist categorically, not merely singly, in their capacity as individuals.)
Because what Tim Hardaway doesn’t say is, “Ugh, that John Amaechi, yuck, the letch, he always made me feel nasty the way he looked at me,” but instead “It [John Amaechi’s desire] shouldn’t be in the world or in the United States.” Meaning that according to Hardaway, it isn’t so much that Amaechi’s man-lovin’ deeds are deplorable, no, what’s deplorable is the fact that Amaechi should be permitted to continue take up space, whether in America or anywhere else. (Perhaps this is also the message hidden behind Medved’s use of the figure of The Fat Chick, whose whole point is that she takes up too much room.)
According to Medved, Hardaway is right: according to Medved, simple lack of sexiness in a shower-mate, let alone an overt display of appetite on the part of an unsuitably unsexy person, so lacerates a straight man’s straightness that the said straight man (whose heterosexuality has been abominably compromised) veritably owes it to himself to wish off the face of the earth the giver of the glad-eye-that-cannot-be-reciprocated.
I’ve never been a big fan of theories that men experience themselves as particularly endangered or vulnerable compared to women, any more than I buy the idea that women have to experience themselves as in perpetual potential peril at the hands of men. (We all know that the man who beats up women disgraces himself through his behavior; he gains no points by it.) But Medved seems here to posit a peculiar sort of vulnerability on the part of straight males, a jeopardy of a kind women and gay males don’t or can’t share.
To Medved, the damage of which a straight man always stands in danger is damage to his image. (Just, I would imagine, as a woman stands in danger of damage to her body.) It isn’t so much the straight man’s honor as such which is pictured as thus prone to attack, as his reputation; honor is dependent on actual deeds, but reputation is a skein of pure seeming, and therefore endlessly impugnable. Women have little honor and no reputation since they are remanded at birth to the realm of the purely physical, and gay men have renounced both honor and reputation because they have perversely chosen to immerse themselves in that same immanent realm, even though they are not confined to it by nature (anybody who fails to recognize this as the way Medved thinks has never listened to his show).
To a guy like Medved, reputation or image is much more valuable than honor, because reputation is proportionately less real, more grounded in groovy appearances, more dependent on efflorescences of Pure Masculine Gas. And also, not uncoincidentally, to a guy like Medved, gay males are an abiding peril, because they, unlike women, retain a connection with this realm of unmixed fantasmatic abstraction, even though they have elected to betray it. Because the connection to Pure Semblance still obtains (”a man’s birthright is his image”) even though the gay male has proven himself, through his gayness, unequal to it (because, I mean, after all, he’s gay), the gay man, as described by the Medved mythos, will inevitably prove, deliberately or not, to be the destroyer/degrader of the straight man’s repute.
Hence Medved’s loudly proclaimed sympathy for Hardaway’s repulsion toward Amaechi. To Medved, Hardaway’s repulsion is self-protective. But Medved does prevaricate in one matter, which has to do (again) with his equation of the Gay Blade and the Fat Chick. Medved says that straight men are warranted in their aversion toward homosexual men and overweight women alike; both types of person, it is implied, are equally likely to besmirch the infinitely assailable straight male image by simple dint of their reflection upon it, even if (especially if) their reflection upon it is positive. But Medved can scarcely mean that. In Medved’s world, the male, even if he is gay, has an ontological weight to which a woman can never aspire. (The Fat Chick of Medved’s little parable reflects her lack of that kind of ooooomph precisely through the circumstance that she is materially too heavy.)
When Medved speaks of the situation of a pretty woman who is pestered by a straight guy whose league she transcends (back to the showers again, folks) he graciously grants the nod to the notion that a woman who possesses good looks may not enjoy being exposed to the attentions of a man who is ill-equipped to dicker fairly for her notice. But there is no covert approval of the notion that a woman however pretty would be in the right of it if she were to desire, even in secret, that a man who is bothering her, far less by his mere presence, would simply…disappear. Yet this is the more-or-less-forthrightly-stated wish of Hardaway vis-a-vis Amaechi, which wish Medved validates.
The difference, so I think, inheres in Medved’s belief that while a female may partake of a consummately physical reality, she is abstractly lacking; she is too little, not too much, given over to the realm of appearances. To Medved the real desert siren Lilith is the gay man, who can meet the straight man in his androgenic Realm Of The Mirage and contest with him there for supremacy. This is why Medved (and he’s not the only man of his type whom I’ve ever encountered) thinks that women, like resources or pets or kids, must be guarded against despoilation by other men; but thinks that gay men, potential despoilers and opponents in their own right…must be guarded against, full stop.
I think another part to that is about the being seen, regardless of whether the seeing acted upon; they [the homophobics] know that they themselves are prone to objectifying women and don’t want to be looked at in that way, because on some level they know it’s dehumanizing. It’s ok when they do it to women, because that’s just how things naturally are and the woman is supposed to know that she’s an object, but it would be downright sneaky if a hypothetical homosexual horndog (I’m so sorry, I totally couldn’t resist) were to catch a glimpse of their goods and enjoy it.
[dislodging tongue from cheek]
Who ordered the verb?
“whether the seeing is acted upon.”
This has been such an interesting thread to read and has given me lots to think about.
It’s interesting that Medved uses the Fat Chick as what he thinks is a parallel to a gay man in a locker room, but it’s the language he uses to describe her that is so interesting (and sad). It’s the language of disgust and fear, and it illuminates his fear of gay men (as others have pointed out, he’s not so bothered about lesbians):
What is it about being desired by someone whom they do not desire in return that makes some people so uncomfortable? Most people who have reasonable self-esteem are flattered to be desired by someone else, even if they don’t return that desire. Only someone whose confidence in their own identity is fragile would be so frightened by it. Are they frightened that people will think because they are desired by someone they must have done something to provoke that desire? (And is this the same “logic” that says rape victims have done something to provoke a sexual attack?) Are they more frightened that if they are desired by someone who doesn’t fit the approved norm that they will, against their conscious desire to conform, respond by feeling desire in return? What is so alien and frightening to Medved and his ilk of the idea of people who do not fit their narrow standard having sexual feelings? Because it is about sexuality - my guess is that if all gay people, overweight women, disabled people etc. were celibate, Medved wouldn’t have such issues with them.
I agree with Bekabot that the sheer disproportionate nature of the response is fascinating: gay men and overweight women are disgusting, repulsive, unnatural. They must cease to exist. There is a huge amount of fear of the Other on display here.
It’s also interesting that in Medved’s mind, the default is a locker room full of straight men. Surely the only thing you can say with any certainty is that it’s a locker room full of men. I’ll bet money that in any given locker room not all of the men (or women) will be straight…
bekabot - I thnk you might be giving Medved too much credit when you say:
As far as I can see, he doesn’t even give women that. He says that female athletes would rather not shower with men because (even if they don’t all hate men, just those naughty dykes), showering with men would be an unwelcome distraction as they “hope to avoid the tension, distraction and complication that prove inevitable when issues of sexual attraction (and even arousal) intrude into the arena of competitive sports”. This sounds to me as though the situation he is envisioning is one in which the young, nubile female athletes do not have any feelings of desire for the lone man in their locker room, and instead have to deal with the embarrassment of a man gawping at them (and notice that the hotness or not of said man is not even mentioned).
Now contrast that with the “lone hot woman in the NBA locker room” scenario he comes to next. In Medved’s world “hawt” women are always passive recipients of desire and men are active proponents of it. He says:
In the first situation, the man in the women’s locker room is the one leering at the women. In the second situation, the woman in the men’s locker room is being leered at by the men. In each case, the woman (if conventionally “hot” enough not to be cast into the “fat and ugly hag” category by Medved) is only the object of desire. The idea that a woman might have desires of her own is never addressed by him, unless she is the Fat Chick, in which case her desires are pathetic and unnatural.
Ick. Naked denail of female desire and (literally?) naked homophobia all in one article. Lovely.
Aargh. “denail” = “denial”.
From a Zogby Poll released in December 2006:
I guess Medved’s would be in that 27% that can’t handle that whole shower thing. Of course that assumes that if he were eligible he’d join in the military to begin with.Perhaps it’s very simple - Medved might not want gays in the locker room, because he’s afraid one of them will flirt with him and he’ll like it.
Given that the rape of women in the military is a big problem the Pentagon has had to address, does this mean women are to blame for their predicament because of their mere existence on a base? … How does he explain all the countries where gays and lesbians calmly and competently serve alongside their straight fellow service members in the military, showering and sleeping in the same spaces without the world coming to an end?
When people make outlandish claims like this you only lose your credibility. Where are the facts to support these claims? It seems clear that few of you have any idea what a military base is like. It is hilarious that on the one hand you want us to believe that gay men would never be hitting up on other men in a locker room while at the same time accept that neither the alleged vast hidden gay community in the military, decent honorable men (there are some you know) nor any women could stand together and protect one another from RAPE in order for them to go to the washroom? Insane! Ironic since it is their very duty to defend each other to the death, but they can’t do it to go to the bathroom. Where are those brave gay soldiers to defend these women? Where are the brave women to defend other women? These are not Pollyanna’s–they are soldiers! How about the embedded journalist’s? No one helps? Does that mean that terrible things do not happen on bases or anywhere else? Of course not, mankind is corrupt. It has happened. But a “big problem?” Bad things happen everywhere. When this happens everyone is to blame, but the innocent victim! That is why we have militaries, laws and the police to protect us from our own madness.
You have no problem quoting Pam’s House Blend as a source to these allegations yet, she also doesn’t provide any factual defence. Your words are malicious toward the very people who provide you your freedoms and they take it that way no matter what you claim otherwise. At the same time to claim other militaries are calmly and competently serving alongside one another without the world coming to and end. Who’s world has come to an end? Is this part of the “support the military just not the war” rhetoric? Why is it that you are compelled to believe that foreign militaries are better morally or ethically than yours? But even more pathetic is that you fail to accept that a female commander was in charge of Abu Ghraib (Janis Karpinski). I know, since she was a women under Rumsfeld she has to be by default a scapegoat. It would be impossible of her to do no wrong? Ridiculous. She is now paying the price for her lack of command. Women can make mistakes too.
But you said one thing that is true and I know is certain on the battlefield:
People in the line of fire couldn’t give a damn about someone’s sexual orientation when they are facing IEDs and gun battles each day.
If you would have stuck to the subject that you began with it would have been fine, but this is terribly sad.
Jack,
http://www.ncdsv.org/images/ConfrontingRapeMilitary.pdf
Rape in the military is a problem. A big one. There is no such thing as a “little rape problem” my dear. Stating that it is a problem is NOT malicious, it is the truth. Deal with it. Nice try throwing out that straw man, you lout.
I will be glad when all of these straw-man manufacturing, pearl clutching, whining, crybabies get tired and go away.
that a female commander was in charge of Abu Ghraib (Janis Karpinski).
Ahem the abuses were commited and condoned by the CIA and private contractors at the prison.
In several of those photos of abused prisoners you can see dozens of military boots. Guess what 99% of those who did anything at Abu Gharaib were Iraqis as well as their employees whom were CIA and private contractors.
The military commander couldn’t do jack squat against the CIA.
Only ways the commander could have put a stop to it would have either resulted in
A: sacking with lose of rank possibly benefits possibly being kicked out of the military.
B: imprisonment with result A occuring as well.
C: death the military commander could have a accident as portrayed by the authorities since that is one of the favored ways intelligence agencies want to rub out people. both b and a could also play in result C.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Medved is gayer than *I* am.
That girl doth protest too much!
Maybe they should solve the problem by using the trick my old Catholic High School used in the 70s and 80s: Give ‘em thirty seconds to get dressed and thirty seconds to get undressed, frantically trying not to be late for class. Sure, everybody gets to the class smelling like a soldiers’ sock, but that’s okay because you’re not supposed to have sexual feelings anyway!
Lisa:
I never said anything remotely like “rape is a little problem” my poor “dear” (how derogatory of you to the sad “lout”). Quite the opposite, stating emphatically, “When this happens everyone is to blame, but the innocent victim!” Rape is an egregious crime and should never be tolerated–period!
A short five paragraph “Editorial” from the New York Times substantiates nothing. The figures given no less shows a level of “reported rapes” over a three year period significantly below actual rapes committed in Chicago alone in one year. It is in this sense, big is exaggerated. Saying so does not reduce, justify, diminish its crime, consequence and lasting pain. Lisa you are the one who played a name calling game.
tootiredoftheright “facts”
The military commander couldn’t do jack squat against the CIA.
This is exactly the kind of ignorant nonsense that I am addressing. That base commander in question is the supreme authority of the base. No one, including a few CIA officers can usurp her authority “on the base.” The CIA is not the the Gestapo of WWII Germany operating without judicial oversight commanding the military! That you also think that an “accident” i.e. murder might befall the commander if she spoke up is so ridiculous, delusional, conspiratorial madness it does not require a response. But I wonder, since you believe that as an option do you also believe that Pres. Clinton had Foster killed?
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Medved is gayer than *I* am.
That girl doth protest too much!
Medved can bite my obese dyke ass.
Which ass, I’ll bet a year’s salary, has seen more action than his
If Medved has such issues in the locker room, he needs to join a theater or other performing group to get over himself. When you have less than 1-2 minutes to do a complete costume change, you don’t have time to get all the way back to “the dressing room” and any available pair of helping hands is welcome.
And don’t worry, Mr. Medved, everyone else is too busy with their own schedule to even notice you.
“No one, including a few CIA officers can usurp her authority “on the base.â€?”
Military officals including other branches of the goverment would tell you differently. Military contractors in Iraq have done quite a lot of things that in other countries would get the company thrown out and it’s employees arrested.
Bother to look at the guidelines the Republicans put the military in Iraq under. They had no jurisdication over private contractors or CIA operatives.
There was a two week period in Iraq in which no military base got ration supplies since the private contractors didn’t make runs since their unprotected convoys got attacked. The private contractors hate military escorts since when shooting starts the private contractors get left behind if they cannot keep up with the rest of the convoy.
Putting aside his odd fantasies, it’s interesting that Medved describes straight and gay women showering together in the WNBA, without incident. But he doesn’t hold that up as a model of mature interaction; instead, he cracks some cheap jokes about man-hating dykes.
I never understood the “what if a gay guy looks at me in the shower?” argument. Yeah so? I was always uncomfortable in locker-rooms not because of fear of gay guys but because of nervousness about being teased for my, um, shortcomings and worried about guys checking out the competition. Perhaps I’m deluding myself, but I’d be much more comfortable in a locker room with gay men than other straights — because if I noticed a guy looking at me, I could flatter myself that he’s actually interested rather than being worried that he’s fixing to tease me about a bodily imperfection or checking out the competition.
Sorry, Jean, I was making a tanning slurry, and I needed a couple more ounces of brain matter, which, as one might have guessed, was all Medved had. On the other hand, he made for some nice mittens :p
hope to avoid the tension, distraction and complication that prove inevitable when issues of sexual attraction (and even arousal) intrude into the arena of competitive sports
And he reveals himself: it’s the vital essence argument all over again! Sports being the closest thing most people come to warfare, it falls under the same anxieties of preserving the holy sperm (which, as we all know, produces brain tissue, increases muscle mass and creates manly aggression when carfully preserved [/bwaaaahahahah!]). In spending thier essence on one another, rather than carefully hoarding in and judiciously spending it to create the next generation of warriors, gay men seem to become something like a sperm sink, where just being around them, regardless of whether they do anything or reveal their secret identities, makes all men less masculine; if one man allows himself to be penetrated, then every man in his commitatus becomes penetrable, and their superior masculine powers drain away… seriously… hey, where is everyone going?
Lesbians, of course, are usually irrelevant, because they’re just women after all. They only become relevant when they go on the recruiting drive and start pulling in superior breeding sows girls for their sperm denying and destroying antics. Because, you know any action that denies the power of the sperm or fails to properly appreciated the manly essence destroys its power, and then our society falls to the brown people… No, really, ow! Stop with the throwing things… That, or when a fellow with sperm magic going on fancies one.
In short, the Ghey destroys the magic essence that makes America great. yep. srsly.
*woopwoopwoopwoopwoop* [/zoidberg]
Not to pursue this subject unduly, but…
Yes. Exactly. In Medved’s personal World Of Suzy Wong, the only real reaction a woman is supposed to undergo at the approach of a male is the following one: “Can he meet my price? Is he the workaholic of my dreams? Would he make a good provider for my unborn children?” I kid you not. That’s why, when I tried to come up with a phrase to describe Medved’s idea of the response of an acceptable-looking woman who is ogled by a man, what I ended up writing was that: “he graciously grants the nod to the notion that a woman who possesses good looks may not enjoy being exposed to the attentions of a man who is ill-equipped to dicker fairly for her notice“, because I’ve never for a moment heard Medved entertain the view that a woman may be made uncomfortable by a man (or, heck, may be made comfortable by a man!) on any other than a purely economic basis.
Once again: yes, exactly. I’ve confessed that I used to listen to Medved’s radio show. (A practice from which I’ve been in recovery for several years now.) Back in the day, though, I’ve repeatedly heard him plummily announce that “Lesbianism is just not as Biblically important as male homosexuality is”—whether that would be because women are lesser moral agents or for some other more esoteric reason was never clarified.
Aaargh. This just pisses me off more and more the longer it rolls around in my brain. What do you think the odds are that Medved, Hardaway, and all the homophobes (did I really type homophobics upthread? eek) who feel weakened by the Gay Gaze are the same squicky guys who leer at every woman they pass, frequently do the turn-around-and-check-out-the-’rear view’ thing, and feel entitled to make any demeaning remark or noise that comes to mind? 90%? The anxious masculinity thing so consistently goes along with the objectifying misogynist thing that it’s a wonder these guys’ heads don’t explode from all the cognitive dissonance.
Jack, if you think that the number of “reported rapes” has any real relation to actual rapes, please consider that 65% of overall rapes go unreported, and that women still face a pretty unwelcoming military culture in many ways. FWIW, a close friend of mine was raped twice by two different fellow soldiers during her first year on base, and she never felt like she could safely speak up; on what she perceived as a slight chance that someone would be punished, she would still be way outnumbered by men, who would then have a specific grudge against her. I know that anecdote does not constitute data, but my point is that the data in this case is hugely unreliable.
And you did say something to the effect that it was a little problem:
I guess you could’ve meant that it’s a medium-sized problem, but you’d still have been wrong.“Lesbianism is just not as Biblically important as male homosexuality isâ€?—whether that would be because women are lesser moral agents or for some other more esoteric reason was never clarified.
Because no-where in the Bible does it forbid two women from engaging in hawt lesbian sex (although the Talmud forbids it in the context of women being flirtatious — one could argue that lesbianism is ok according to Jewish law but “lesbianism” — the quotes indicating the “Girls Gone Wild” variety of women doing things with other women in solely order to entertain men — is forbidden), but it does forbid “man to engage with another man those lyings such as men engage with women”: which many view as a ban on male homosexuality.
The key reason for the difference, historically, though, is that what’s banned by Torah has nothing to do with what we’d today call homosexuality but relates to otherwise heterosexual men cultivating and then acting on an attraction to other men because women were deemed the natural and hence inferior source of sexual pleasure whereas the cultivation of an attraction to men (and especially very young, vulnerable men) was considered civilized.
Although I wouldn’t put it past the likes of Medved to ignore the history and view the distinction as one of women being lesser moral agents.
I suspect one of the reason the little Straight Boys are so terrified of homos in the lockeroom looking at their peepees is that they are scared of being judged. If it’s just “the guys,” they can let the gut hang out and let everything dangle. But if there’s a gay man? He may be checking out Straight Boy… and judging his body! And certain elements may not be up to comparison.
I’m a gay man who has worked in offices for years with loudmouthed straight rednecks and frat-boy wannabees. They are obnoxious and rude without realizing how offensive they are to women around them. Put them on the receiving end, they’re terrified.
Thank god I know work with other gays and women.
As I recall, he said that if anyone was offended by his remarks, he was sorry. He was only trying to be a stong advocate for his sexual orientation, not to deny anyone else their own beliefs or disparage their sexual practices.
tehehehe: He may have said that in his apology, but given that he voiced the opinion that he wished homosexuals didn’t exist, I’d call that disparaging other people’s beliefs and sexual practices. Wouldn’t you?
Yay, Pandagon weighed in on the Medved piece! When I saw it I hoped upon hope that it would be safely torn asunder here.
My favorite part about this is the openness with which Medved goes to the hatred of women by men — and the assertion that some women clearly do hate men. Amazing to think of the reaction any writer would get if the sexes were reversed and anyone wrote about any activity something like:
The idea that there would be a reference, even in the negative, to men hating women would no doubt cause an uproar, be considered a horrible slight against men, be an exercise in “man hating,” etc. But yet he feels no problem jumping right to the idea of women hating men, explicitly, as if there’s an irrational (natch) default position for women to hate men, and that all but some women (the barely-veiled gay bash) get beyond it because we become so enthralled to their powerful cocks and get over our hatred. Men, on the other hand, are fonts of love for women, only getting upset with us women when we fuck up and insufficiently worship at the altar of their cocks or otherwise exercise some form of human independence.
It’s true to the extent that some women hate at least some men. I certainly do hate Michael fucking Medved, but I did that back when he was a just simpering cobag who was doing a lousy job reviewing movies on that knock-off of Siskel & Ebert’s show, too.
defenestrated
And you did say something to the effect that it was a little problem
No I didn’t. Grow up. Apparently some still cannot understand the difference between something that is quantitatively or qualitatively different. By “questioning” that somethings is a “big” problem when they offer no proof is irresponsible–in fact harmful to the morale of our military. That was point number one! That something is not demonstrably a big problem does not imply it is a small “or” unimportant one either. Point number two. They are different things altogether. If you honestly do not understand that then you have serious educational problems.
Second, on our friends experience as defense. If I was to suggest (and I am not) that there is a “big” gay male rape problem in the military what would you think of that? If I then defended it by saying I was raped by a gay sergeant and that earlier in life I was also raped by a gay pedophile. What would that prove? If I demonstrated over the period of time literally hundreds of male gay rape occurred over several years which of course does not even come close to the number unreported gay rape–what would that prove? A gay smear campaign? Do you think it is easy for men to come forward in the military and admit “they” were raped? Seriously. Do you think it is easy for men who were molested by other men as children to come forward? Would it also imply homosexuality is related to pedophilia? You see this is not fair or sound. It is rediculous. That is point number three. But to further the madness, ” just in” yesterday’s Miami Herald it says this:
Capt. Taylor, 38, is accused of raping four men and attempting to rape two other men. He faces a maximum sentence of life in prison without parole if convicted of all the charges against him. The charges are two counts of attempted sodomy, four counts of forcible sodomy, three counts of kidnapping and one count of unlawful entry. . . Capt. Eveylon Westbrook, the military prosecutor, described Taylor as a serial rapist who met his victims in bars, spiked their drinks with date-rape drug gamma-hydroxybutyrate, or GHB and kidnapped them.
For more about this sad convoluted case: http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/state/16744215.htm?source=rss&channel=miamiherald_state
Now that is a big problem of possible serial gay rape or gays bashing gays!? Should we now extrapolate something about all gay men in the military? Ridiculous. Moreover, I do not need to tell you my personal story of violent abuse or my friends to defend an argument about the seriousness of rape. Anyone who does not think it is serious is deranged. That still does not make it a “qualitatively” a “big” problem in the military. Learn the difference and stop arguing with me.
Since everyone is piling (deservedly) on Michael Medved, I’m going to do a shout-out of love to Leonard Pitts. This is not the first column he’s written about gay rights and he regularly writes about the parallel between the black civil rights struggle and the gay civil rights struggle.
Is it my imagination, or do the guys who worry the most about gay guys checking them out tend to be the most unappealing trolls imaginable? I mean, Medved’s NEVER going to have to worry about me looking at him in a locker room.
Jack, with all the ad homs you threw in there, I’m really hesitant to even bother with a response, but here goes.
Leaving aside how little sense this sentence makes, yes, Pam pointing out that the military has a rape problem is so much more harmful to morale than, well, rape. Am I allowed to mentioned that the war isn’t going so smoothly, or will that just completely decimate the morale? Also, that the topic of the post was not to prove the problem of military rape is a pretty far leap to proof that there isn’t much of a problem, which is how you seemed to take it.
You pretty much decided all on your own that “big problem” was to be taken quantitatively rather than qualitatively. I don’t see anyone else here arguing that a certain critical mass of rape victims in the military is necessary before we recognize it as important, and I don’t see anyone here who can’t understand that a matter of such importance can reasonably be termed a “big problem.”I very specifically mentioned that I fully realize that my one friend’s experience does not constitute data, and that I only brought it up to make the point that you should be skeptical about whatever numbers you’re getting.
I’d think that I don’t happen to know much about that, and I would ask if you could please tell me more. I would not assume that since I didn’t know about, it must not be a real problem.
That you can’t form a rational argument?
That would imply that there’s a big unspoken problem about male rape.
OK, now you’re not even pretending to argue in good faith. Whether or not male rape victims find it easy to admit it has pretty much no bearing on how many women are raped or how they are treated afterwards. Talking about women being raped in the military does not constitute making a comment about men being raped. Put away the strawmen and try again. Or, better, don’t.
I’m not sure what’s so hard to grasp about this. Inasmuch as rape is horrible, institutions and cultures which display an overt or subtle tendency to encourage, downplay, or cover up rape can be fairly easily described as presenting a big problem.
And Bill S, I don’t think that that’s entirely your imagination. It probably to some degree goes to what someone mentioned upthread about the fear of being appraised by a gay man and not deemed attractive by him.
RE: What DAS Said
Okay, so now it’s been clarified.
;-)
defenestrated
“with all the ad homs you threw in there…” All those ad hominems huh? Go grab the dictionary or talk to Lisa “dear.” I will stick with “grow up” however.
Second, you hilariously use strawmanperson to build your argument while accusing me of it of which I did not do. A strawman argument is designed to take the opponents words out of context by not representing their actual intentions and then easily refuting them. I did not falsify the actual intentions of Pam’s words whatsoever! I had no need nor desire. However, this is what you just did!!!! Obviously, another thing you need to go learn more about before you speak that which you don’t understand. You have intentionally taken my words out of context to prove nothing but your sarcasm. Your response was amazingly hypocritical.
Illustrating a point does not infer strawman arguments. It seems to be the quick ignorant answer to something someone says that they don’t like. I argued the points discussed you did not. I stand firmly by everything I said. I will state it again, is it fair to claim with no evidence that “given that rape of women in the military is a big problem?” Don’t accuse me of side stepping this argument when it was Pam who entered it into her concluding remarks. That is what I commented on. That is all.
I’ll concede that strawman was not the most accurate way I could have phrased that; I was going more in the direction of false analogy. Maybe a better term for what you were doing with the “well what about male rape!” would have been ‘red herring.’
Oh no, ad homs, ad hominems! Am I allowed to use contractions, or do you require everything to be spelled out even though you obviously were able to understand the meaning? Thank you, though, for referring me back up to Lisa’s comment - the rest of the sentence that you couldn’t see for all the “dear,”
is pretty much all that needed to be said about this in the first place. Please do realize that you’re getting so worked up to argue that that rape in the military isn’t such a big deal that it warrants attention [“Bad things happen everywhere”], and consider whether that’s a position you truly want to hold, or if you’re just trying to fight your way out of a semantic corner.
You should have heard Medved’s radio commentary this week.
Barack Obama is not descended from slaves, therefore any classifications based on race are wrong, therefore slavery reparations are ridiculous.
His logic does not resemble our Earth logic.
“the very people who provide you your freedoms”
Please. That is such an absurd notion. It is the campus activist who provides us our freedoms. It’s the lawyer who provides us our freedoms. It’s the voters, the politicians, the reporters, the authors, the citizens. There are other ways of fighting for freedom. You know, basically my entire family, father, grandfather, uncles, aunt, sister, are or have been in the military, and they want to serve their country and that’s great, but they are not the only ones who provide us with our freedom.
“Now that is a big problem of possible serial gay rape”
Well, if people are being raped I’d say it’s a big problem, yeah. One that should be investigated and dealt with. Not by throwing gays out of the military or scapegoating them, but by investigating all incidents and catching the perpetrators and stopping them and trying to figure out how to prevent them. It’s not the gay, it’s the “rape.” Sweeping things under the carpet and failing to address the situation for the sake of good PR and not having soldiers feel safe probably isn’t so good for morale, either. Is this really that hard?
No one provides me with my freedoms. I am endowed with them by my creator, see, or so said the folks who signed the Declaration of Independence. And while the Bill of Rights explicitly recognizes certain freedoms, they are not provided to me by the Constitution — they are simply protected by the Constitution (and anyone who upholds their oath to protect the Constitution). My freedom is within myself — the government, the military, or whomever else claims to do anything for my freedom ought to do so solely from the perspective of protecting the concept of a limited goverment that liberally recognizes personal freedoms. In that respect they preserve my freedom by preventing this government or any other actor from usurping my rights with which I am endowed as a human being. But no one gives me these freedoms. They were always and will always be inherently mine.
[…] Pandagon expands our view: "You can sense Medved protectively grabbing his ‘nads. Hardaway may be revolted, but what about “the distraction” faced by all the closeted gay colleagues who played alongside him or on other teams? He’s ok with that? Despite the “male bonding” through collective homophobia in the forms of manly joking and banter, these closeted players, because of people like Hardaway, suffered in silence, yet still performed their jobs on the court each game." […]
I’d be interested to know where or when you went to school, Esme. I had no similar experience. I was amazed (pleased) at the nonchalant way other girls dealt with showering and undressing amongst schoolmates. There was some self-consciousness but not a bunch of name-calling where I came from, thank the powers that be.
What a self-centered world the guys do live in! Maybe it hasn’t occurred to Michael Medved or this Tim Hardaway that I live here too, and perhaps my growing repulsion towards them and their ilk might require their deportation to Mars.
ekf
I am glad you addressed the source of our freedoms. However, you erred in your understanding of our Constitution. You are correct, it is not “freedom” that the U.S. Constitution grants, but certain inalienable “rights” as endowed by our Creator are recognized. What I said, is that it is our military which “provide you your freedoms.â€? Provide was used in the sense of “insures.” They are tricky words for sure. Nevertheless, the provision of freedoms and the recognition of inalienable rights are very different things while inextricably linked and you would do well to recognize their differences.
Our form of government is predicated on a belief as addressed in The Declaration of Independence that people have been “endowed” with certain fundamental and inherent rights that preexist any form of government. In asserts that man’s “rights” do not come from a King or government. These rights such as life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness exist independently of government, not because of government. Nor do these rights exist as a part of any declaration or written document, but are recognized. However, what you have failed to understand of which our founding fathers did not, is that these rights are not guaranteed by mere paper but by a vigorous defense of their assertion.
The reason people call government into existence is to “protect the exercise of these inalienable rights” which would otherwise be trampled upon. The question is not “What rights does the Constitution give to the American people?” or “Where do these rights come from?” for they are granted by their Creator. Instead, the question at hand is “What powers does the Constitution grant to the government and for what purpose in relation to our rights?” Specific provisions of the Constitution protect the rights of the individual from interference by the federal and state governments. You are correct, the Constitution grants the government “limited” powers as enumerated in Article 1, Section 8. But it also clearly states, which you are ignoring, that the government is to “provide” a military to protect, insure and defend those same rights. How you came to think that inalienable rights are not provided for through defense is baffling.
I am sorry that you do not understand this basic principle of our Constitution or form of government. Yes, you are endowed with certain inalienable rights, but the rights are fought for, protected by, insured, provided by a government and its judicial and military arm from that which is recognized as intrinsic. You claim,
“My freedom is within myself.”
No amount of self-declaration of your inherent freedoms will insure their efficacy. Tell the American slaves that freedom was within themselves! Tell that to 51,000 men who died at Gettysburg over three days for those freedoms or rights that all men are created within themselves! What hubris you have to think that your rights are maintained because you believe them to be so. I am afraid you have neglected those brave men and women before you who have bled and died for those freedoms you wrongly believe you have without them. You were granted birth rights, but your freedom comes with great cost.
privatechaos, it was the same at my school, mostly. Girls were teased a little in the locker room in middle school, which I think mostly had to do with everyone being freaked out by puberty (me, I usually got shit either for not wearing a bra or not needing to wear a bra), but I don’t recall any of it having to do with orientation. In high school, maybe I just wasn’t paying attention, but I didn’t hear anyone picking on anyone. During the six weeks of swimming, plenty of us would pick apart our own swimsuited bodies, but a really wide range of body types pretty much kept to themselves.
But Esme, I’m so so sorry you had to put up with that. [hug]