...Why reinforce, what is a hopefully dying panic/scare. (Though for a melding of the S&L scandals and this, with allegations from nutball ex-FBI agent Ted Gunderson, that ex-Pres. Bush is a pedophile who went to parties with Barney Frank! see this deposition from my favorite militia list...
Michael Pugliese
----------
George and Barney doing the Pee Herman at parties...
Dam. No matter how far I go, it is never far enough. Somebody's already been there, done that, got it on disk and worse, has it ready to download. Now I see why you follow those lists; to stay current with our political progress into the long night.
But, do you think that not manipulating their homophobia as a rhetorical weapon moderates the effectiveness of their hysteria? Don't they appear more ridiculous and therefore less effective, the more vehement they become? So, then isn't it actually in the interest of tolerance to push them into ever more insane positions of intolerance?
I realize this is a twisted argument and might even be a little dangerous, since it could easily backfire.
For example, all these guys: Bush, Gore, Lott, Delay, etc are just dripping with masculine insecurities. On the other hand the logic is, the way to scare them is to probe and explore those insecurities.
These guys have some serious masculinity hang-ups. It isn't just a question of homophobia. Look at the way they construct issues around women and kids. What is the subtext in all their choreography? The paterfamilias of punishment, domination, control, and scorn. Or look at their policies toward other men, especially big, bad, black men. Again, it is all about control and domination, but through some instrumental advantage, like law, religious dogma, or gobs of money. They need instrumentality (a dick or a stick) for control since they have nothing to back them up but fear. Look at their popular base which is predominately suburban, white, middle class, middle aged men many of whom share every one of these insecurities.
I realize I have given Butler, Ehrenreit, and Faludi (as well as Kelley) a hard time on issues exactly like this, so I confess, there is no question they all made me think about masculinity and its political trappings. What was I really complaining about, that they didn't know men as well as they claimed?
Well, this isn't that good a job, either. But whatever the generalities, these particular men, meaning mostly Bush and the right, are vulnerable exactly because of their paternalism and exhibit that as fear, which defines their own masculinity which in turn is reflected in all of their obnoxious social policies---and in full circle back again to their agenda of racism, sexism and homophobia.
Chuck Grimes
It's late and I may regret this in the morning.