If someone used the phrase “girlie men,” what comes to mind? Physical weakness, certainly. You might think of the recurring “Saturday Night Live” skit which used that phrase.
But if you’re a California Democrat, you think this is the equivalent of calling someone gay. Governor Schwarzenegger called Democrats blocking the state budget “girlie men” because they are being used as supine tools of special interest groups. I can’t say for certain if that charge is true — I suspect it is, since the governor singled out “unions and trial lawyers” as the special interests behind the obstruction, and the Democratic Party gets most of its money from those two groups. I do know that it’s kinda funny, and that one shouldn’t go ballistic over a little joke, even if you think it’s unfair.
Unless you want to tag a political opponent as a thought criminal, that is. Does it fascinate you that when the Democrats in that article hear “girlie men,” they hear “fags”? Doesn’t this remind you of the famous “Seinfeld” episode where other people think George and Jerry are gay, and they violently deny it, but then quickly add “not that there’s anything wrong with that”?
I mean, if the Dems think “girlie men” is a code word for “homosexuals,” how can they possibly think that’s insulting, unless you think calling someone a homosexual is an insult? If the New York Times and “Queer Eye” have taught us anything, it’s that the gay lifestyle is the epitome, the apotheosis of all that is good and right in the modern world. Isn’t calling someone “gay” like saying they are cultured, well-dressed, and worthy of our utmost respect and admiration?
You may say, as State Sen. Sheila Kuehl (D-Neptune) said, that the governor used “an image that is associated with gay men in an insulting way, and it was supposed to be an insult.” Effeminate men are associated with homosexuality, and so if you call someone effeminate, you automatically are calling them gay. How does that follow? The CIA used to reject homosexuals because they thought gays were a national security risk; does that mean if you call someone a national security risk, you’re calling them gay?
The term “homophobic,” like “racist,” has ceased to have any meaningful content. It’s just a word like “idiot,” used as an insult rather than a descriptive term.
13 comments
Comments are closed.
Time to light up a “fag”….the word police are at it again!
“homophobic” never had any meaningful content: it’s an attempt to pretend that opposition to the “gay-rights” agenda is irrational.
Until yesterday, many homosexuals in California describes Schwarzenegger as “dreamy”
What’s so odd about this entire controversy is that the phrase “girlie man” is so well known to be a joke from the Saturday Night Live Skit, as Eric noted. It’s actually self-deprecating, too, because the characters Hans and Frans were so visibly silly.
The state Assembly Speaker whose poor daughter was apparently offended could easily explain this to her, that the governor was making a joke.
This is another controversy about nothing.
Eric, I have to admit that you are adept at avoiding the real issue, which is why the very unfaithful Catholic Republican governor of California couldn’t refrain from calling other politicians who don’t agree with his over-the-top budget “girlie men.”
Since you’re so adept at it, I thought I’d put it back into perspective for everyone.
(But yeah, Arnold all the way! Let’s get those pro-abort politicians elected! Hoorah!)
Nathan, I had no idea that the “real issue” was the California budget, about which I am almost wholly ignorant and have nothing to contribute. Other than referring to the governor’s comment as “kinda funny,” I don’t know how my post could possibly be interpreted as cheerleading.
The focus of my post was the Dems’ strange, irreconcilable view of homosexuality. Had the topic been the governor’s fidelity to his Catholic faith, the post would have been different.
One of the many unforgivable things the homosexualists have done, and this furor is further proof of it, is that they’ve killed the sissy as a comic type.
I saw an episode of What’s My Line recently, and Tony Randall was one of the panelists. I noticed he wore a wedding band, and when he died within the next day or two, the obits noted that he had been married to the same woman for 50 years, and after just a couple of years of 90s singlehood (i.e., at a time and personal age where there was no reason to marry for appearance’s sake) married a woman young enough to be his daughter.
So Randall was as straight as an arrow. But he was best known for playing in musicals and comedies as an overcultured fussbudget, a best buddy, an overbearing priss — i.e., in roles that today are winked at as subtextually gay at best or written as explicitly gay at worst.
And don’t get me started on the “queering” of Laurel & Hardy, Felix & Oscar, Riggs & Murtaugh, or what “gay marriage” would do to the ending of SOME LIKE IT HOT.
To Beregond and Victor — Gov. Schwarzenegger gave up the chance to be a comic actor when he become the governor of California. He has no business making “jokes” like this about his fellow California politicians.
Um … no.
Politicians have as much right to make jokes as any of us. One of many things sapping political discourse of spontaneity, wit and charm (replaced by the pre-programmed manufactured ersatzes of these things), and thus driving out many potentially dynamic leaders, is the insistence by the terminally-earnest, the deliberately-easily-offended and the hair-shirt brigade that politicians always be super sincere.
Nathan, when did you have your sense of humor amputated? Is there any chance you can get a transplant?
If this were Kerry, you guys would not find this amusing, and you know it. It’s a Democrat vs. Republican issue, as usual. Are you sure you don’t want to rename the blog Republican Light?
And I still have a sense of humor, I just didn’t find this particular “joke” funny. I thought Gov. Schwarzenegger came across as an immature little brat. And I’m not joking.
Nathan:
“Tu quoque” is the last resort of a man with no point.
First of all, what I am (and I think Eric is) calling ridiculous is the claim that Schwarzenegger somehow shouldn’t be making jokes at all. Or to put it another way, because “he become the governor of California … he has no business making ‘jokes’ like this.”
That’s a completely separate issue from what you’re saying now about whether a particular joke is funny (although plenty of people seemed to think “girly man” was funny enough when it was Dana Carvey and Kevin Nealon). Jokes can fall flat and one is entitled to one’s opinions, but a failed joke is not a moral failure. Plus, plenty of writers and political pundits have made fun of Ah-nuld, his movies, his accent and whatnot for his whole public life, including his political career. It can’t be inherently unfunnier for Schwarzenegger himself to get in on the fun (in fact, self-deprecating humor, jokes at the expense of one’s own public image, is often the funniest).
Second of all, I for one would love to see Kerry try to tell a comparably self-deprecating joke, do it on-camera, spontaneously, for the record. The only example I can quickly recall of Kerry humor efforts was so different in all the particulars reported here — joke is at Bush’s expense, told off the record, campaign refuses to confirm or deny. It should be obvious from my previous note that I decry the loss of spontaneity and real-ness per se, in favor of packaged politicians.
I can recall lots of examples of widely praised self-deprecating humor from non-Republicans — James Stockdale saying “who am I, why am I here” in the 92 veep debate; Gore making fun of his wooden-ness (I forget the forum, but he once stayed perfectly still for 5 seconds and said it was “Al Gore doing the Macarena”); Al Sharpton is widely liked among the press who cover him because he always speaks his mind and has a flair for a funny quote.