"The best defense is a good offense" may explain much of the otherwise puzzling gay marriage project. Gay Liberation unleashed a number of Big Gay Screw-Ups, such as AIDS and the Catholic Church scandals. But rather than admit that, it was much easier emotionally to just go on the offensive over some random issue like gay marriage.
There are big advantages to having the press constantly up in arms about how you are a victim of discrimination. For example, it can help cover up your own discriminating. Many industries appear to have, as Marc Ambinder admitted yesterday about Washington D.C., gay mafias discriminating against non-gays. That's usually laughed off, as Ambinder and Robert Wright did, with the assumption that the victims of discrimination are straight men, so that's A-okay.
But what happens when the victims are members of a Designated Victim Group? For example, most of the competition in the fashion business is between gay men and women, and that industry's powerful gay mafia notoriously treats aspiring female designers badly. The New York Times acknowledged this in 2005:
In Fashion, Who Really Gets Ahead?
By ERIC WILSON
Published: December 8, 2005
AT a cocktail party at Chelsea Piers on Sunday night, an annual Toys for Tots charity drive that draws a crowd of mostly gay men, the designer Peter Som wryly observed that there were so many designers, retail executives and publicists present that if the pier collapsed, "there would be no fashion industry tomorrow."
Two months earlier, Tara Subkoff, the agent provocateur behind the label Imitation of Christ, had remarked during a public forum, with a great deal of irritation, that fashion "is a gay man's profession."
Ms. Subkoff was annoyed; Mr. Som was amused.
The difference between their attitudes toward the gay male dominance of the fashion industry, a peculiar and widely acknowledged circumstance, illustrates a growing tension between those who feel they are discriminated against and those who feel somewhat favored by a perception, largely unexamined, that men are better designers than women, and gay men are the best designers of all.
Ms. Subkoff's remarks, made during a panel discussion of "Generation X Fashion" at the New Yorker Festival in late September, landed like an incendiary device in the fashion world - she also accused Anna Wintour, the editor of Vogue, of supporting only "young, gay men." A debate has continued ever since on Seventh Avenue over who is most likely to succeed in fashion and also on whether women, who make up most of the customers for this industry, face institutional barriers that limit their advancement on the creative side.
Many female designers perceive that their male counterparts have won more industry honors and are featured more prominently in magazines. On television, they note, advice on style and design is almost invariably sought from a vibrantly gay man - witness "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy," the new "Isaac" talk show with Isaac Mizrahi on the Style channel and "Project Runway" on Bravo, which began its second season on Wednesday night. Its cast of 16 includes 8 male contestants, 7 of them gay, a spokesman for Bravo said. …
But circumstantial evidence is making some designers wonder about the disparities. Of the young American designers most embraced by retailers and celebrated in the fashion press in recent years, the roll call is almost exclusively male: Zac Posen, Marc Jacobs, Narciso Rodriguez and Mr. Som as well as Jack McCollough and Lazaro Hernandez of Proenza Schouler. Their female contemporaries have had a harder time breaking through, among them Behnaz Sarafpour, Alice Roi and Ms. Subkoff.
"Gay men stick together like a band of brothers," Ms. Subkoff said in an interview. "It's more common for a man to bring up a younger assistant" who is male "and be proud of that," she added, "whereas a woman would be threatened" to promote another woman.
But, you haven't heard much about this since, in part because -- Hey! Look over there! -- the most important issue of all time, gay marriage, has taken up so much time and energy.
Yeah, sure, theoretically, some group could be both victims and victimizers, but that's not how it works in 21st Century America. We don't do nuance. You are either Good or Bad.
Americans love a winner and, obviously, only rubes don't recognize that gay marriage is going to be a winner in the long run. So, Gay is Good.
The more interesting question is: What comes next?
Posts
40 comments:
"Don't defend, jus keep attacking" seems to be the most effective strategy in political battles...
I'm with the first Anon in not getting the connection between gay liberation and the Catholic Church scandals. Weren't the offending priests in the closet? If so, they didn't participate in the liberation and weren't beneficiaries of it.
The more interesting question is: What comes next? I'm hoping it's bestiality. I've had my eye on this Labrador down the street.........
The Catholic Church was full of homosexuals to the point that straight priests were quitting seminary due to gay harassment and the overall Sodom and Gomorrah atmosphere. If in the closet you mean not telling the parishioners what was going on, yes, but it was all out in the open within the Church.
I remember hearing about a priest who got a 16-year old girl pregnant, it stood out because it was hetero. All the other cases I heard of were with boys.
Why didn't the Catholic Church clean out the homosexual priests (one reason was they needed priests, but it wasn't the only reason) and why was the Church attacked in recent years when it started kicking out the homosexuals? If there are lots of gay clergy engaging in homosexual acts with other clergy, a significant portion of them molesting young boys, and the Church takes the blame while the homosexual aspect is covered up, how are they not beneficiaries?
They don't call each other "the Family" for nothing, Steve. They are as tight as La Raza.
What comes next? I'm tempted to say adoption and children, but there is a significant cost borne by adopters/parents.
How about equal representation in the workplace laws? Or does that already exist?
He's talking about the liberalism wrought by Vatican II
Liberals believe that marriage is oudated, regressive, conformist, patriarchal, sexist, superstitious and bad. That it's better for couples to not form families, not have children, not be religious and to invest in non-reproductive non-monogamous relationships. Yet marriage all of the sudden marriage becomes about equality and a human rights crusade when it comes to homosexuals. Any contradiction here? Yes. Liberals are huge hypocrites. The same people who think that marriage is worthless are the same ones who shout like banshees about "gay marriage".
"Gay marriage" is a pathetic distraction employed by feminists due to them effectively destroying the institution of marriage.
nothing new, picasso had to 'service' his gay art dealers.
The larger context was a society that was moving from saying Gay is Bad/Diseased/Evil/Sinful to Gay is Okay.
Let's say you're a gay Catholic who grew up seriously conflicted about what to do about your sinful gay nature. Let's say, further, that you went into the priesthood--since girls hadn't been an issue, celibacy wasn't going to be a problem, and the extra helpings of Jesus should help with the temptation.
Now you're in seminary, and you hear, in your classes and in the dorms, all kinds of Jesuitical/scholastic/or-just-clever arguments that 70's style sexuality, gay straight mixed whatever, is all good. God's gift of pleasure and whatnot, forget that shame-and-guilt-and-sin stuff for the squares in the parishes.
Now you're a priest, with a cute 15, 16 year old altar boy--almost an altar man. What's the harm?
That's the chain of causes between Gay is Good and the Catholic Church scandals.
--Discordiax
What comes next? Gay Poligamy - or as it is otherwise known - the mosh pit marriage!
Sounds to me like good old fashioned Zoroastrian Dualism.
Meet the new religion, same as the old religion.
Incest marriage!
Steve isn't suggesting that the gay rights movement was responsible for pedophilia in the Catholic Church, he's suggesting that one purpose of the gay rights movement is to distract everyone's attention from bad behavior by gays, including pedophilia in the Catholic Church.
I don't think it's the strongest argument he's ever made, but there are no logical problems.
Obviously the goal is to use gay marriage as a battering ram to attack churches and conservative free speech.
The left hates hates hates churches and America's religiosity.
That's why they are so energized on this.
I would argue that this is why a fight on gay marriage is worthwhile whatever the outcome. Opposition to gay 'marriage' should remain a mainstream view. Otherwise the majority of churches in America and worldwide instantly become hate groups and shrink accordingly. As Audacious Epigone shows in his latest post, churches in America are very eugenic (aside from all their other benefits).
I would also argue that you have to confront the culture war and not take it lying down.
At least we are having the discussion that children benefit from a mom and a dad. Would have been nice to have that decades ago, but I'll take it.
Europe took the culture war lying down and now they have hardly any church attendance, hardly any marriage, hardly any family formation and a financial and demographic clusterf$#% as far as the eye can see.
I would also argue that the gay marriage battle is important because it is a front in the culture war and the left will be working to weaken institutions on 5 other fronts if this front re 2% of Americans is not taking up 75% of their destructive energy.
Steve are you familiar with Antonio Gramsci's long march through the institutions? That has been the road map of the left for 50 years.
From one perspective the abortion battle has been terribly important demographically in the sense that educated, capable women rarely abort in America now although they do so with abandon everywhere else with catastrophic consequences for the future of the developed world.
And I would argue that the surprisingly conservative abortion views in America have been helped by SSM absorbing most of the energy of the left.
The idea that the right brings trouble on itself through getting drawn into the culture war I think is discredited by examining countries that have allowed cultural shifts to wash over them unopposed.
"Why would you blame the gay rights movement...?"
The "Lavender Mafia" was written about extensively about a decade ago, and they were writing about a culture and problem that went back two generations.
Michael S. Rose in 2002:
The liberal sociologist Father Andrew Greeley has called them the "Lavender Mafia"-a clique of homosexual dilettantes, acting in concert with liberal faculty members who are determined to change the doctrines, disciplines, and mission of the Catholic Church from within. Through the seminaries, this "Lavender Mafia" has brought a moral meltdown into the Catholic priesthood.
Screening process
The problems sometimes begin even before the seminary training begins: during the admissions process. Properly screening applicants for the priesthood is obviously of grave importance to the Church. Yet unfortunately, over the past two generations this process has often been abused, and those who were sent away were those faithful to the teachings of the Church-especially those who accepted the traditional role and discipline of the priest, including lifelong celibacy."
"Too often seminarians who support the teachings of the Church, especially the teachings on sexual morality, have been dismissed for being "rigid" and "uncharitable" and "homophobic," while those candidates who reject the Church's teaching or "come out" as gays to their superiors are given preferential treatment and then ordained to the Catholic priesthood. A corrupt, protective network starts in many seminaries where gay seminarians are encouraged to "act out" or "explore their sexuality" in highly inappropriate ways.
Father Andrew Walter of Bridgeport, Connecticut, who was expelled from St. Mary's Seminary in Baltimore for being "homophobic," recently told the New York Post that "activities and agendas on the part of homosexual guys were protected" in that seminary-which, due to its active and flagrant gay subculture, has long been nicknamed the "Pink Palace."
http://catholiccitizens.org/platform/platformview.asp?c=914
The biggest misconception is that this was a uniquely Catholic thing, but quants have found that priests were similar to leaders of other religions and Christian denominations (though they should have been less likely given how organized and authoritarian it is, but this is also why when corrupted, it brought us such a specific strain of abnormal men). They are just more visible due to their organized structure.
"The more interesting question is: What comes next?"
Polygamy, obviously. There is already an active movement afoot to normalize and, eventually, legalize it. The gays may not be behind it, but the polygamists will be happy to make use of the door that the gays have smashed in.
Then I expect that homosexuals will push for lowering the age of consent, so that they can get ready access to teenage boys, and turn them.
What comes next will be a boring, gradual continuation in the general decline of marriage that is hard to blame squarely on either the women's lib movement of the '60s and '70s or the gay marriage movement of the '00s and '10s, but obviously has a whole lot to do with them. That is, if you're "chauvinistic" and" homophobic" enough to entertain such politically incorrect notions at all.
What comes next? How about the cause and then the cure?
Ah, but for the days when men, heterosexual men, often designed women's fashion. Sure, a few were homosexual, but as I recall several prominent ones weren't.
The entire lessening of moral standards since the late sixties and early seventies affected the American branch of the Catholic Church as much or more than any other segment of society.
We had a scary/strict head padre but if we had an 'effeminate' priest he wasn't there for long. I was an altar boy for nearly ten years and never even heard of any boy being approached.
He also tried very hard to talk me out of going to seminary in the United States. I think he knew I wouldn't be a good fit with the celibate life outside of marriage and I sure as hell wouldn't have been comfortable with a bunch of 'out' gays even if they were only out in the seminary.
Turns out he was right. I would never have wanted to give up marriage and children (to say nothing of sex).
TWS
I'm with the first Anon in not getting the connection between gay liberation and the Catholic Church scandals. Weren't the offending priests in the closet? If so, they didn't participate in the liberation and weren't beneficiaries of it.
It's not true that the offenders were all closeted. There was a lot of semi-open homosexuality in the priesthood and seminaries in the 1970s and early 80s, e.g., gay bars in some cities had "priest nights". There were well-known "lavender" seminaries, and several of these had high rates of abusing priests among their graduates, several times the average.
The second John Jay report pointed out that abuse by priests increased massively in the 1960s and 70s - and, no, it doesn't seem to be a reporting issue. Traditionally, abusers tended to be elderly pedophiles. This type of abuse remained relatively constant. The new wave of abusers tended to be younger ephebophiles with a strong homosexual bias. This was something new. The outbreak seems to have something to do with gay liberation or at least the general libertine attitudes of the day, although there were undoubtedly other factors, e.g., a breakdown in discipline following Vatican II and the decline in vocations (so seminaries were less choosy).
I don't know that the scandals have been a gay fiasco. They could have been spun that way, but they sure haven't been. Instead, they've damaged the Roman Catholic Church, which, as the last major institution to uphold traditional sexual morality, is the great enemy of gays and libertines.
Cennbeorc
What comes next? I'm tempted to say adoption and children, but there is a significant cost borne by adopters/parents.
Where have you been? It's already here and will soon be general.
The next wave will be polygamy, driven by anti-islamophobia. Once gays get into it, and then celebrities, *then* we will be well and truly f*cked (in many different ways!).
Cennbeorc
The liberal sociologist Father Andrew Greeley has written extensively of the "lavender mafia" that dominates the institutional Church in America. They're especially prominent in the seminaries. Gay seminarians are quickly identified, protected, and promoted. Straight men who are there because they believe in the Church and want to be good priests are either so disgusted that they leave of their own accord, or they leave after extensive harassment and persecution from gay faculty or classmates.
Greeley and another liberal priest sociologist, Fr. Donald Cozzens, have said they could not in good conscience recommend that an earnest young gay man pursue the priesthood. Not because they believe homosexuals have no place in the priesthood, but because there's no way that nice young gay man could live chastely in an American seminary.
Some guy compared the homo nostra with the Mormons, but he were courageous, he would have mentioned the Jews.
Judging by the Daily Kos sports site yesterday a huge museum for gay pro athletes is what's next, & possibly a History Month in consideration
'History Month in consideration'
They have it already.
I think that what is next is a decrease in the talk about being "born this way," and an increase in talking about sexuality being "fluid." Then there will be talk about encouraging people to "experiment," and an attempt to shame men as "homophobic" unless they are more touchy-feely with other men, or willing to watch gay sex scenes, or eventually, if they are unwilling to consider experimentation with homosexual sexual activity.
In short, I think the next frontier is the stigmatization of exclusive heterosexuality.
"Peter Som wryly observed that there were so many designers, retail executives and publicists present that if the pier collapsed, "there would be no fashion industry tomorrow." "
Why do these pathetically annoying people think so highly of themselves. If they all died would anyone even notice, much less miss the "fashion industry"? My grandma always used to say, "there are plenty of irreplacable people in the cemetary"
What is next is a decrease in the talk about being "born this way," and an increase in talking about sexuality being "fluid." Then there will be talk about encouraging people to "experiment," and an attempt to shame men as "homophobic" unless they are more touchy-feely with other men, or willing to watch gay sex scenes, or eventually, if they are unwilling to consider experimentation with homosexual sexual activity.
In short, I think the next frontier is the stigmatization of exclusive heterosexuality.
Exactly, just like the nature/nurture arguments of gays (which Steve has pointed out varies greatly if you're a 'mo or a lez) is all tactical and "fluid". It's gone from the experimental, bisexual stage to the gay identity stage, and will probably go back again. Camille Paglia pointed this out years ago. Whatever "tears down the wall" is the ideology of the day.
Somewhat OT, Jews are not like Mormons. It is relatively easy to become a Mormon, not so to become a Jew. Mormons have a VERY effective and comprehensive social network: young married couples are paired with mentors to make sure the relationship does not crumble, there is mutual support, etc. Jews are as atomized as the rest of Protestant/Catholic America. With much greater out-marrying, far less social cohesion, and no real mentoring or group support.
Mormon fertility is also far greater than that of Jews, as Mormons are encouraged to marry and have kids far earlier than Jews.
Gays by contrast seem to fall between Mormons and Jews in terms of institutional cohesiveness and continuity. More so than Jews, less than Mormons.
There is a Gay NFL History Month?
"scots-irish are as atomized as the rest of Protestant/Catholic America."
with the harvard-wasp mafia keeping them from bonding in the confines of hollywood.
"In short, I think the next frontier is the stigmatization of exclusive heterosexuality."
why discriminate against half the population :(
gay marriage is not inevitable. It has never won one ballot out of 32 states. Support nationwide in latest poll is under 40%. Young people only support it because they've been brainwashed by media and it's "bigoted" not to. Trust me, at least when it comes to young men, they don't really support gay marriage when we're shooting the shit in the bars.
COnservatives who let it happen are just as bad as liberals. I mean you, Chris christie, who intead of fighting the good fight, wants to leave it up to the voters and leave his hands clean. I'm young and oppose gay marriage, because it's a terrible message to send to kids and to straight people. It continues the destruction of the family.
We need to go on the offense on the issue. We need to educate people as to the liberals' real aim - to FORCE churches to support such marriages. Sure, they won't go for it at the moment, but their ultimate goal is destruction of religion in this country. Ever hear of Obamacare?
"gay marriage is not inevitable."
but is now mandatory in danish churches.
"We need to educate people as to the liberals' real aim - to FORCE churches to support such marriages. "
yep.
"In Fashion, Who Really Gets Ahead?"
Fashion industry has been blamed for anorexia nervosa. According to feminists, it's PATRIARCHY that is at fault.
In fact, fash industry's been controlled by gaytriarchs, not by Pat Buchanan. Normal men seem to like voluptuous women. It's gays who fetishize tall thin ones. But gays are never blamed.
Same with Jews and blacks. When Wall Street Jews rob, no one calls out their Jewishness. When beat street blacks rob, they're just 'teens'.
But Mormons get blamed for what happens in Ca.
And if a Muslim kills in France, NY TIMES Jews blame white 'xenophobia'.
When Jews, gays, and blacks do wrong, they are nameless and blameless.
But whites are named and blamed for EVERYTHING.
Worse, Jews and blacks hate cons, but cons express undying love for Jews and blacks.
Normal men seem to like voluptuous women
bingo.
so called 'fashion' is now sociopathy
We need to educate people as to the liberals' real aim - to FORCE churches to support such marriages. "
Yes. And force the church to change theology- the catholic church for example, can no run adaption agencies. Of course liberals will never admit to this.
In illinois, they even promised w/ a clause in the gay marriage bill -to protect churches, then they turned around sued and a judge ruled that the clause was invalid. perhaps their greatest deception since the clause in the civil rights act that was supposed to prevent racial quotas.
Normal men seem to like voluptuous women. It's gays who fetishize tall thin ones. But gays are never blamed.
The girls at sites like Met Art that I would consider to be the best proxy for what normal, intelligent heterosexual men like (i.e. not porn stars driven by the demand of a few fuckup high level consumers who are into weird dominance and promiscuity type stuff, nor fashion models or actresses picked for qualities unconnected to beauty and sex appeal) are not exactly "voluptuous". B-C cup is about typical. Their body weight is low.
Likewise girls like the American Apparel models
Normal men like a small, slender frame and face, youthful skin and a generally soft appearance and are less concerned about huge fatbags on any part of the body.
Youthful women tend to be less "voluptuous" than older women, and men are generally attracted most to women in late teens to early twenties, which pushes against voluptuousness.
More "voluptuous" but older women (and the losers who try to push the idea that a preference for "BBW" is natural or normal) tend to push the "teenage boy" idea because it allows them to downplay that models largely look not like teenage boys but like the teenage girls they are (i.e. less fleshy than them).
On top of this preference for youth that tends to downplay the fleshy though, gay guys are largely unconcerned with how feminine a woman is, and select more for features in women which are sex neutral correlates of attractiveness (taller, more symmetrical features, better facial balance, sex neutral health indicators like clear skin).
Selecting for height may push models in a slightly more in a masculine direction, but gay men largely have no attraction to women, even boyish ones, so I think models just random walk in terms of femininity, being close to the average for their age and height.
"Gays by contrast seem to fall between Mormons and Jews in terms of institutional cohesiveness and continuity. More so than Jews, less than Mormons."
You know next to nothing about any of these groups.
Post a Comment