A total f-word.

Actually, I agree with most of what he posts there.

His point that faggot can be a general slam against a man's masculinity is interesting: I find myself wondering how I would have felt if the term Ann Coulter used had been pussy rather than faggot. I certainly fought for a while against those who used the former term as a synonym for "wimp," but as a happy owner of a real pussy I eventually decided that particular organ shouldn't be the standard-bearer for power projection—either in geopolitics, or anywhere else. So, okay: I accept pussy as an indicator of all-yin-no-yang.

But at this point it is broadly acceptable for a woman to show masculine traits in a way it still isn't for a man to show feminine ones. Those who call Ann Coulter a "tranny" are still not putting her down to the same degree as she is putting Edwards down by calling him a faggot—or a pussy, for that matter.

But the term used was, indeed, faggot. And, yeah: I got the cultural allusion to the Grey's Anatomy actors. I'm certainly not interested in a world wherein we have n-words and f-words and all other kinds of words to which we've given so much silly power that we cannot even utter them. I'm more of a J.K. Rowling person: his name is Voldemort, dammit; don't make things worse than they are.

But the primary meaning of that word is still "male homosexual"—on this continent, at least. And if I were Edwards' wife, I wouldn't be happy with its use in that way. (If I were his campaign staffers, I'd be milking Coulter's remark for martyr points and cold, hard cash. And, of course, that's exactly what they are doing.) This kind of usage doesn't do much for our outreach to the gay community, whom most of us want to live with in some kind of harmony (whether that happens to be expressed in civil unions, or gay marriage, or good old-fashioned discretion on everyone's part). What's the argument here?—"Sure we call you faggots and lezzies. But at least we don't want to stone you to death like the Islamofascists do, so come to Momma." That's appealing.

If we concede that transgression for its own sake is always courageous, and therefore acceptable, even laudable, then we are the conservative equivalent of those who promoted Piss Christ. Because it ultimately doesn't matter what line was crossed, and for what motivation: the virtue lies in crossing it. Supposedly.

That's not virtue. It's crass egotism. Or, in Ann's case, a desire to make money by feeding off the darker side of human nature. I'm not necessarily against that in and of itself: Jerry Springer's made a handsome living doing just that. But this impulse is the antithesis of conservatism, and its practioners do not speak for me.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 05:07 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 482 words, total size 3 kb.