More from Eric on the aftermath of Prop. 8:

By any standard, the conduct displayed by the bigoted gay demonstrators is outrageous, inexcusable, and indefensible. However, speaking as an individualist, I don't think it any more reflects on gays as a whole than it would reflect on blacks as a whole if some angry black demonstrators hurled epithets at gays or Jews. The people who do these things are the ones who do them. That they are in a crowd of demonstrators might reflect poorly on the other demonstrators, but the problem with extrapolating from angry demonstrators to the group they claim to "represent" is that they are rarely more than a small percentage of that population. So, if a half a dozen gay bigots use the N-word at a demonstration, it no more reflects on all gays than something shouted from a crowd at a McCain rally would reflect on all Republicans.

Yes. But it gives me a queasy feeling, like the black-Jewish schism, which has always struck me as so counter-historical, and so unnecessary. And so stupid. Of course, my species is not that bright; I must remember that.

Where I must disagree with Pam Spaulding is with her view that these awful incidents somehow constitute an "escalation of the 'blame the blacks' meme that has been swirling about the blogosphere and the MSM." She also refers to "the desire to scapegoat blacks for Prop 8's defeat" as "not-so-latent racism in our movement." Well, at least she said "in our movement." Because, at least in my case, I don't see how observations based on a statistics can constitute a "blame the blacks meme."

Statistics are not memes. Saying that 70% of blacks voted for Prop 8 is no more a meme than saying that 30% of gays voted Republican.

Yup. This next part is pivotal:

As far as blaming or scapegoating goes, while I'm against Prop 8, I'm more or less neutral where it comes to gay marriage, because I'm highly distrustful of government involvement in a minority lifestyle which, like it or not, goes to the heart of human privacy. Gay marriage advocacy is inextricably intertwined with forcing people out of what is called "the closet." The closet (as any regular reader of Andrew Sullivan knows) is said to be at the root of much evil. Therefore, closeted gays need to be liberated -- for their own good and for the good of society. Because of the nature of the hegemonic bureaucracy which surrounds family law, family courts, family services, once gay marriage is established it will inevitably have a spillover effect, and gays who want to live their lives in privacy will be unable to do so. Sure, there will continue to be sexual flings, but once lovers move in together, there will be no way to guarantee privacy, because the state will have created not merely a sense of entitlement, but legal rights of the same sort which customarily flow to heterosexuals thanks to the evolution of family law. There are many gays who want privacy and who live in the closet. While I realize that this is immoral to Andrew Sullivan's way of thinking, I think it's fair to ask, how would they opt out?

Perhaps by simply living together, as heterosexual couples do who don't want to make the ultimate commitment—or who have, themselves, mixed emotions about the institution of marriage?

But your larger point is well-taken: people have the right to privacy. There is a right not to wear one's love life on one's sleeve, and there is a middle ground between being quiet and discreet vs. the type of "living in the closet" one associates with the 1950s in America.

What are the implications to the right to simply to be left alone?

The closet being what it is, though, I don't think this concern is likely to be voiced. I mean, who's going to voice it other than a kooky libertarian theoretician? Angry, in-your-face, "in-the-closet-and-proud" activists. (What this means, of course, is that whatever the extent of the right to be "in the closet," it will remain largely undefended, no matter how many of its immorally discreet members are taking advantage of it. This leaves Andrew Sullivan and other activists are free to blame people who are in "the closet" for almost anything they can think of -- the latest being Prop 8.)

Game, set, and match.

But speaking of blame (and scapegoating), I noticed that in other posts, Pam Spaulding looks at Mormon and Catholic churches and sees them (unlike blacks or black churches) as proper targets of Prop 8 protests. While I don't know what she thinks of angry gay demonstrators chanting "Mormon scum!" (and I do not suggest that this compares to the use of the N-word), she does not hesitate to condemn the Mormons as bigoted:

The amount of hot air and vapid defensiveness from an institution that has a history of bigotry and oppression against black people has earned every second of this bad press brought on by this media exposure and demonstrations. That the Mormons have trained that bigotry onto gays and lesbians families only confirms that the LDS is what is erroneous and it is repeating that sorry history.

Both Catholics and Mormons are accused of calling for theocracy:

These extremist statements and positions are nothing less than a call to establish a theocracy. Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation, should be moved to name this behavior of these institutions for what it is -- and question the tax-exempt status of these institutions.

By that logic, taking a religious position against abortion is also a call to establish theocracy. That is not what the word "theocracy" means.
And if it is "theocracy" to invoke a religious argument against gay marriage, then why isn't Barack Obama a theocrat, as Glenn Reynolds suggested? [In ironic imitation of the left's standard.] I don't think Barack Obama is a theocrat, any more than the Mormons or the Catholics are theocrats. But you can't just draw a line and say that Mormons and Catholics who voice religious objections to gay marriage are theocrats, but Democratic United Church of Christ members who voice the same objections are not.

There's altogether too much bigotry for comfort and too many double standards for comfort.

Absolutely.

And, the clincher:

I can't help notice that completely left out of this debate are Muslims. While an LA Times article in April noted that "U.S. Muslims share friendship, similar values with Mormons" and that "the connection is based not on theology but on shared values and a sense of isolation from mainstream America." Can there be any doubt about the Muslim position on gay marriage? While there are no statistics on the Muslim vote, I would be flabbergasted if support for gay marriage mustered more than the single digits.

Yet Mormons have been singled out as bigots.

That's because it's wrong to bash Muslims, silly: even when they are enslaving women, carving away their genitals, and killing them more or less at whim. Don't you know anything?

The Pam Spaulding post we've been quoting is here.

I read Eric's post yesterday, of course—because he linked me—and considered responding, but was busy / too self-centered / tired. When Glenn Reynolds linked to it again today, though, it reminded me of what a bitchin' guy that Eric Scheie is.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 11:04 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1239 words, total size 8 kb.

Ta Naehisi-Coates runs the numbers on California's Proposition 8:

Yesterday, I tried to outline a humanistic case against the whole "Teh blackz did us in!" argument. I also linked some math. Now we have better math. The basic idea is that you need black folks to have been about 10 percent of all votes cast on Prop 8 to make a difference. Black folks are one of the smallest minorities in California, making up about six percent of the total electorate, which numbers at about 17 million. At 6 percent, black folks are worth about a million or so votes. There were just over ten million votes cast on Prop. 8. For blacks to cast ten percent of those you would need a turnout of 90 percent in the black community. Lemme repeat that--90 percent. It's possible, I guess. I leave it to you to weigh the odds.

Obsidian Wings reads the stats slightly differently, speculating that black voters may well have reached that 90 percent turnout in the Golden State:

If the following standard analysis assumptions are true the answer is probably a very close ‘no’, but at least one of the assumptions seems very possibly false and with other fairly likely assumptions the answer looks like a ‘yes’.

My assumptions are:

1. that the vote among black people was as reported (69% Yes on .
2. that black people make up 6.7% of the CA population
3. that black people represented a share of the votes equal to their share of the population

I further assume that 8 passes with 52% which seems the likely number at this point.

Given each 1000 voters, black people in CA represent 67 of them.

There are 520 Yes votes and 480 No votes for each 1000.

At 69%, Black voters voted 46 Yes and 21 No for each 1000.

If they voted like White voters (55% No) they would have voted 31 Yes votes and 36 No votes.

That would make the final tally 505 Yes and 495 No votes. (50.5% to 49.5%). [numbers very slightly rounded]

But this analysis is VERY sensitive to assumption #3. It appears that black people in CA may have voted in a greater share than that of their representation of the population. Right around 10% of the vote.

That would mean that given each 1000 voters black people in CA represent 100 of them.

At 69% Yes on 8 that would be 69 Yes and 31 No for each 1000. If they had voted like White voters they would have voted 45 Yes and 55 No. That would make the final vote equal 496 Yes and 504 No (proposition loses 49.6% to 50.4%).

Interestingly, at the 10% vote share level, if a small majority of black people voted against the measure it would have lost (49% Yes, 51% No gives the measure a loss at 49.9%).

Basically, if the black voter share is 10% or higher, the black vote difference from the white vote made the difference so long as the final total is at or below 52%.

This, of course, makes my head hurt; I was an English major. But I do have a couple of suggestions:

1) If we truly want to achieve gay equality, we should be concentrating a lot more on eliminating "don't ask, don't tell" in the Armed Forces than we are on marriage. In fact, in a time of war that notion is likely to have much broader appeal than galloping toward gay marriage at a faster trot than the population at large is ready to do.

In one case, to the casual observer, you have a country so self-destructive that it fires Arabic translators (among many others) for being gay, and you have men and women who serve their country, but are susceptible to losing their jobs because someone might "read" what their orientation is.

I mean, I understand that this doesn't fit the conventional lefty template of treating the military as if it's composed of icky, warmongering spiders and snakes. One might have to treat those murderous soldiers, sailors, airmen/-women and Marines as if they were human beings. (Ick. I need a bath now.)

Seriously, fellow warmongers: if the badasses in the Israeli Army and in Britain's Special Forces can integrate gays, we can do the same thing in the States.

2) Quit trying to use the courts to get this done! Gay rights should be determined through legislative means, rather than handled by judicial fiat. Judges who legislate sensitive moral matters from the bench inevitably create resistance and resentment. It's worth taking a few more years, and doing this the right way.

Less backlash; steady progress.

3) Do something practical, for crying out loud: get a gun. Self-defense is the most basic right of all, and you may not feel like you're at the mercy of public sentiment if you join Pink Pistols, or Second Amendment Sisters. Or take a shooting course through the NRA. Or join Black Gun Owners.

Heinlein: "An armed society is a polite society." Yup. And right now we all need to mind our manners a bit more.

* * *

Previously, on "Gay Rights and Proposition 8"—

"How the Obama Campaign Assured the Passage of Propsition 8"

"On Racism and Homophobia"

Posted by: Attila Girl at 11:35 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 888 words, total size 6 kb.

Yes; we can all get along. But it will take some effort. There will be equality between gays and straights; let's try not to burn too many bridges on our way there.

Peace between the LGBT community and people of faith is on the way—but it requires each group to respect the other's right to exist, and a commitment to try to stay out of the other's face. Neither group has an exclusive claim upon the public square, and we are all Americans, with the right to live our own lives, free from harassment. I'm not making an argument for living in the an externally imposed closet,* or straightening one's hair for reasons other than personal preference: just that we all calm down a bit and stop trying to force others to live according to our own moral codes.

From Pam's House Blend:

It was like being at a klan rally except the klansmen were wearing Abercrombie polos and Birkenstocks. "YOU NIGGER, one man shouted at men. If your people want to call me a FAGGOT, I will call you a nigger." Someone else said same thing to me on the next block near the temple...me and my friend were walking, he is also gay but Korean, and a young WeHo clone said after last night the niggers better not come to West Hollywood if they knew what was BEST for them.

Via Prof. Reynolds, who remarks, "my goodness. All this hope, change and unity is getting kind of scary."

It is. We need to step back for a minute.

Let's see what I can do as a bisexual Christian, here. Back to fundamentals, so to speak: first of all, "all have sinned, and fallen short of the Glory of God." Or, as my relatively secular best guy friend puts it, "we all miss the mark; none of us are perfect."

The U.S.A. is committed to religious freedom, but one of the fears among Christians of many types is that "too much equality" of gays will create a situation in which freedom of speech and freedom of religion are compromised. In Canada, for instance, calling homosexuality a sin is regarded as a "hate crime." But Canada does not have a Bill of Rights, and does not guarantee freedom of speech or religion. (Just ask Mark Steyn, or the Free Speech Five [e.g., Kathy Shaidle, Ezra Levant.])

The bottom line is that it must be considered acceptable for any religious advisor to discuss sin. I had thought we were there: I've certainly listened to homilies from priests that discussed gluttony (one of the Seven Deadly Sins), and yet who appeared to be overweight; it was entirely possible that gluttony was a recurring problem for these priests. Or, perhaps, the condition was glandular. Or genetic.

It doesn't matter; we are equal in the eyes of God. And we are all sinners. So an exhortation to greater moral goodness will always open us up to charges of hypocrisy. Why not? "Everyone is a hypocrite, now and then."

We in the U.S. live under a Bill of Rights that allows us to explore, in our various religious sects, what constitutes "sin." Is smoking a sin? Eating junk food? Smoking marijuana? Those probably all are, if one's body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. But where do you draw that line? Is exercising too little a sign of sloth (another Deadly sin)? Is exercising too much a sign of vanity?

How about drinking? I was raised Methodist, and all four of my grandparents were teetotalers; the risk of alcoholism was considered too great to risk taking a drink. "Every social drinker," my grandmother once admonished, "is suscepible to alcoholism." Except that (1) stress takes a huge toll on human health; (2) there is the admonishment in the Bible to "take a little wine for your stomach's sake"; (3) small amounts of alcohol do clear cholesterol out of the arteries, reducing the risk of heart disease.

Yet as a civic matter, both my physical health and my spiritual well-being are my own, and not the business of the State. This is one reason for avoiding socialized medicine: once the government is paying for my health care, it has a stake in regulating my personal behavior and habits.

What does this have to do with the tension between black people and gay people?

Just this: Barack Obama's platform did not include gay marriage, and it may be that the country is not yet ready to apply that word to same-sex family arrangements. (You will recall that I don't think it's the state's business to label human relationships as "marriages" or not: that is a religious/social function. All any of us should ask is for civil unions.)

So, yes: demographically, black people trend more conservative on issues of human sexuality. But as with all demographic trends, one cannot extrapolate to individuals from that. When I was in Nevada and my friends in Clark County decried the way some of the freedoms in Las Vegas (and in Nevada itself) were being curtailed by the influx of Californians, were they talking about me? No. They were speaking in generalities, and for a variety of reasons Californians are not too popular in our neighboring states—partly because we "bid up housing prices," and partly because we tend to move into other states and then try to mold them into mini-Calis, while retaining whatever characteristics we liked them for in the first place.

(This is not a lot different than New Yorkers moving upstate—or to neighboring states—and then trying to get people in their new towns to stop hunting, or to stop burning leaves in the fall. That's no way to make friends. One should respect the culture one moves into, rather than trying to mold it closer to the heart's desire.)

Prejudice is built into human nature, but it quickly turns evil when it drives us (when it should and when it should not are explored in Malcolm Gladwell's Blink, by the way). I don't want to live in a society of either anti-gay or anti-black bigots, so we'd better damned well figure this whole thing out.

There are a lot of people who are opposed to gay marriage because they regard it as social engineering: an attempt to tinker with matters that are very fundamental to human society. It isn't a vice to go slowly in that regard, particularly given the huge gains that gays have made over the past generation. (I know I'm supposed to say "gays and lesbians," but I've never liked that phrasing: contrary to its stated intent, it feels to me like it deliberately makes women invisible—as if they don't exist, and need an extra word to ensure inclusion. Just one more division, if you ask me.)

It might be appropriate for the "LGBT" community to pause and count its blessings, and remind itself that it, too, will overcome. Slavery was a long time ago; the Stonewall riots, less so. These matters take time.

And there is definitely such a thing as a gay-marriage opponent who is not a gay-hater or homophobe, and I would admonish the Abercrombie & Fitch brownshirts that they have definitely become their own enemy. Socially conservative black people do not necessarily regard them as "faggots," and it is never acceptable to use the word "nigger" as an epithet (unless you've been dared to, or someone around you is trying to make it into a loaded, dreadful term with the power to hurt: in that case, we must remember that words are indeed just words, and recite all the worst terms that might be applied to us so they don't gain more power; some of my readers think I'm a slut, or a whore, or a skanky gash; isn't that cute?).

The choice we made as a society in this past election had to do with a lot of things, but included in that mix was a desire to shatter the race barrier, to get it over with, perhaps, and have a black person lead the free world. I'm glad that the barrier was shattered, though I would have picked a different person to do the shattering.

And at least in California, increased black turnout did indeed make the difference in passing Proposition 8. A paradox, perhaps: or a trade-off. A delay.

When black men were granted suffrage, female suffragettes were understandably angry. They were told by the lawmakers that "this is the Negro's hour," and it was decades before women were enfranchised.

Gays will not have to wait that long.

Now relax; stop the hating. The day will come. I've seen the mountaintop; I really have.

In the meantime, have a smoke. Or a glass of wine.

UPDATE: Insty has another mini-roundup on the gender orientation/race issue here; when "Andrew Sullivan . . . calls for people to chill," matters are definitely on the verge of spiralling out of control. (I won't click on the Sullivan link, of course, and you shouldn't, either; Sullivan has put himself outside the realm of respectable discourse in the past year—and most especially in the past few months, given his relentless attacks on Sarah Palin—on the most frivolous grounds.)

* * *

Other Entries on Proposition 8—

Previously:

"How the Obama Campaign Assured the Passage of Propsition 8"

Subsequently:

"More on the Putative Black/Gay Divide"

"Are Some Bigots More Bigoted Than Others?"

"And Yet More on Gay Marriage"

"Virginia v. Loving and Gay Marriage"

* Phrasing revised in light of Eric Scheie's argument that a voluntary "closet" is a perfectly legitimate choice (see "Are Some Bigots More Bigoted Than Others," above; I stand corrected. Certainly anyone is entitled to live a low-key life, and be discreet about one's love life, irrespective of sexual orientation. But many of those who will be attracted to marriage or civil union are, I suspect, either engaged in or contemplating parenthood (through step-parenting, artificial insemination, or surrogate motherhood—the last of which is, of course, increasingly popular among straights as well).

All of this presumably makes Mark Steyn happy, since he wants to see more babies raised with Western values. Wait . . . that might not follow. I'll have to check with him on that one.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 07:08 AM | Comments (32) | Add Comment
Post contains 1710 words, total size 11 kb.

1 Enjoyed your discussion, as always. I do agree with you that in a better country, "marriages" should be a matter for churches and the state should only offer "civil unions" to everyone, whether they're marrying someone of the same sex or the opposite. I don't think that's going to happen, though. Marriage is already written into too many of our laws and traditions. That being the case, civil marriage will sooner or later be offered to same-sex couples as well, at least in California. I'll be there with my bottle of California sparkling wine to celebrate on the day.

Posted by: Jan Steckel at November 08, 2008 09:34 AM (pKiEW)

2 As I keep saying, all this protesting will do is ostracize the gay community even further. The violence keeps escalating. If they kill someone, even one of their own, it will turn public sentiment against their cause in a way that hasn't been seen before.

Posted by: caltechgirl at November 08, 2008 09:49 AM (IfXtw)

3 We in the United States do not 'live under' a Bill of Rights, our rights vastly exceed those enumerated there in. It is the Federal Government that operates under the restrictions specified in the Bill of Rights. More specifically it is the Tenth Amendment that states those unenumerated rights are the province of the States or the People.

Posted by: ThomasD at November 08, 2008 11:31 AM (UK5R1)

4 Live by the collectivist sword, die by the collectivist sword. Prop 8 failed in large part because Leftists are simply not credible advocates for individual rights, as hostile as they are to that very concept. Gay marriage is an individual right. Prop 8, on the other hand, is DEMOCRACY IN ACTION, which the Left (at least the American version) loves to trumpet when it's any individual right they do not find politically expedient -- which is usually all of them. So what do we get? Instead of pulling the knife out of their backs and repudiating the Left and its collectivist BS, gays cling to it instead, and start putting knives in black backs instead. There isn't a right winger to be seen, and yet nothing but the N- word and the F- word all over the place in West Hollywood? Welcome to the Left's end-of-road.

Posted by: Seerak at November 08, 2008 11:35 AM (RJmST)

5 As long as the SSM advocates attack each and every person who questions the wisdom of redefining marriage as "haters" no compromise will be reached. There can be no dialogue as long as one party refuses to consider the other party as one discussing things in good faith. But for many, same-sex marriage is not an ends, but a means ... and the riots in West Hollywood and the anti-Mormon, anti-Catholic bigory confirm it.

Posted by: Darleen at November 08, 2008 12:11 PM (Hto/+)

6 test?

Posted by: Darleen at November 08, 2008 12:16 PM (Hto/+)

7 The anger being felt by the gay and transgender community not only over the passage of prop 8 but the comments of African-American "yes on 8" leaders is justifiable. One such leader had the balls to say "the people have spoken and THOSE people (emphasis mine) should just suck it up". WHat if in 1965 we had taken a vote of the people about whether or not we should continue to extend civivl rights to blacks? Do you really think the answer would have been yes? I don't I think the answer would have been a resounding NO! So if this had occured would these black leaders be satisfied if the white leaders of the NO on black civil rights measure just told Dr, King et al to just "suck it up"? Somehow I doubt it. Prop 8 is a civil rights issue which is unfortunately hung up on semantics. The conservatives don't want us to use the word marriage. So fine, I agree with Joy let's all have civil unions and leave marriage for the churches. But I deserve equal rights no matter what you choose to call it.

Posted by: Jack Watt at November 08, 2008 12:23 PM (QFWNO)

8 Jack, 1) It isn't a question of "those people." Some of these rioters/protesters are heaping abuse on gays who are black. 2) The underlying issue is one of Federalism: I know we have taken judicial "shortcuts" in the case of African-Americans, over and over. But gays [bisexuals, TSs, TVs] are not working their way up from slavery. Therefore, any of the extreme measures that have been necessary to achieve black liberation (from Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus to Brown v. Board of Education, and on and on) simply cannot be justified in the case of LGBTs. I'm afraid that the correct tactic is to use the legislative process, rather than have this decided by judicial fiat. 3) Why, why, why are we so concerned about this issue, rather than the egregious "don't ask, don't tell" policy?

Posted by: Attila Girl at November 08, 2008 12:44 PM (TpmQk)

9 Jack marriage is not a "right" when you can figure that out, get back to me and we can discuss contracts and institutions. one man/one woman marriage isn't an abbrogation of anyone's "right" anymore than age/physical ability requirments to join the military

Posted by: Darleen at November 08, 2008 12:53 PM (Hto/+)

10 In Mexico, those who want to be married in a church must go through two ceremonies, since the state does not recognize any marriage unless it is performed at city hall by a judge. Recognizing a ceremony performed by a priest or rabbi for legal matters in Mexico is not allowed since it would violate their separation of church and state. The Mexicans have it almost right. Their government should allow gay marriages (at city hall), and then the entire religious argument for/against gay marriage will be rendered IRRELEVANT, to the benefit of all.

Posted by: Jennifer E. at November 08, 2008 02:16 PM (qfl+A)

11 Right. Except that the ceremony at City Hall (or the paperwork that is processed for the legal/contractual side of things) should simply be called a civil union. Then the couple in question (gay or straight) can call it whatever they want, and tell their friends or not. This would actually deliver the legal benefits of marriage to straight couples who don't care for the word itself and do NOT want it applied to their relationships. (And, yes: they exist.)

Posted by: Attila Girl at November 08, 2008 02:30 PM (TpmQk)

12 You assume there were "bridges" in the first place. In the general population I find both racism and homophobic attitudes to be largely a function of socioeconomic status - regardless of one's skin color. Do you really expect to find tolerance for sexual preference in the inner city, any more than you do out in the boonies?

Posted by: Tim at November 08, 2008 02:39 PM (aPZ+Z)

13 As for the photo on the right of the page, it's LE Canada, merde!

Posted by: guy at November 08, 2008 03:30 PM (thcGd)

14 One is unable to choose one's sexual orientation. Everyone has the right to persue happiness. On the marriage issue, for me to acquiesce to same-sex marriage, I must refute important religious doctrine and belief. I must deny religious matters of faith, because marriage is, fundamentally, a religious institution. Hispanic voters, who said "YES!" to Mr. Obama, could not cast aside their religious obligation on the matter of same-sex marriage, as I cannot. It may be that some folks confuse a decision based on religious principles with intolerance of certain individual sexual orientations. I suspect that those folks are mistaken. I know they are in my case. Civil union is an option that I would have no objection to on the basis of my religious beliefs. It satisfies the need to achieve a legally recognized, committed and formal relationship with the one that you love. Of course, it also means that you get subjected to the tax penalty on married folks, but welcome to the community.

Posted by: B Dubya at November 09, 2008 04:59 AM (PRDtV)

15 Gaynpdx: I've seen it broken down both ways; where are you getting your stats? Of course, the truth of it doesn't matter: what matters is that anti-black bigotry is making inroads into the gay community, and this is troubling. It needs to stop.

Posted by: Attila Girl at November 09, 2008 09:07 AM (TpmQk)

16 jack Marriage is an institution. No one stops anyone from forming (just about) any personal, private arrangement they want (consenting adults). 2 men, 2 women, 1 man and 3 women, 1 woman and 2 men, platonic relationships, sexual relationships, relationships of convenience ... knock yourself out, no one is going to stop you. Then there is the PUBLIC institution of marriage, wherein the government gives a sanction to the ideal relationship. A "one of each", adult, not related to each other. You will not that no where in family law that defines marriage is "love" or "sexual orientation" ever defined as any requirement of marriage. Only number, sex and age. Gay people can, and do, marry. IE the idiot radio hack, Karel, (the one that wants Joe the Plumber dead) is a flaming gay who is married to a woman (convenience marriage). No one stops anyone from pursuing happiness in setting up their own living arrangements. Privacy, live-and-let-live is paramount. But as government has landlord/tenant laws in order to deal the rights and obligations of that kind of relationship, so it has marriage laws for another. Understand, you redefine the public institution of marriage based on "I have the right to marry because of LOVE" (something never in the law) then there is no logical barrier to "I have the right to marry as many as I want because of LOVE." Nor is there any logical barrier to adult siblings marrying each other. Just because not everyone can qualify for an ideal does that ideal become illegitimate. and again, SSM is not an end, but a means and it is quite evident from the violent threats against Mormons and Catholics.

Posted by: Darleen at November 09, 2008 09:42 AM (Hto/+)

17 There will be equality between gays and straights; let's try not to burn too many bridges on our way there. Oh really? Do tell! Last I saw, feces and eggs had some crucial differences. Maybe noticing that civilization springs from heterosexual unions in the form of children makes me some kind of bigot. I don't know, I always thought reproductive biology was kind of above that sort of thing. Anyway, great blog! Keep plugging! Maybe if you play your cards right, we can get government grants to research ways to make men pregnant.

Posted by: K T Cat at November 09, 2008 10:13 AM (J44gg)

18 Darleen: Which is more paramount in your reasoning?-- 1) the need for traditionally defined marriage for the protection of children who show up in the time-honored way (sometimes, of course, unexpectedly)? or 2) your conviction that gay marriage is a stepping stone to changing adoption laws and undermining orthodox religious institutions?

Posted by: Attila Girl at November 09, 2008 10:17 AM (TpmQk)

19 Attila girl, Why the slap down and why is it nutcase? Are feces and eggs the same? Where do children come from?

Posted by: K T Cat at November 09, 2008 10:44 AM (J44gg)

20 Allow me to revise and extend my remarks. You write about equality between gays and straights, but what you really mean is equality in terms of the government only. They will never be equal in reality no matter how hard everyone wishes. They are not the same, they are not equal. Reproductive biology says so. It's not a debatable point and it's not a meaningless one as all of humanity and all life owes itself to reproductive biology. When you try to make things equal that aren't, isn't that an act of pointless fantasy? Aren't there good reasons to differentiate things that are different? Why engage in verbally obscuring the profound differences between the two? As for this being off topic, well, you're the one that said that there was going to be equality, not me. There isn't ever going to be equality between gays and straights. Never. It has nothing to do with you or the gay rights movement or anything any of us want or say. They just aren't equal.

Posted by: K T Cat at November 09, 2008 11:12 AM (J44gg)

21 since when did one have to be heterosexual to procreate?

Posted by: Jack Watt at November 09, 2008 11:55 AM (QFWNO)

22 The issue wasn't who is equal to whom according to some arbitrary construct that defines human worth, but, as a civic matter, "equality in terms of the government only." I believe that is commonly referred to as "equality under the law." I see that you don't feel that couples whose congresses will not produce offspring are not equal to couples whose congresses might. Presumably, you feel the same way about women who have had hysterectomies, and men with low sperm counts. Fortunately, the law doesn't have to see it that way. And gay couples can have children: it just needs to be a deliberate, premeditated act. Of course, it often is for straights, no? Or we wouldn't have ovulation prediction kits available in the drugstores.

Posted by: Attila Girl at November 09, 2008 11:59 AM (TpmQk)

23 Darleen; Exactly whose ideal are you holding up? Certainly not mine.

Posted by: Jack Watt at November 09, 2008 12:02 PM (QFWNO)

24 Darleen; Actually, since I have a degree in psychology I can tell you that the ideal situation for raising a child is to have at least one loving caregiver of either gender/sexual orientation. Two is even better, but the research does not support the notion that somehow having a heterosexual male and female have any better effects on the child's self image or self esteem than any other configuration. What matters is having a secure attachment to those caregivers.

Posted by: Jack Watt at November 10, 2008 06:39 AM (QFWNO)

25 esearch does not support the notion that somehow having a heterosexual male and female have any better effects on the child's self image or self esteem than any other configuration Did I say it was all about "self- esteem"? Excuse me, but some of the most evil people in history also have the highest levels of self-esteem. Unless you believe there is absolutely no differences between the sexes, then you are in denial about children being raised in a home where they have an intimate relationship with both someone of the same sex and THE OTHER. Also the security that comes from an intact, committed relationship with parents. I work the judiciary beat, you can look at everyone from gangbangers to career criminals and you'll find overwhelmingly males raised without dads. Society has a vested interest in publically sanctioning one man/one woman marriage ... WHILE NOT INTERFERRING in the private arrangements of any other configuration. Civil union, domestic partnership are excellent pieces of legislation. But marriage should not be redefined on a PC whim.

Posted by: Darleen at November 10, 2008 06:47 AM (Hto/+)

26 The volumes of scientific research simply do not back your point of view. The reason that so many gangbangers have father issues is because they suffer from rejection by their biological fathers, not the actual absence of a father. This rejection creates an insecure attachment which leads to hostility and violence--most especially aimed at female intimates. An article in the Journal of Family Violence 12 (2) 211-228 by Kesner, et al discusses this in depth. Your arguements a re fraught with unchecked emotionality (equating homosexuals with eveil), and you never consider transgendered people in any of your arguments. Your underlying reliogiosity is clouding your logical judgment. Perhaps you should go to the library and read some of the academic research articles on this subject for yourself before you start challenging their veracity.

Posted by: Jack Watt at November 10, 2008 07:36 AM (QFWNO)

27 Jan-- A lot of European countries have a system like that. The only marriage that counts in France is the "Marriage Civile", which you must get at the court house. A couple may or may not choose to get married in the church (in a country of unabashed athiests, this is often based on how nice your local church would look in wedding photos), but the priest has no authority. You are not married unless you have the marriage civile. If only our states would adopt a similar model. I'm no lawyer, but it seems that it would provide a more secure foundation for the eventual recognition and protection of same-sex "marriages civiles".

Posted by: Daphne Nugent aka "Manhattan Moosette" at November 10, 2008 08:14 AM (Of/27)

28 Daphne: That buttresses the argument Jennifer and I were making, also (about halfway up the thread). If the state would back off from the marriage business altogether, it would save a lot of grief over an issue that may well boil down to semantics.

Posted by: Attila Girl at November 10, 2008 01:04 PM (TpmQk)

29 The reason that so many gangbangers have father issues is because they suffer from rejection by their biological fathers, not the actual absence of a father. This is interesting, Jack. You're saying that the entire concept of role models/father figures is invalid? That's quite a dramatic statement. This rejection creates an insecure attachment which leads to hostility and violence--most especially aimed at female intimates. An article in the Journal of Family Violence 12 (2) 211-228 by Kesner, et al discusses this in depth. Your arguements a re fraught with unchecked emotionality (equating homosexuals with eveil), Jack--where does Darleen express unchecked "emotionality," or describe homosexuals as evil? Are we reading the same posts, here?--because I don't see that in her comments. and you never consider transgendered people in any of your arguments. If you are going to bring up transgendered people, perhaps the onus is upon you to tell us how they underscore (or not) your own point of view; I'm not sure why it is Darleen's responsibility to throw TSs and TVs into the mix. Dar? Any thoughts?--Do any of your clients at Juvie have TS/TV parents, to your knowledge? Jack--how statistically significant is gender dysphoria? I had thought it was relatively rare, and that the underlying biological reasons for it were better-known than those for homosexuality (which appears to be mostly genetic in males, but very often due to other factors in females)? Your underlying reliogiosity is clouding your logical judgment. Hm. I'm afraid I also missed that, Jack: where has Darleen made a faith-based argument? Perhaps you should go to the library and read some of the academic research articles on this subject for yourself before you start challenging their veracity. I'll leave it to Darleen to tell us whether she's challenged the "veracity" of any of your citations, Jack. But you have only given us one, if I've been following this thread properly. Do you have any links for this material? I'm sure that those who are following the conversation would be more likely to read these papers if they were published online. (Most of my readers have day jobs.)

Posted by: Attila Girl at November 10, 2008 03:15 PM (TpmQk)

30 Darleen never directly made a faith based argument but the underlying assumptions in her arguments belie a Judeo/Christian view of homosexuality. That is: homosexuality is a sin, and to sin one must choose to behave in a certain way, therefore homosexuality is a choice. She makes an inference that having higher self-esteem leads one to be evil, and by association (since I was saying that a child with loving caregivers of any sexual orientation has a better chance at higher self-esteem) that those raised by homosexuals would have unduly high self-esteem and therefore run a higher risk of being evil. As to the transgender issue. Prop 8 affects transgender people of all sexual orientations as the law considers our marriages “same-sex” regardless of what our actual sexual orientation is—in the case of Female to Male transgenders they still consider us female even after a hysterectomy and double mastectomy AND hormone treatments, until we have had phalloplasty (an operation that is crude at best and aesthetically horrific at worst, and an operation that most cannot afford nor do they necessarily want). The academic articles on the subject of homosexual parenting may or may not be available on the internet. They are, however, available at your local library through EBSCO host. The following are some articles on point: Clarke, V., Kitzinger, C., & Potter, J. (2004). Kids are just cruel anyway: Lesbian and gay parents’ talk about homophobic bullying. The British Journal of Social Psychology; December 2004, 43, ProQuest Psychology Journals. Crawford, I., McLeod, A., Zamboni, B.D., & Jordan, M.B., (1999). Psychologists’ Attitudes Toward Gay and Lesbian Parenting. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 30, 4. 394-401. Latham, H.F., (2005). Desperately Clinging to the Cleavers: What Family Law Courts Are Doing About Homosexual Parents, and What Some Are Refusing to See. Law & Psychology Review. Tuscaloosa, Spring 2005, Vol. 29. 223-242. Meyer, H. H., (2003). Prejudice, Social Stress, and Mental Health in Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Populations: Conceptual Issues and Research Evidence. Psychological Bulletin. 129.5, 674-697. Patterson, C.J. (2007). Lesbian & Gay Parents. Retrieved from: www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgplgparents.html on January 23, 2007. Rooney, S.C. (2002). Examining Redding’s (2001) Claims About Lesbian and Gay Parenting. American Psychologist. April 2002. www.womedia.org/taf_statistics.htm , That’s a Family! Statistics on US Families. Retrieved from the world wide web on January 23, 2007. And no, Darleen has not directly challenged the veracity of my citation only indirectly by reiterating her point of view which is contrary to the evidence presented therein. I hope that the preceding citations prove useful to the debate.

Posted by: Jack Watt at November 10, 2008 03:55 PM (QFWNO)

31 This will be my last post on this topic. For the record Darleen I have offered 8 citations in support of my opinion. You have offered none. You only offer your opinion as evidence in support of your opinion. But nevertheless I give up. And as far as the TS thing being a red herring? Not in my world as I AM a FTM TS so the passage pf prop8 directly impacts my ability to marry even though I am not a homosexual. So, although only approximately 2% of the population can be said to have gender dysphoria, 2% of 6 Billion is still a sizeable number of people. But as I said. I give up. Uncle.

Posted by: Jack Watt at November 11, 2008 01:14 PM (QFWNO)

32 Hey, Attila, take your time. I read your blog during working hours. Thing is, I understand how powerful sexual urges are. Oh, yes, I do. And I would never have the intestinal fortitude to become a monk or Catholic priest. The vow of chastity would be a killer, even if I could remain celibate. I admit I cannot understand gay men. Especially those who are attracted to the macho type of man. I understand the attraction of the tasteful-makeup-wearing, swishy, willowy-type body, androgynous, lean and soft - well, let's just say that I get completely. Strangely enough, I also get muscular women (as you know, Attila ). Although, not Madonna-type. I don't wanna dig up old history, but you hear Guy describing her as a piece of gristle? Jeez, I've heard of messy divorces, but that one gotta be close to pretty bad. Not to say that I'd ever actually bone anyone other than a (hopefully) fertile woman. Because I get them all too well too. Heh. But when you're as close to omnisexual as I am (and really, I suspect most guys are), freedom of choice can also mean freedom from choice.

Posted by: Gregory at November 12, 2008 12:09 AM (cjwF0)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

displays her ignorance of:

• the fact that human beings are omnivorous mammals, and it is in our nature to kill;

• the fact that the Commandment about killing that is part of the Judeo-Christian ethic refers to murder—not mere homicide;

• the fact that children are not as stupid as she imagines;

• what white people think. (Blacks are "killers"? You've got to be kidding. There are vicious people in every demographic, but black men and women of every race are pretty underrepresented among mass murderers; in each case, one has to resort to dictators to create any real balance-of-evil for murder. Serial killers in the West are white men, almost without exception. The history in this country is of black people as victims of white violence. In the past few decades there has been some of the reverse, but that is dwarfed by black-on-black crime.)

• Islamo-fascists glorify not just murder, but suicide, and teach their children from birth that these are both wonderful things, as long as Westerners and Jews are dying along with you, and in greater numbers.

I dunno, Walker: why not suggest that Obama really dumb down the English language in expressing what needs to happen to Bin Ladin? Why not have him use pig Latin? "I will hunt down Bin Ladin, and ill-kay him."

Via Memeorandum.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 03:19 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 233 words, total size 2 kb.

But she's kind of a nigger; had you noticed?

UPDATE:I'm sorry; it's just that forbidden fruit thing.

Coates argues in favor of keeping the embargo as a whites-only deal. That has the advantage of making it perfectly clear that no one is saying it with malicious intent.

The disadvantages: (1) it gives white people too much power: after all, if context doesn't matter at all, then you've just handed me the verbal equivalent of a machine gun by virtue of my paleness. Shouldn't I have to work a bit harder than that to really hurt someone's feelings? There's nothing particularly clever or original about the word "nigger." Why not simply laugh at me and expose my supposed full-auto for the harmless cigarette lighter that it is?

(2) Doesn't the "non-whites only" rule get us into some sticky weeds? Are Asians allowed to use the word? How about other ethnic groups that—while Caucasian—are often considered nonwhite, such as Indians from India, American Indians, and Latinos? How about Jews, who (after all) are considered nonwhite by those who subscribe to exotic neo-Nazi philosophies?

Is there an alternative for such people? How does "nonwhite person, please," sound?

And then there's that issue of whether it's cool for Quentin Tarantino to write the word down in a script with the intent that it be uttered aloud by Samuel L. Jackson. Okay, or not okay? Spike Lee says "wigger, no." But doesn't that put white writers in handcuffs, and give black ones a bit of an unfair advantage? Or is that part of what Spike Lee wants to do?

(3) We haven't agreed on a definition of "black," which we'll need in order for this system to work. My understanding is that if someone is half-black (e.g., Barack Obama, Tiger Woods), then he or she is still qualified to use the term. But how about people who are only a quarter black? A sixteenth? At a certain point, doesn't it become a crap shoot?—as a practical matter, isn't one's vocabulary, a fe generations down the line, determined strictly by the accident of genetics? If you look black enough, you're qualified to use the word. But if you don't, you aren't. This leads to the awkward situation of two siblings—one of whom is pale enough not to qualify, and one of whom is dark enough that he/she is permitted to say it. (Remember the era of slavery, and how some black people were able to "pass" as non-slaves, or as non-blacks? I hope they didn't utter the word "nigger" while spying for the other side. That would have been naughty of them.)

I'm not theorizing, by the way: my brother and I look like we are different ethnicities, and his two sons look like they are different ethnicities. I look like a typical pale Euro-girl, and my brother looks like he's Latino or American Indian or something like that. (It happens to be a mix that includes some of the latter [we're 1/164th Osage Indian], but might also include African ancestry, and/or Jewish ancestry; I don't know, and I don't care.)

The fact is, I look white, and my brother doesn't. My father suggested that because of his dark skin, the sibling should change his last name to Gonzales, and apply for a scholarship to college as a Hispanic. The bro declined.

And even though my maiden name is very unusual, there have been people in our childhood and in our adulthood who knew both of us, but whose minds it never crossed that we were related. One teacher of mine in junior high school was just shocked to hear it; she couldn't quite believe that I was related to that guy who was two years older than I was, was also bright, and had the same last name.

In adulthood, another friend ended up working for the same company as my brother—it's a large software company. I asked her via email if she knew him, and got a rather astonished response: yes, she did. Was I sure that he was really my brother? (He had been for decades. We grew up in the same house, with the same parents. We shared household jokes. And then, there was the photographic evidence. I was pretty sure.) Again: skin color trumped the fact that we had the same unusual name, and that she knew I had a brother working in the city she had ended up moving to.

Race is largely a construct, and an irrelevance.

And you can call me "bitch" anytime you like; I don't think it's an inaccurate term for me at all.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 09:17 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 775 words, total size 5 kb.

. . . on why black people should, as one of my African-American friends once put it, "stop picking cotton on the Democratic Party's plantation."

Posted by: Attila Girl at 11:17 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . if the whole thing weren't such a touchy subject. I'd like to see how the average multi-generation pro-American, Mexican-American family reacts to the Absolut ad.

If they are offended, I will be as well. As it is, the map is in questionable taste, but hardly a hanging offense (or a boycotting one, either: of course, we all know that I generally drink gin or whiskey; when I drink vodka, it's usually Stoli).

Posted by: Attila Girl at 11:01 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 85 words, total size 1 kb.

Yeah, well. The Greenwald Gang is at it again, quoting Old Punk at InstaPunk, and drawing a straight line between a post of his that uses the word nigger and . . . Instapundit. Reynolds isn't amused. (Well, actually—he is.)

The word nigger has so many different meanings it's difficult to unpack them all. And, to be fair, Old Punk got into some weird areas of fashion—like white kids don't wear baggy clothes to look cool? Tell that to my young white cousins.

For the most part, Old Punk's post leaves me just as cold as the people on my side of the aisle who "don't have any problem with immigrants, as long as they're legal," but never want to hear Spanish spoken in any public place, and are offended by the sight of grubby little taco stands polluting the public streets. If you show them a piñata, they need smelling salts.

That said, there is a use of the word nigger that is meant to describe "a person without class, morals or values." Where do you think the term white trash came from? It comes from the Jim Crow-era South, and it means, "someone with underclass values, but white skin." At least, it was used that way in every early 20th-century novel I ever read that was set south of the Mason-Dixon line. It meant "low-class," but in a way that went far beyond a person's means, and generally accused them of being low-class on the inside.

Now we use the term "trailer trash," so that we can take race out of it, and don't have to use the parallel, unwieldy—and highly offensive—terms niggers and white trash. Because there's no longer any logical association between race and trashiness, since blacks are no longer locked into low-income lives and deprived of upward mobility.

Of course, the new nomenclature isn't necessarily fair to people who live in prefabricated housing, but English is an imperfect language, and most people I know who live in trailer parks have a sense of humor about the negative associations therewith. They tell me it's really a "stationary coach" lifestyle, or explain that they only operate the meth labs on the weekends, so it's okay.

Anyway, I don't think I'm really white—Mayflower ancestry notwithstanding—because (1) I know I have some Creek Indian in me; (2) I suspect I have some Nez Perce as well; (3) some of my family is from the state of Virginia; (4) I have very full lips; and (5) my brother [and one of his sons] has very very dark skin, and fuzzy hair. Because people look at the skin color more closely than they do our features, they never suspect we're even related unless we tell them.

But, whatever. I'm pretty pale, so I identify with the Anglo-Saxon strain; it's the most convenient one to claim, given the way I look. Another friend of mine, who's also an English major white-looking chick, was talking with me about the Stuff White People Like site, and I told her that I know the intent is harmless, just as it was with The History of White People in America.—but to associate anything that's intellectual, or ironic, or upwardly mobile with white skin seems to me to be playing off of old stereotypes and going in the wrong direction. I see that it's probably funny sometimes—and to some people—but I don't like the conflation of "middle-class," or "upper-middle-class," with white. She responded:

I object as well, and perhaps more, to the use of "black" to signify cool, young/hip/urban, anti-corporate bullshit.... Specifically, white kids [students] who call each other (and, on at least one memorable occasion, me!) "my niggah."

Of course, once we acknowledge that any educated black person is equally likely to enjoy Starbucks and Sarah Silverman, and that any black person who lives in La Cañada or Santa Monica or Bel Air is culturally "white," then we're getting somewhere—provided that the term stops being an insult in the black community, and darker-skinned folks start allowing each other to wear cowboy boots and listen to Pink Floyd and do their homework without accusing each other of "acting white." At that point, maybe literary white chicks like my friend the composition teacher and I should be calling each other "mah niggah." Anything that blurs the lines and shows that culture and race are two different things (the first being relevant to who we are, and the second, irrelevant) should be applauded.

I'm pretty divorced from the celebrity culture, so I don't know about every case Old Punk mentioned, but I'm completely willing to specify that Jeremiah Wright, O.J. Simpson, and Louis Farrakhan are niggers. So were Jeffrey Dahmer and Joseph Stalin. Kim Jon Il is a nigger. Catherine Shelton appears to be a total nigger. Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka are niggers. Mary I of England? She was mondo-niggo.

But my friend and I? Just a couple of overread, middle-aged niggahz.

At this point, linguistically speaking, it's all in the spelling. In 20 years, though, one of my nephews is going to look at this post of mine and go, "Aunt Joy, what the fuck was it with people like you in the double-Os? Why were you on about race like that? Too much time on your hands? Geez."

Which is why instead of a "conversation," I'd like to see us eventually have a "national shut-up" about race. Not because I want us to censor ourselves, but because I hope we run out of things to say.

Just try not to be hating people. Not as individuals, and not as members of any group. Okay?

UPDATE: I'd forgotten about this; it may be the best Glenn Greenwald post of all time. I mean, the best one about him. I don't think it was by him, though of course one never can tell. Sometimes I wonder if the entire blogosphere other than me is simply an elaborate Greenwald prank. I mean, I know I exist, because I annoy my husband. But how about the others? How can I be sure they aren't all just extensions of Gleen(s)?

h/t: Clarice, in this thread at Just One Minute.

UPDATE 2: Ralph Robert Moore:

In addition to the N word, we also have the F word. In case you don't know, the F word is 'fuck'. If we're going to persist in the assignment of letters to disturbing words, then I do have a concern as a practical matter, since we only have 26 letters in the alphabet, and two of them are now taken. That means we only have 24 letters left to act as a code for the words we find objectionable in our modern society. As a service towards reserving the remaining alphabetical letters to the most deserving of bad words, I suggest the following:

The A word Asshole
The B word Bastard
The C word Cancer
The D word Dope
The E word Easy
The F word Fuck
The G word Gimp
The H word Hooker
The I word Idiot
The J word Jackass
The K word Kike
The L word Lez
The M word Moron
The N word Nigger
The O word Open sore
The P word Pisser-away-of-opportunities
The Q word Queer
The R word Retard
The S word Shithead
The T word Tits and Ass
The U word Urine-receiving prostrate individual
The V word Vain
The W word Weird
The X word Xenophobe
The Y word Young
The Z word Zoo-hanging-out-in practitioner of bestiality

Some of them need work.

I'm open to suggestions.

UPDATE 3: Still more here. I'm searching around, trying desperately to remember/find out which 20th-Century African-American female writer it was who also advocated repeating the word aloud, over and over—to young black kids, especially—simply so it wouldn't carry the same sting. But not by white people, presumably—jeez! It was in an interview I read in the early 1980s, and I cannot find it right now, for love or money or my search-engine Kung Fu.

In case people do not understand, I have no desire to make it respectable for white people to call black people niggers, but I do think it should be okay within the same race (whatever we're defining as "race" in 2008—same-ish, let's say). Black-on-black, white-on-white, Asian-on-Asian. And if a black person called me a nigger, I'm afraid I'd just hear niggah, and be flattered. Context is everything: I'd never say that word to a black person, because . . . why? That just sounds low and stupid.

Of course, if this were a black man calling me nigger in the "woman is the nigger of the world" sense, I'd assume he just wanted me to do the dishes or cook or whatever, and my abilities to do these things are remarkably . . . inconsistent. Fickle, even. The older I get, the more I forget how to do stuff like that. Isn't that weird? It's like I get amnesia, or something. By the time she died, my grandmother had "lost" all of her domestic skills. She couldn't cook. She couldn't clean. She couldn't drive (that one would kill me). But she seemed to have plenty of time for the things she wanted to do.

UPDATE 4: Apparently, whatever we are, Juliette just wants us to get the hell off of her lawn. I sympathize: I wouldn't want me on my lawn either . . .

I wonder if the B-sphere is fated to have the same fights over and over again over race and gender, and gender and race, and people named Glenda, and race car drivers, and Glendale and pace, and grenades and pax and sex and sociability and space and engendering Irish lace.

UPDATE 5: Yeah. Group hug time.

UPDATE 6: I'm starting to look at Old Punk with new respect. His latest post on the subject is remarkably sensitive and insightful, and he does, in fact, answer my charges about having brought The Fashions of the Young into this discussion: the fact is, a lot of young black people live life closer to the margins than my young cousins do, and when they act out in certain ways they genuinely can jeopardize their chances of employment in a small town. I hadn't thought of it in those terms, of course, since I've lived in cities most of my life.

And, goddamn; the man can write. As W.H. Auden once pointed out, that makes up for any number of sins. Furthermore, Old Guy can spell, which makes me swoon in and of itself.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 10:49 AM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 1763 words, total size 11 kb.

1 The n-word has meant black from the beginning, even before it took on its derogatory connotations. The Latin word "niger," the Spanish word "negro" (not to mention its English counterpart) and the country of Niger are not so called because they are populate dby white trash.

Posted by: Xrlq at March 23, 2008 12:44 PM (DI4j5)

2 Excellent post, LMA! Greenwald has truly gone over the edge of the world on this one. It is interesting to note that those on the left have absolutely no problem using insults like "rednecks" for those of us in the South. Sure, we call ourselves that, too, but, we do it in fun, they do it to be denigrating.

Posted by: William Teach at March 23, 2008 12:48 PM (NaHh8)

3 Having grown up in the South , I can honestly say that my parents only taught me two labels: Respectable and Not Respectable If you did something worthy of respect, you received it. If you did something of poor character, you were not respected. Undignified terms, epithets and slurs were not deemed as respectable, no matter the context. Your last statement sums it up for me.

Posted by: Conservative Belle at March 23, 2008 01:08 PM (/v6Id)

4 WELL! This black man is laugh his azz off at your post. Especially this line: But my friend and I? Just a couple of overread, middle-aged niggahz. PRICELESS. I see so many white kids calling each other "niggas" or "niggaz". It doesn't even shock me anymore. On the real, it actually makes me feel good that we are devaluing the word "nigger". Because the sooner we can dump the remnants of American slavery, the better we will all be.

Posted by: T-Steel at March 23, 2008 03:54 PM (YvBPe)

5 Excluding the Jewish stuff, tell me anything Sarah Silverman says that Kimmel's old time Man Show Boy didn't say / couldn't have said. Didn't Man Show Boy disappear just as Sarah went ascendant? Again, excluding the Jewish stuff, listen to Silverman with eyes closed and picture a horny, blunt spoken eleven-year-old boy. Once you do that you can't stop.

Posted by: Merc at March 23, 2008 04:58 PM (u3Lta)

6 Yeah, well. Lots of people contributed to the Man Show, other than Kimmel. Like, well: Adam Carolla, for one. And at least a dozen other comics/improv people I could name. Even my husband threw in a joke or two for those guys; we didn't watch TMS long enough to know whether they were actually used. I dunno: the difference for me, between Silverman and The Man Show is that I didn't love The Man Show the way I loved Jesus Is Magic. I'm also not sure that I can imagine Silverman without "the Jewish stuff." Isn't that like trying to imagine Woody Allen without "the Jewish stuff"? Furthermore, I'm having trouble imagining an 11-year-old boy coming up with this line: "so, I was licking jelly off my boyfriend's penis the other day, and the thought struck me--I'm turning into my mother!"

Posted by: Attila Girl at March 23, 2008 05:50 PM (Hgnbj)

7 T-Steel--that's why I try to use the word instead of doing that "n-word" thing. I mean, I understand that a lot of white people do that because they don't want to be accused of racism, even if they're talking about the word as a word. That's totally legitimate, but if I didn't use the word every now and then I'd feel like I was giving it power over me. And it's just a short distance between giving it power over me, and giving it power over black people that it should not have. Of course, I'm a female who isn't afraid of--or impressed by--the word "cunt." So what do I know? What I do not advocate is using it around little kids of either color, because little kids don't know context. I'd rather swear around a child than use that word without explaining why it's a word that only grownups can use. "No, no," I told my young nephew once. "'Fag' is not a swear word. It's what they call a slur. That's much worse."

Posted by: Attila Girl at March 23, 2008 06:04 PM (Hgnbj)

8 You know who I'm sick of?--those people whose second toes are longer than their big toes. Whassup with that?--I don't care if the Romans thought it was "Patrician." It looks funny. One's big toe should also be the longest toe on one's foot. Oh, wait [looks at feet]. Never mind. Well, I'm tired of short chicks with honey-colored hair who talk too damned much! There. I said it.

Posted by: Attila Girl at March 23, 2008 06:41 PM (Hgnbj)

9 I am a witness to this. Okay, say you went to the zoo and they had 4 rhinosarous 2 were white and 2 were black. you notice that the 2 black were at one end and the 2 white were at the other end. would you call either of them racists? and which two would you call the racists? I would be willing to bet you would have to say the black rhinos are the racists. Right? Ok I was just having a little fun. Of course the white rhinos are racist.

Posted by: hogtrashhd at March 23, 2008 08:04 PM (AI7hJ)

10 Yeah, whatev. If it'll help, I'll specify that 95-99% of prison inmates either are racist, or have to do a good job of acting as such in order to survive. Though I know someone who had been incarcerated who informed me that where he was, the Christian table was integrated. However: they still did have to fight and stand up for their own--just to earn the right to be left alone by the rest of the population.

Posted by: Attila Girl at March 23, 2008 08:42 PM (Hgnbj)

11 As much as I like being quoted (!), and as much as I think you're incredibly bright and engaged and committed to exploring questions of race with the best of intentions, I'm not sure you (or we, or white folks in general) can deracinate the word "nigger" and make it apply as much to a white person as to a black person, even stipulating that it's a bad white person like Jeffrey Dahmer and that good people of any race are not included in the term. Since the term has historically (and in my Richmond grandparents' home) been applied to black people regardless of their behavior, to try to add elements like character and behavior to the definition while subtracting color seems like too large a project. Then again, when Zora Neale Hurston tells the story of being told by a white mentor not to "be a nigger," her take on the incident seems positive: she is recounting an anecdote during which she received useful advice that helped guide her into becoming an incredibly bright, self-possessed, and successful black woman. I can't tell Hurston how to use the word, or how to feel about hearing it used. All I know is, I can't use it, can't reclaim it to mean young or hip, can't ask people to understand that I mean bad people of any race. I was once having a conversation about Huck Finn and the use of the word nigger in the book. I used the word out loud... just as a black woman walked by. She couldn't know my intent or the context, couldn't know I'm not a racist, just an academic with bad timing and bad vision. I've never used it since. So, as much as I love the sentiment behind calling us "overread middle-aged (?) niggahz," I think I druther we go by some other title instead. ....

Posted by: Rin at March 23, 2008 09:10 PM (pzH6j)

12 How about "nappy-headed homegirl"? I think the fact that you've heard the word used in a truly prejudicial way (and not by people who were exploiting its shock value, BTW) gives the word a truly different gloss for you, so I respect your decision there. But I live for the day when a woman who walks by an academic and overhears that word reacts the way she might to overhearing the word fuck, and thinks nothing or all, or merely a semi-conscious sort of "hm; must be a joke or a literary allusion I didn't catch".

Posted by: Attila Girl at March 23, 2008 09:46 PM (Hgnbj)

13 This is some of the most incoherent shit I've ever read. A bunch of white people complaining that they can't say the 'n-word' in polite conversation. Is that the gist of it?

Posted by: Levi at March 23, 2008 10:08 PM (NpISY)

14 Nope. But thank you for trying! Which "n-word" was that, by the way? Nepotism? Necrophilia? Neapolitan? Needy? Nitwit? Network? NotNow?

Posted by: Attila Girl at March 23, 2008 10:37 PM (Hgnbj)

15 I wonder if the B-sphere is fated to have the same fights over and over again over race and gender, and gender and race, and people named Glenda, and race car drivers, and Glendale and pace, and grenades and pax and sex and sociability and space and engendering Irish lace. Duh. I've seen it in Usenet groups. I've also seen it in Real Life, in a science meeting. It was an ocean interface observing program, so there where oceanographers as well as meteorologists. For the better part of two days they argued over the same policy positions again and again. It became abundantly obvious each position had its adherents, and no one was going to back down and give in. And to a large extent, they where busy talking past each other.

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at March 24, 2008 05:42 AM (1hM1d)

16 Of course I agree, it would be great if the word lost its hurtful power and, when overheard, meant only that Huck Finn was under discussion. I don't think we can get there by willing the word to mean something different, though, or by declaring redefinition by fiat. Rather, I think we need to change the realities of race, as lived in America, so that such words can eventually fade away into abstractions. Oh, and if you want to call me a Necrophiliac or a Nitwit, feel free! I'll be your nappy necrophiliac, or your natty nitwit, or your gnarly gnu, any day of the week.

Posted by: Rin at March 24, 2008 06:10 AM (pzH6j)

17 Heh. Actually, the "get off my lawn" comment was to characterize Instapunk's post, which was supposed to come off as provocative but struck me as mere crotchety old man ravings. It also made me miss my flawed and beloved Acidman, as you can tell.

Posted by: baldilocks at March 24, 2008 06:33 AM (OZsH1)

18 Yeah, I figured. But I couldn't read Acidman. I just couldn't get past the way he wrote about women and black people. I know some people loved him--but I could never hang around long enough to see the sweet side everyone swore existed. I simply couldn't tolerate . . . well. His use of the n-word. From what I hear, it was my loss.

Posted by: Attila Girl at March 24, 2008 06:43 AM (Hgnbj)

19 That's where forgiveness comes in. Plus I had been reading his stuff every day since early 2003. I could see where a person who only read intermittently would just say "forget this knuclehead." I guess Obama would say the same about Uncle Jeremiah, however, Rob wasn't my pastor.

Posted by: baldilocks at March 24, 2008 08:50 AM (OZsH1)

20 Yikes. Need more coffee.

Posted by: baldilocks at March 24, 2008 08:51 AM (OZsH1)

21 There's this to toss into the mix.

Posted by: Desert Cat at March 24, 2008 12:36 PM (B2X7i)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Unbelievable.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 03:33 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 11 words, total size 1 kb.

Maybe. Or perhaps, as usual, people still use "white" as a sort of signifier for "middle class." Now that's irony.

Joyner cops to being white—though not on all stereotypical fronts—and Sandra Tsing Loh referred to herself recently in The Atlantic as "whitish." (The phrase appears in her review of Letters to a Young Teacher, by Jonathan Kozol—it isn't online yet; "Tales Out of School, page 91. Her auto-libel is on page 98.) That one worried me. Isn't she actually equally "Asianish"? Or are we getting into Tiger Woods country, here?

Paging Jeff Goldstein . . .

Posted by: Attila Girl at 10:25 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 110 words, total size 1 kb.

And as polysyllabic as ever. Today's subject: is race real? Not very, of course.

To many contemporary social scientists and race theorists, the idea that “race” is something essential — that “blood” differences determine racial identity — is too close to the kind of thinking that has historically justified (and legally codified) separatism and, its civic offshoot, race-based social policy, bigotry, and racism. Which is why many theorists have worked so diligently to disarticulate race from blood, and reconstitute it as a product of human conception — a social construct — a maneuver that they believe allows them to rescue the category of race while simultaneously cleansing it of its least desirable attribute: the idea that it is somehow fixed and, by extension, determinative.

For my part, I’ve argued that the social construction argument for race — based as it is on dubious claims to history, memory, and heritage that collapse under the weight of logical analysis — is, at its heart, no different from the blood argument for race, in that both rely on an identical first cause, namely, an a priori belief in what one is.

That's the problem.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 07:29 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 195 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . who may or may not be African-American. It never seemed like a pressing priority to enquire in our first few months of working together, but now that we've put out most of the urgent fires, I'm starting to get curious.

Of course, one musn't go up to another person and say, "I know we've been working together for over a year . . . but I never got around to asking you if you're Black. Whaddya think? Happen to know, offhand?"

I believe part of my interest in race stems from my own mixed heritage. Most of my family members laugh at me when I claim to be Osage Indian (to the tune of 1/164 or whatever it is), but if I didn't have that ancestry, my brother might look like he's related to me: as it is, we appear to be of completely different ethnicities. Teachers never believed me when I explained that the Good Student with the Dark Skin was my brother. Some of them had to be revived with smelling salts.

When we were teenagers, my father—ever the "travelling salesman" type—recommended that my brother change his last name to Garcia, and attempt to get a college scholarship based on that faux-ethnicity. At the time, I had a good laugh, but if The Older Sibling had listened to that outrageous advice, he might not have been rejected from Harvard.

Of course, Baldilocks once hypothesized that a lot of us ultra-pale Anglo-ish Americans who can trace our ancestry back to the Mayflower (yes, it's true: I could join the DAR, if I wanted) may have Africans in our lineage.

There is, after all, the matter of my lips, which are rather full for someone as pale as I. And: my brother's mysterious, hyper-hyper-curly, kinky hair. He got that, by the way, via our very racist (and very blonde) grandfather. Hm. The plot thickens.

With any luck, my employee and I are very distant cousins—and both of us are related to the great Frederick Douglass.

It's unlikely that I'll ever get around to asking. The fact is, I tend to see actual race as a fairly arbitrary thing. And for my money, very few people have been pure-blooded anything for at least 100 years: the Nazis were simply too late.

As was Professor Fractal, who proclaimed in the 1980s that "the races should all be mixed. And I want to do that personally."

I've been meaning to tell his wife about that, of course . . . it's so unlike him, really. But he did say it.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 01:45 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 438 words, total size 2 kb.

I don't buy it. I agree with the commenter who remarked on the notion's racist overtones: associating high levels of education (even the supposedly narrow educations that nerds supposedly enjoy) with whiteness is simply another excuse to accuse those who actually want to read/study of "acting white."

Of course, one could point out the fact that Asians aren't usually considered "white" or "European-American," but that would be too freakin' easy.

Me? I think race is pretty much a cultural construct: very few people are purebred anything any more, so I wish we could stop spotlighting race in some of the very silly ways that we presently do.

But then, I'm a [classical] liberal.

Via Insty.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 04:20 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 120 words, total size 1 kb.

Senator Byrd's Grand Kleagle hood finally got in a good line in a discussion with Jeff Goldstein on the anniversary of the State of Virginia v. Loving Supreme Court decision, which legalized interracial marriage:

me: “ . . . . The decision was hailed by certain overly-optimistic civil rights advocates of the time as a way toward physical integration of the races—the idea being that the commingling of ‘bloods’ would make the idea of racial distinctions hopelessly antiquated, and that as a result, social and policy considerations determined on the basis of race would eventually peter out of their own irrelevance . . ."

hood:

me:“—that is, until the academic left began its campaign to save the distinctions by way of the feel-good ‘celebrating the differences’ imperative. Which, as a part of an identity politics paradigm made manifest in the social and political philosophy of multiculturalism, has done its best to keep alive the separate but equal spirit of Jim Crow—dividing the country up into competing and often hostile identity blocs whose self-segregating practices, born of a move away from assimilation and nationalism, do very little to honor the memory of [the] Loving [decision]."

hood:

me: “In fact, if anything, such identity politics as are now practiced and exulted as ‘enlightened’ by many on the left—and by the progressive wing of the Democratic party—are really nothing more than the culturally sanctioned stoking of racial grievances. It has, in effect, saved segregation by renaming it and taking it away from the racist state, where the Constitution could not allow it to survive—except in instances where a benevolent government has granted itself the right to dole out permission for discriminatory practices under the ‘ameliorative’ guise of race-based affirmative action.”

hood:

me: “So I guess you’ve got that going for you . . . ”

hood: “Yeah, we’re pretty proud of that one, I must admit. And the best part? We’ve trained a whole new generation of liberals to actually defend the practices."

me:

hood: “—which, I bet your people didnÂ’t see that one coming while they were marching alongside the darkies and singing ‘we will overcome,Â’ did they, Jewboy?"

Well. I'll bet they didn't. Nor did my parents and my three non-racist grandparents, for that matter.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 05:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 385 words, total size 3 kb.

On Pit Bulls and Profiling.

The segment about dogs is reassuring, given that my mother owns a pit; the material about profiling humans is provocative. I think a few of my readers will find it especially challenging.

Pour a fresh cup of coffee, read the whole thing, and let me know what you think.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 10:53 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 58 words, total size 1 kb.

Debbie Schussel is a good spokesperson for the stupid, racist Islamophobe right-wing fringe, so she makes a good museum piece—a sort of monument to idiocy, as her post on Barack Obama demonstrates.

Juliette says what needs to be said about that line of "thinking," and does a beautiful job of it.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 09:18 AM | Comments (36) | Add Comment
Post contains 55 words, total size 1 kb.

It looks like it.

Thanks, Glenn.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 02:54 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.

Life's short.

Nigger.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 08:24 AM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 11 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . what are the implications of my working so near the La Brea Tar Pits in Los Angeles? Is that, like, a ghetto for saber-toothed tigers?

Cal Tech Girl is starting to get irritated, as anyone who owns a dictionary in this day and age must.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 10:52 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 64 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . that Boner of Zion is a self-hating Jew? Just askin'.

The extra IQ points and inch of penis . . . are nice, but overall—meh.

No freakin' ethnic pride.

Circa 1955, one of my mother's college-era boyfriends pointed out that she was "too smart not to be Jewish." She was flattered at the time, but the first time I heard about this I was OUTRAGED!*

Now I think it's freakin' hilarious.

* Has Goldstein copyrighted this? I should check.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 09:36 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 88 words, total size 1 kb.