Heh. So apparently someone wants to deny the rights to make any more Sherlock Holmes movies if Guy Ritchie doesn't quiddit with all that ooky gay subtext. In further news, nobody gives a apparently the courts don't care...
...they told me my IQ was more than serviceable, so WHY did it only just occur to me today that in addition to bitching for days and days about the NOM "how do you feel about YOUR marriage" ads that keep popping up on Mail2Web.com, I could also WRITE TO MAIL2WEB.COM and tell them I am displeased with their partisan shenanigans?

(It's seriously gross -- you click on the ad (it's not immediately obvious what/who it's for) and it takes you directly to their site, which is all loaded up with a pre-drafted, ready-to-email letter to a New York State Congressperson on why the fabric of society is about to disintegrate if they don't quickly scrub the gay out of it. And you can't strategically alter the text. I tried. Where are the all prepped, pre-written and ready-to-go, New York specific, PRO-equal-marriage sites, please?)

Sent: )

(I'm not sure I sent it to the right place. :-( Will look into it. If anyone wants to borrow/tinker with this text and send it to the RIGHT place, you're welcome to.)



Addendum, four hours later )
Huh.

Isn't it cool when lots of people raising a stink actually works? (Note to self -- develop more faith.)

(At least, seems to have worked, at least by the end, there. Will keep an eye out.)

Update: The Hell? Dude claims responsibility for Amazon debacle

Somebody else calls bullshit on troll. Call centers being blamed.

More on this, plus... Amazon spontaneously banning users?

A Cnet podcast discussion attempts to sum up

Resolved, sorta? (Blame the French!?) (That's sorta dumb. They're blaming a cognate error, but "Adulte" and "adult" have the same connotations in French and English -- this isn't a case of confusion.)

Scienceblogs sum-up
Ta-Nehisi Coates: Tell us how you really feel, Rod

"[....A]gain we see a social conservatism that defines itself by a stigma of others, by an insistence that it has monopoly on what it means to be human, that the world would be a better place if we had more Ted Haggards, not less."

(You now need a sign-in sig to post.)
Anti-gay preachers Fred Phelps and Shirley Phelps-Roper banned from Britain

I should have something sage and salient to say here about freedom of speech and "I hate your guts but I defend your rights to the death" or whatever, but I'm too busy feeling smug. Look, this is my JOURNAL, not my dissertation. ~____^ Feelings given free reign. Or something. I am only a frail human. Therefore... WHOO HOO!

ADDENDUM -- and elsewhere: This is pretty much the page I'm on about that New York Post Cartoon.

I have to ask myself, though, in light of this, how exactly do I feel about the worldwide "Bush is a monkey" meme that circulated the planet time and time again over the past near-decade? And how I feel is this: Bush isn't forced to represent anyone but himself, and there are no serious anthropologists out there trying to use his unique person to prove his entire 1/3rd of the human race is really-truly a different [sub]species. (No, I am not kidding. I have been reading some appalling assertations about Pymgies and Bushmen lately.) So yeah, the assumption of an equal playing field there is basically a heaping supersize serving of prime A-quality bullshit. On the other hand...bigger fish to fry, y'know? With hot oil popping at my face and the countertop and causing havoc, even. (Too much metaphor? ^______^)

Plus, I can't boycott what I would never buy (unless at gunpoint) anyway.
Data is in on blacks and Prop 8. To wit:
70 percent? Not so much

I don't see how this is going to impact much of anything at this late date, though. The sound byte I've seen on too many blogs et cetera already is that 70 of black Americans (sometimes not even adding the qualifier of "American," let alone "in California" or "amongst Californian voters") hate and despise gay people. (Or the scarier one, that it's Obama's fault, for mobilizing the black vote in the first place.)

This bit surprised me a great deal, actually:

3.) 58 percent is still higher than the 52 percent for the state, as a whole, but that difference is almost entirely accounted for by the fact that no ethnic group in California is as religiously devout as (as measured by church attendance) African-Americans.

4.) Among those who attended church weekly, African-Americans were support for Prop 8 was lower than amongst any other ethnic group."


Full report here (PDF download format)

[livejournal.com profile] tablesaw spoke on it as well.

It's still not anything like great, but it does seem far less insurmountable now.

(I am still not attending any rallies. I'll continue vote correctly and do the letter campaigns to senators and wear my button in the 'hood and send money to the appropriate entities, but I am not bringing my physical form out there to be yelled at and made upset. Not with all my other issues about rallies -- and their utter uselessness and bad execution -- today. After 2000, I just don't do protests.)
All right, I said I wasn't going to link to OSC's disappointing, sickening, fairly hateful and badly-thought-out nonsense ("the proper response to gay marriage is for straight marrieds to overthrow the government"!??!?!?!?!?!?!!), but at least I can link to a rebuttal?

It's very, very long. Perhaps overly long--it can get a little repetative. But thorough is generally a GOOD thing -- better to cover all bases then half-ass it.

And I like what she suggests as a means of combatting this -- confront the man (in an arena of conversation so that he might actually listen, if there are enough people doing it) and make him listen and understand, rather than feeding an unhealthily self-righteous martyr complex by boycotting things. (Although I don't know that I'll be quite able to buy anything new. Not least because I think his writing quality has gone sharply down recently, even before all this; but now, extra incentive to avoid.) Someone who has the power with words that he has should be re-oriented (heh) -- or I should say, pointed at the proper target!



http://blogs.feministsf.net/?p=484

This, I think, is the heart of my heartbreak, and the best-put (or at least, closest to what I feel) I've read on the subject so far. As the blogger writes:

'I can no longer enjoy Songmaster, which once I loved, knowing now that Card didn’t see Ansset’s chemical castration* and Josef’s mutilation and death as a horrific tragedy but as a perfectly reasonable narrative solution to the “problem” of a teenage boy who had just entered a consensual sexual relationship with another man.'


It has been mindblowing and upsetting to me to realize this about a work of literature that**, when I was a teen person, quite profoundly influenced me to ABANDON the casual homophobia-by-osmosis one tends to pick up from society when one is not really forced to care. (And I did love that stupid novel. I still love it. Stupid damn novel.)

God, Card, if you were going to be horrific, couldn't you at least suck as a writer?????

(It really does make me wonder if there's something deeply subconscious in him that is creeping out, hence the over-the-top reaction. Someone who hates that hard should NOT be able to write that beautifully about it. And it was freaking lovely. "You might have just asked me. I would have said yes." And HOT. Pre-tragic cosmic retribution, that is. =/)



*for purposes of information, I mention that ALL the "songbird" children, male and female, had their puberty delayed via chemicals to preserve their voices. Therefore, no sex, ever, for life. And it would have been nice if somebody WARNED them. At any rate, it STILL sucked and was tragic. But plotwise, it wasn't like they came a drugged him as punishment after the fact. So if you're ("you" being "me") 17 years old and reading this, the subtext might be easy to miss.

**(along with some works involving a "last Herald-Mage." And also, SHADDUP ~__^ I LOVE YOU VANYEL I DO NOT CARE WHO KNOWS, YA WHINY SILVER-EYED HORSE-WHISPERIN' BASTARD)
A much needed take, IMHO...
(bold mine)



------------
TRB FROM WASHINGTON
Judge Knot
by Peter Beinart
Post date 07.13.06 | Issue date 07.24.06

Last week, the New York Court of Appeals handed down a lousy decision on gay marriage. And thank goodness it did. By refusing--on flimsy grounds--to strike down the Empire State's gay marriage ban, the court actually did the gay marriage movement a favor. Gay marriage is coming in America--through the democratic process. If the courts step in, they will only set the effort back.

The court held that the New York legislature could ban gay marriage because it could rationally believe that children are better served by a father and mother than by two parents of the same sex. That belief, it acknowledged, was not based on empirical evidence. But, even if it were, the court's argument would still have made no sense. Banning gay marriage doesn't increase the chances that children will be raised by a mother and father, unless you believe that allowing gays to wed will convince straights not to. And the court cited no evidence that it would.

But, for the gay marriage movement, the court's bad logic may actually prove good news. The public is growing more and more supportive of full equality for gays and lesbians. In 1996, according to the Pew Research Center, 65 percent of Americans opposed gay marriage, with only 27 percent in favor. When Pew asked the same question this March, only 51 percent were opposed, with 39 percent in favor. And, among Americans under 30, gay marriage has majority support. In fact, according to a Los Angeles Times poll, more than 70 percent of young people consider gay marriage inevitable.

But the Pew poll also contained a warning... )
Salon.com, "Cured Gays" still ostracized by churches

Fascinating, frustrating, and sad. Watch short ad at Salon to read, or click lj cut below. (reader letters follow on third page of link.)

------------------------
Gay, godly and guilty

The thoughtful new book "Straight to Jesus" reveals the torment suffered by gay Christians who entered a residential program to battle their sexual desires.
By Laura Miller

Jul. 11, 2006 | If you were looking for evidence of how hard it is to change our fundamental sexual proclivities -- not minor aspects, like a taste for black lingerie, but the deep stuff, like whom we're attracted to -- you'd find plenty of it in Tanya Erzen's thoughtful new book, "Straight to Jesus: Sexual and Christian Conversions in the Ex-Gay Movement." Erzen spent 18 months hanging out with and interviewing the members and administrators of New Hope Ministry, which runs a residential program for evangelical Christian men who are "struggling with homosexuality" in the San Francisco Bay Area. She even volunteered in the ministry's office, revamping its Web site, all as fieldwork for her dissertation. (She's now assistant professor of comparative studies at Ohio State University.)

Erzen wasn't interested in collecting fodder for political battles, though, and that's what makes "Straight to Jesus" so enlightening. As an ethnographer, she made every effort to listen to and understand everyone at New Hope Ministry, whether or not she agreed with their beliefs (and it's fairly clear that most of the time she didn't). That's practically unheard of in most popular discussions of charged issues like homosexuality -- and rare in scholarly discussions, either. Nowadays, everyone's convinced that they already know everything the other side has to say and that actually having to listen to it would constitute an insupportable demand on their own patience. Everyone thinks their side of the argument never gets any exposure, yet rabid, ranting opinion of all varieties howls at us everywhere we turn.

What emerges from "Straight to Jesus" is a far more nuanced and moving picture of the "ex-gay" movement than most readers will expect. If you're like me, you probably view outfits like Love in Action and the other "reparative therapy" operations collected under the umbrella organization Exodus International as propaganda wings of the Christian right, populated by small coteries of delusional closet cases like the highly visible John Paulk. Paulk is an "ex-gay" man, married to the equally publicity-loving "ex-lesbian" Annie Paulk, but he's perhaps even better known for being photographed in a Washington, D.C., gay bar in 2001, while ostensibly living a life of irreproachable heterosexuality.
Read more... )

Profile

tsubaki_ny

December 2013

S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
151617181920 21
22232425262728
293031    

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 27th, 2017 06:40 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios