In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

An Honest Question

Lauren

I’ve noticed the numbers of conservative and libertarian readership are significantly up on Feministe, and I’m generally curious why. It is because conservative and libertarian blogs have pushed you our way, did you find us on your own, is there something perversely attractive to you about our blog, or is it something else altogether?

Civil comments appreciated below.

70 thoughts on An Honest Question

  1. We’re plotting against you. The goal: to lower Jill’s self esteem to the point where she will sleep with Goldstein, thus letting him win the “Bag A Feminist” contest we run each year. He was getting nowhere on his own, which, duh, so around September we took pity on him and decided to come help him out. The deadline’s Christmas – the man needs all the assist he can get.

    OK, that’s the REAL reason. But for me, at least, the cover reason is that I would rather have a discussion with people I disagree with, than one with people that I do agree with. I go to the Denver blogger bash twice a year, and have a great time arguing minute points with people who are in broad agreement with me (and sometimes we have savage arguments over what, to an outsider, would be trivial points). But that gets old if that’s all you do. Without stimulation, the brain dies. The best stimulation is finding someone who is analytically and rhetorically competent to challenge your beliefs, and to make you think about them.

    I occasionally hang out at other lefty blogs, but the “competent” part is often problematic. I can go argue at Pandagon …for about one post, before the name-calling and childishness starts. What’s the point? There’s nothing wrong with a circle-jerk blog, but I don’t particularly care to get all sticky as the pornographic emblem that activates peoples’ emotional field in the middle of the circle. I’d rather have a conversation – perhaps a spirited and argumentative conversation, but a two-way exchange. Another lefty blog which shALl remain nAmelesS, where I’ve put in some good times used to have that atmosphere of rhetorical competence but it has degenerated, with the addition of new, particularly childish, bloggers and the founding member’s encroaching day job reducing his contribution to the community substantially.

    Feministe is a very smart, very rhetorically competent blog. Y’all don’t post about the Rethuglican takeover of Amerikkka – you write about gender issues and politics from an adult point of view. You have a few idiotarian commenters, but not too many – astonishingly sparse, actually, for such a lefty blog; I’d guess that the non-emphasis on five-year-old rhetoric makes it seem unappealing to them, but very refreshing to others. Fun to be a part of, even (especially) in the role of black-caped nemesis and devil’s advocate. And so that’s why I hang around here (that, and ‘cos Lauren is hot) – I suspect it’s similar for other conservative types who make appearances.

    Except for Goldstein. It’s all about nailing Jill for Goldstein. We told him to start with Amanda, but he insisted he could do it. Fool.

  2. Found you a few weeks ago through Hubris. Paid several return visits via Goldstein. Was intrigued by the low shrillness quotient, impressed with the relative lack of dogmatism. (Less so re: Jill’s posts.) Realized that finding these qualities in a feminist website is like finding a unicorn. Added you to my RSS folder. Read you now every day, if only to find out what the other side is saying. Would read some of the big lefty bloggers like Kos instead, but can’t bring myself to do it on account of the fact that Kos is a piece of shit.

    Exchanged e-mails with Goldstein recently in which, apropos of nothing, he predicted that you’ll eventually become a (left-leaning) libertarian. I concurred. Expectations are high; don’t let us down.

  4. Adrienne, I don’t think so either (I don’t think feminism is incongruent with many unexpected ideologies), but I’m troubled by what I’ve read of Libertarian Feminism, aka iFeminism.

  5. I should probably amend my questiont to specify those who are generally hostile to what they consider identity politics and/or would not generally call themselves feminist in nature.

  6. In my opinion, the libtertarian tenet of individual rights fits with the feminist idea of eradicating gender philosophy.

    I don’t think the pursuit of individualism is possible in a world with gender and racial inequalities. How is an individual an individual if she is seen only as female? One must be an individual before he or she can exercise individual rights. For this reason, it seems to me that individualists should promote the acceleration of racial and gender equality.

  7. I typoed twice in that first sentence (late at night, studying calculus, my apologies): In my opinion, the libertarian tenet of individual rights fits with the feminist idea of eradicating gender inequalities.

  8. Everyone has some Libertarian inside of them (admittedly to varying degrees). Thus, I can usually find common ground with most anyone. Now that doesn’t necessarily mean I agree with a certain individual’s perspective on an issue, but I suppose it helps me because I gain an understanding on whysomeone may believe or act the way they do.

    Besides, I get tired of blogs where every member agrees not to disagree. And if you don’t want to play ball, you’re labeled a troll and are exiled with the quickness. The forums that are the most enjoyable are the ones in which a diversity of members are allowed to co-exist. I belong to rigidly conservative blog that has allowed a couple Frenchmen to hang around. These guys are 100% EU, anti-war, pro-national healthcare, borderline socialist, diehard liberals. Yes, they get slammed, but their debates go on without the name-calling and censorship (for the most part).

    I was arguing with one them over Second Amendment issues, and he comes at me with this: ” Why are those guys [gun owners]trying to do the police job? Why don’t they trust your police? Don’t you have the most efficient army and police in the world ?? This picture is a bit frightening, it looks like there are a huge amount of crimes in USA. In EU we don’t need guns to feel safe , because we know that nobody is gonna have guns to attack us. And if a rober comes : We don’t care, we’ll be refunded by insurance compagnies ! And EU robers don’t have guns. I don’t see why we would need to shoot at them ! To protect what ? They rob only insurance companies, they don’t rob us. Realy, this picture is frightening. It makes me think America is dangerous place to live.”

    Amazing, isn’t it? I can honestly say that I’ve never met anyone in America who thinks like that. Why, come in and take everything I own! Hell, you’re not robbing me, you’re robbing my insurance company!”

    This illustrates why I belong to a number of forums that range from the far left to the far right. It’s the same reason I welcome people who subscribe to differing political ideologies. I honestly want to know why you think the way you do and what caused you to be that way? Your upbringing? Your school? Your church? Your asshole boyfriend who left as soon as he found out about the pregnancy? What was it?

    If we can carry on a discussion (or even a disagreement) and remain calm for the sake of civility, then that’s when the enjoyment of blogging really starts.

  9. Adrienne, I’m impressed with your insight. Too many libertarians insist that their own free-will choice to refuse to acknowledge racial or gender issues will make them go away.

    What I’d really like to hear from is a genuine conservative feminist. I’m sure there are some out there.

  10. I’m closer to being a libertarian than anything else, and I dislike identity politics in a big way. I followed a link to this blog one day and kept coming back because I enjoy reading it even if I don’t agree with what’s said. It’s probably the first feminist site I’ve been to where I didn’t feel like I just walked into a chapter of The Women’s Room.

  12. What I’d really like to hear from is a genuine conservative feminist. I’m sure there are some out there.

    I don’t know that I count as “genuine conservative,” although if you take the big-tent view of conservatism, or at least Republicans, I guess I’m genuine in the same sense any other pro-choice, pro-SSM/civil unions Republican, a la Guiliani, is. Politically I’m probably closer to Adrienne, though, than to Kathryn Jean Lopez.

    If you want a socially-conservative feminist, Beth at My Vast Rightwing Conspiracy is probably a better fit.

    But to stick to the topic and answer Lauren’s question: I read this blog primarily for coverage of domestic and, yeah, so-called “women’s issues.” I’m simply not going to find as much of that on a right-of-center blog, and I need more than just the war news, the Supreme Court coverage, etc. What I like about feministe is that its content is actually fairly broad-spectrum, as some of these new readers are just finding out.

    That’s why I’ve been reading it for a couple of years now–which is why this question really wasn’t for me and I probably shouldn’t have answered it.

  13. I’ve followed Jill’s blogging since we were both writing for the Washington Square News. In fact, if I might be so bold, I think I can say that it was my (now-defunct) blog that partially inspired her to start Third Wave Agenda. She has definitely taken her blogging to far greater heights than I ever have, though. Anyways, I enjoy the conversation and debate here.

  14. Aye on Allah’s points. I’m fiscally conservative and more socially liberal, but in the sphere, one must unfortunately pick a side of the dichotomy…and since the conservative outweighs the liberal portion of me, well, you see what I’m saying…

    At any rate, I read this blog because it contains patterns of logic and rationale, rather than the more typical patterns of blame and a sense of entitlement that I find on other leftist blogs. Carry on.

  15. Wait, Adrienne, I’m also a libertarian and a feminist. Holy crap. We’re replicating.

    Lauren, I’ve been reading you for a long time now because I like the mish-mash of topics you cover on your blog, from music to feminism to, well, anything. Plus, your blog is purdy.

  18. I’m conservative on a lot of issues, but moderately liberal/centrist on others. Thus sometimes I agree, and sometimes I don’t. for instance, I’m not a big fan of the extreme, anti-contraception/gender-polarization fringes of the right, so I come here to agree with what the ladies here post on those issues. And even when I don’t agree, they are good at keeping things civil.

    I also think this is one of the most moderate-feminist blogs I’ve seen that actually explores both sides of an issue. For instance, when the whole Yale controversy came out, these two were the first I read to come out in support of stay-at-home parenting as a personal choice, and one that more employers and policies should support. too many other blogs got hopping mad that women would make such a “Stepford choice,” and generally sounded like something out of 1972.

    And that’s just one example.

    So all in all, I feel that being a political blend myself, both my liberal and conservative sides feel more in agreement here than at other blogs.

    All that being said..I did just start posting here again about a week ago, after a good 4-month (I think) hiatus, so… 🙂

  19. being neither libertarian or conservative, i comment rarely perhaps because i generally agree with your points of view. i appreciate your readers who comment and intelligently disagree as much as i appreciate your posts, because they bring refreshing perspective. it provides a kind of discourse that is difficult to find.

  20. I started checking you out because I was impressed by your abilities on Protein Wisdom. I disagreed with your position, but you took on a tough crowd and performed very well. The fact that you asked this question in such a civil and honestly curious manner speaks volumes. The vast majority of leftist/feminist type sites would be bemoaning the invasion of neo-thug trolls.^^

    And by the way, you are starting to swing me to your side on the gay-marriage issue. So it does pay to be civil and reasonable.

  21. Maybe the conservatives here think of me when they say “idiotarian”, but I’m about 60% liberal and 40% conservative (conservative Democrat), so I don’t consider myself a lefty. I come to this site because you don’t require e-mail registration (I’m too lazy and paranoid to do any of that) but you don’t get as wacky as some of the haloscan sites, the conversation here is as thought-provoking and grown-up as the sites that do require registration.

  22. Kate, I think falling somewhere in the middle is a perfectly reasonable position–it’s a thinking person’s position. Too bad our society is so polarized at the moment that it feels like you have to pick one or the other. As a right-leaning centrist, I’d be a commie at ProtestWarrior, anti-values at Dawn Eden, but a wingnut at the Democratic Underground. In other words I’m a case! 🙂

  24. I realize this thread is mainly directed to conservative/libertarian readers of this blog, but I thought I would chime in and say why I, as a way-back former conservatarian now turned left-liberal, come here. If you’ll indulge me.

    Granted, I do find comfort in that the bloggers on this site have views that are, more or less, congruent with my own, but I could go to a lot of other sites for that. I find the exploration of feminist and gender issues here very constructive and instructional. I could go to Feministing more often, I suppose, because I do think they do good work there on the whole, but there’s warmth and humor here than I think Feministing sometimes lacks. You and Jill expect respect – rightly so – but don’t take yourselves too seriously, either.

  25. Marian – you know what’s funny? I saw an argument at themoderatevoice.com (IIRC) where a right-winger said that “moderate” is codeword for liberal and an argument at dailykos.com where a left-winger said that “centrist”=conservative.
    I think the center has moved really far right in the past ten years. For anyone who’s interested, I wholeheartedly recommend “The Freshmen” (Killian) and “Storming the Gates” (Brownstein), which are about the Republican Revolution of 1994. I’m open to *civil* discourse.

  28. I started reading when only Laren posted:
    I have read your blog since I started and would probably be classified as a left libertarian occording some of the political test that I have taken for fun, but generally abhor labeling. Even the label of feministe is prone to the semantics used by each individual.

    I enjoy the sensibility and the wisdom in the way you write, at first I thought you were a woman in her 50s with a libertarian streak

    I still enjoy the blog, and all though I do not agree with everything Laren and Jeill post, it is enlightening to read both.

  30. I came here from a snit with Andrea Harris – and kicked myself for having been so previously wary of the “Feministe” label. Tons of very funny – and often serious at the same time – commenters, and I think I’ve shifted from knee-jerk impatience with “identity politics”. Possibly.
    Also, endorse Marksman (at #8) above.
    Generally consider myself a Giuliani feminist, if pushed. But as a transplanted Brit mongrel, I’m aware I might have a slightly mangled notion of what I think this means!

  31. I’m libertarian, feminist, progressive, communist, telekinetic, anarcho-syndicalist, post-punk, and highly allergic to peanuts (“If I eat one, I could die!”). That’s the royal flush of commentariat personality traits.

  33. Chuck – I’m not a fan of swearing, but I’m not too picky about it. By “civil” I mean no personal insults, no snide comments, no derogatory labels. Once I made an unwise, overly broad statement and got pilloried as a hypocrite before I could even explain myself. I hate to beat this one to death, but when there was a blog entry about a theory that more secular countries have lower rates of crime, STDs, and then a poster said it’s about income and added rather nastily that pro-life religious people probably have fewer STDs and donate to charity more than secular liberals of the same income level – which was, in my view, subjective, self-righteous and unecessary. Or, personally, I dislike “pro-abortion”/”anti-life” and “anti-choice” because they are loaded, deceptive political terms used by, respectively, groups that oppose abortion rights and groups that support them.

    Civil discourse – just talking about ideas, no spin.

  34. Amazing, isn’t it? I can honestly say that I’ve never met anyone in America who thinks like that. Why, come in and take everything I own! Hell, you’re not robbing me, you’re robbing my insurance company!”

    So you’d rather fight with guns, kill or be killed?

    It’s just *stuff*, dude. It’s not worth getting killed over. It’s not worth killing people over.

    The things you own wind up owning you. Doubly true for firearms.

  35. Just an aside, as a Canadian: American definitions of what constitutes a “moderate” or a “centrist” crack me up.

  36. So you’d rather fight with guns, kill or be killed?

    Yes.

    It’s just *stuff*, dude. It’s not worth getting killed over. It’s not worth killing people over.

    True, as far as it goes. Utterly false, when it comes to the principle of the thing.

    “Let the bully use the swing, Tommy. It isn’t worth getting a bloody nose over.”

    Perhaps not; but then the bully believes (knows) that he can act with impunity – that Tommy, and everything Tommy loves, is the bully’s to control and coerce. No.

    To choose violence as the first option is usually a mistake. To forego its use – even in defense of mere things – is always a mistake.

    The things you own wind up owning you. Doubly true for firearms.

    It’s the ideas we own which can end up owning us. Stuff is just stuff.

    If you genuinely believe that three pounds of steel and a handful of chemicals can own a person, well, good luck with that. Go on back to Phoenicia and make some pretty stuff for us Romans to come and take away from you later.

  37. Just an aside, as a Canadian: American definitions of what constitutes a “moderate” or a “centrist” crack me up.

    As a fellow Canadian, I agree. Anyone in Canada would consider me an extreme conservative. In the states I would be centrist with a slight left lean. That should tell you a bit about Canada, especially Quebec which is falling apart because of the extreme socialism. Most of my politics would be considered libertarian in the US.

  38. Linneus – totally agree with you about Feministing. It’s great for content and learning new stuff but it’s like there isn’t a home there.

    At any rate, I read this blog because it contains patterns of logic and rationale, rather than the more typical patterns of blame and a sense of entitlement that I find on other leftist blogs. Carry on.

    Not trying to be snarky, Sadie, but I’ve experienced a lot of this very same thing on right leaning blogs such as Dawn Eden. I think it’s more a people thing, yes? I think it’s unfair to generalize this one characteristic as belonging to any one group of people.

    And yeah, I’ve been reading this blog a little longer than I’ve been posting on mine because it’s got good stuff that reaches into so many subjects. I like variety! But the question didn’t pertain to me either because I agree too much, ;).

  39. I was dismayed to discover that the little libertarianism I have is actually outside of me. The whole Goldstein thing is a bit um weird. While the service here is occasionally slow during the busy hours, the fajitas are excellent.

  40. As a fellow Canadian, I agree. Anyone in Canada would consider me an extreme conservative. In the states I would be centrist with a slight left lean. That should tell you a bit about Canada, especially Quebec which is falling apart because of the extreme socialism. Most of my politics would be considered libertarian in the US.

    Personally, I’m the other way around. I’m a fairly centre-left NDPer, so I’d be a crazy commie peacenik traitor in the US.

  42. I’m a good Lefty Feminist, but I think of myself as a social libertarian. Like a good Libertarian, I’m not a big fan of government, but I’m even less of a fan of big business. I’m also very much against pure individualism. I fully support peoples right to pursue individualism, but I far far prefer the model of community organization. This doesn’t mean denying the self for the good of the community, but community organization to make things better for the individuals. My #1 overriding value, however, is that how I choose is not the one true right way, and I support other peoples’ right to pursue their way of life.

    Here’s a question to the Libertarians on here: Do you support access to legal abortion, and are you pro-gay-marriage? I’m curious. These both strike me as extremely Libertarian issues. Socially, at least, but (speaking as an ignorant outsider) I don’t think any Libertarian worth the label can be socially conservative.

  44. Robert, I’d love to know how you got from what I said:

    “It’s just *stuff*, dude. It’s not worth getting killed over. It’s not worth killing people over.”

    To your paraphrase:

    Perhaps not; but then the bully believes (knows) that he can act with impunity – that Tommy, and everything Tommy loves, is the bully’s to control and coerce. No.

    As so often happens when we get into conversations with American pro-gun arguers, we can’t help wondering if they’re not actually arguing with us, but with some bogus strawman somewhere in their own minds.

    If you genuinely believe that three pounds of steel and a handful of chemicals can own a person

    I dunno – it seems to be doing a good job on you so far.

  45. Socially, at least, but (speaking as an ignorant outsider) I don’t think any Libertarian worth the label can be socially conservative.

    Socially conservative can refer to a personal preference, rather than to a legislative agenda. There are quite a few Christian libertarians – people whose personal lives attempt to hew to moral principles and strictures that they nonetheless would not wish to see translated into law.

    I don’t have to want to ban porn to not want it in my house, in other words.

  46. Robert, I’d love to know how you got from what I said…to your paraphrase

    You said that it’s not worth fighting over stuff. My response is that this position makes it impossible to maintain one’s personal autonomy against rational aggressors. You spent all day making a Lego castle and then I came along and smashed it and took the pieces? It’s just stuff – not worth fighting for. I ripped your shirt? Oh, it’s just stuff – not worth fighting for. I own you, because you won’t stand up for yourself.

    That’s how I get there. What part of the logic sequence am I making a mistake on?

  47. My feelings on abortion are conflicted. A fertilized egg is obviously not a human being, and I have no problem with it’s removal. A fetus/baby in the moments before the mother goes into full-term labor is obviously a human being, and to kill it is murder. When this transformation takes place is the sticky point. I think a definitely viable fetus should be protected, but the grey area needs to be left to the individual.

    Gay marriage I personally don’t mind, I know it’s cliched to say but I really do have alot of gay friends. I have until recently supported civil unions in a strictly legal sense, but been reluctant to force the idea of a gay marriage on a society that may not share my beliefs. I don’t like when people force their version of morality on me. But as I said earlier, some of the arguments on this thread have lead me to reconsider the evolution of marriage and realize that it is pretty much a mere legality among straights now, and do try to claim otherwise is naive at best.

  48. B Moe: The only people having any morality forced on them is gay people who aren’t allowed to marry because Baby Jesus says no. the right to live ones own morality doesn’t extend tot he right to see other people follow it.

    Robert: That’s reasonable. What I meant, though, and I’ll officially amend it here, is that I can’t see how a Libertarian worth their salt would support a socially conservative legislative agenda. The question stands and I’d be interested in hearing an answer.

    About the “it’s just stuff” debate, there’s a difference between being mugged for 80 bucks and a home invasion. Although I can fully understand why militia types would defend their property with deadly force against government agents fucking with their situation, I don’t know why your wallet is the issue over which to show those pricks that you mean business. There are ways of standing up for yourself that you don’t need a 3 day waiting period for, ust as their are ways for countries to defend their sovereignty without declaring war.

  49. I don’t know why your wallet is the issue over which to show those pricks that you mean business.

    Because it’s what they want to steal.

    If they want to steal your house, that’s the line. If they want your wallet, that’s the line. If they want to touch your hat, that’s the line.

  50. You said that it’s not worth fighting over stuff.

    No, Robert, I didn’t. Go back and read carefully. I’ll give you a clue – in post 34 when I mentioned fighting, this was modified by the two words after it, and in the para where I mentioned “stuff” I didn’t use the f-word at all.

    Remember what I said about actually arguing with a strawman that exists in your mind?

    My response is that this position makes it impossible to maintain one’s personal autonomy against rational aggressors.

    There are a range of responses in between supine surrender to anyone who wants to pwn you and breaking out the bazookas and reinacting Doom 3. For one thing, most cities tend to have a bunch of people licensed and trained to apply force on behalf of the citizenry. They may be imperfect – but so is risking your bod in a gunfight over the contents of your wallet.

    And before you make any comment about police giving up law-enforcement – not here, they haven’t. Possibly because they’re not faced with as many people waving guns around.

    If they want to steal your house, that’s the line. If they want your wallet, that’s the line. If they want to touch your hat, that’s the line.

    …if they walk on your property without permission, is that the line? If they rob you of your dignity by sassing you, is that the line? (Both of which have led to shootings in the States, of course)

  51. Robert, I’d like clarification on that, too. You’d pull a gun on someone for touching your hat? I’m sorry, that sounds really Dirty Harry to me, and it sounds like a good model for a lot of dead honkies. Please clarify if I misunderstood.

    Phoenician: Most of Doom 3 is fought with a flashlight, but point taken.

  52. You’re correct, Phoenician. You didn’t say fight, you said kill or be killed over.

    A rational combatant is aware that there is a risk of death in any conflict, and restricts his or her voluntary combats to issues where it is worth putting death on the line. I assumed you made that same jump; apparently not. Never mind, then.

    …if they walk on your property without permission, is that the line? If they rob you of your dignity by sassing you, is that the line? (Both of which have led to shootings in the States, of course)

    Property without permission is a judgment call. Is there reason to be alarmed by their presence? Is there signage indicating that you take a dim view of trespass? And so forth.

    Verbal sass is not justification for violence under any reasonable circumstance, though I imagine I could concoct some highly unlikely scenario where it would become necessary. (Captain of a lifeboat, in the middle of a battle against sharks…)

    You’d pull a gun on someone for touching your hat?

    I don’t own a gun, or a hat, so no.

    But if someone has made it clear that their personal space is not to be violated (there is a duty to communicate boundaries when there is no open conflict already in progress), then why not?

    Note that it is rarely WISE to do this. It is simply within one’s natural right of self defense. That right is usually best served by taking a less immediately aggressive tack.

  53. B Moe – I agree with you about gay marriage. I’m so not with the “straight marriage is the most sacred institution on earth” crowd (I’ve heard too many stories about preachers who get caught with hookers and congressmen who put themselves on a pedestal while screwing their ades and almost all the adults in my life are divorced). But I think civil unions are probably the most practical path if gays will have any civil rights – probably 60%+ of the country opposes gay marriage, but I’m willing to bet a narrow majority is ok with anti-discrimination laws, domestic partnership benefits/civil unions. I’m sure I’ll get flamed by purists, but isn’t it better for gays to have some rights than none at all?

  54. In my opinion, the most valuable “stuff” you own is intangible. You might be living in an empty apartment, sleeping on the floor, and would still have the right to use deadly force if someone came through your window at 3:30 A.M. That’s your home. If you’re not safe there, then what else is there? Do you wish to live in a society where thugs can break into your house and send you running (if possible) at will?

    Most state laws agree with me and have long-standing “Castle Doctrine” laws on the books. And that’s the way it should be. Our Founding Fathers made it explicitedly clear in the Constitution that Americans should be safe in their homes.

    Personally, I’m happy to see that laws have been instituted across the U.S. to allow law-abiding citizens to protect themselves outside of the home, too. The desire to protect oneself is normal. It’s natural. We shouldn’t feel like freaks or criminals just because a large portion of Americans have been brainwashed by “politikal officers” like Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein.

    By the way, both of those assholes own firearms, their families own firearms, they have licenses to carry handguns, and are protected by armed security details. You see, it’s okay to own a gun if you’re a “somebody,” but if you’re Joe Average…get lost.

  55. . I’m sure I’ll get flamed by purists, but isn’t it better for gays to have some rights than none at all?

    Sorry for jumping in here, but I do not beleive there is any idea of “some rights” either you have equal rights as the rest of society, or you don’t.

    If this question was turned to read “Isn’t it better to have abortion with tons of restrictions than no right to abortion at all?” it could help illustrate my thinking…

    Either you have the right to something, or you don’t. Either a gay couple has the right to be treated equally before the law as per the Constitution, or they do not enjoy the same rights as the rest of society.

    For the record, and to the point of the original post … I am non-aristolean in my politics… Socially Liberal, Libertarian leaning in a number of ways, yet fiscally conservative… IOW pretty much an average American …

    To me, marriage in this country is a legal compact, and not a religious act. Religious marriages in this country are “by the powers granted to me by the State of XYZ”. Religions bless marriages in the US (from a legal point of view, IMO) and can refuse to do so for just about any reason. Gays should be allowed to marry, but churches should not have to bless such unions.. but every Justice of the Peace, or other civil servant who performs marriages must.

    :::wakes up from dream of reasonable reality:::

  56. John – I believe gays should have full equality, but I fear that if gay marriage were legalized it would produce a huge backlash and possibly a Federal Marriage Amendment that would set gay rights back decades.
    BTW, at pollingreport.com a July 2005 poll has 36% of Americans favoring gay marriage, 53% opposing; but 53% supporting (with 40% opposing) a civil union-ish proposal.
    Also, I could be a pollyanna here, but I’m fairly optimistic about the future of gay rights, because younger Americans are much more supportive of gay marriage than older Americans.

  57. Me, I love the logo. The little girl with the sawed off shotgun. Cracks me up every time I see it. I always think “don’t run with scissors” when I see it.

    It indicates that you have a sense of humor. Not a lot of folks do anymore.

    Actually, a lot of right-of-center to conservative folk came here because of Jeff Goldstein. Jeff has a good eye for interesting subject matter and commentary, as does Allah. If I see “hat tip, Allah” on a site, or if Jeff has engaged a site in a discussion, I always know it’s worth reading.

    I disagree with a lot of your content, but your content doesn’t make me see red. You’re not jerks, and you’re not interested in baiting your readers into a fight. You’re sincere. That has a value in and of itself, whether or not I agree with the arguments, which I seldom do.

  58. “To me, marriage in this country is a legal compact, and not a religious act. Religious marriages in this country are “by the powers granted to me by the State of XYZ”. Religions bless marriages in the US (from a legal point of view, IMO) and can refuse to do so for just about any reason. Gays should be allowed to marry, but churches should not have to bless such unions.. but every Justice of the Peace, or other civil servant who performs marriages must.”

    Yes, exactly. So many people miss the distinction between the legal institution of marriage and the religious institution of marriage.

    Robert: Let’s clarify. If you wanna try on my hat, I say “no, dude, only I get to wear the hat”, you say “c’mon, dude, I just wanna do a Sinatra impersonation” and I say “fuck Sinatra, and don’t touch my hat”, then you grab my hat off my head, I’m justified in pulling a gun on you, and possible discharging it into your body? I just wanna make sure I’m clear on your position.

  59. I believe gays should have full equality, but I fear that if gay marriage were legalized it would produce a huge backlash and possibly a Federal Marriage Amendment that would set gay rights back decades.

    While I also fear that, it is IMO not a good enough reason to force folks to sit at the back of the bus.

    The argument needs to be re-framed. A wingnut that I work with fears that his crutch…er … church would be forced to marry gays. I disagree. Religious Freedom is one of our founding rights, and the gov’t should never force a religion to bless something it disagrees with.

    The core issue is that we use “marriage” in both a legal and religious sense… if we frame the debate to “Should gays be grated civil marriage while religious organizations can refuse to bless them” I think the statistics you cite would be much different. By allowing those opposed to gay marriage to frame the debate, they win.

    I too am quite optimistic about rights for GLBT individuals, and hope I live to see the day where some of my best friends can recieve the same rights and priviledges that I share with my wife…

  60. Robert, your defense of the use of force reminds me of Nietzsche. He was, of course, a bookish man with a delicate constitution, who wrote about the will-to-power while living a quiet life.

    You don’t own a firearm. Do you have any background in fighting sports or martial arts? Are you a veteran of the armed forces? Do you carry any weapon to defend yourself? Do you have a basic proficiency in any method of self-defense? Have you been in a fight since high school?

    Or is this the wisdom of the office park commando?

  61. But if someone has made it clear that their personal space is not to be violated (there is a duty to communicate boundaries when there is no open conflict already in progress), then why not?

    Note that it is rarely WISE to do this. It is simply within one’s natural right of self defense. That right is usually best served by taking a less immediately aggressive tack.

    It may not be merely unwise, but also illegal, based on your state’s self-defense laws. In my state, deadly force is permissible when a person has a reasonable belief that he or she is about to be injured or killed by another.

    In other words, my natural right of self-defense does not confer upon me the right to use unlimited force in every instance. If someone tries to take my hat, showing no indication of threatening my life or person, and I pull a gun and shoot him, both of us will be cooling our heels in the county joint.

  62. You don’t own a firearm…is this the wisdom of the office park commando?

    Let’s just say that I don’t need a firearm, and leave it at that.

  63. KnifeGhost and Phoenician: Doom 3 is only fought with a flashlight when you don’t have the cheat codes to get all the weapons, ;). There is also a code that will tape your flashlight to whatever weapon you are holding.

  67. Robert, you’re not convincing me, and I’m not convincing you, so I’ll just say that while one has the right to resist coercion, I think there’s appropriate resistence to coercion, and wildly inappropriate resistance to coercion, and leave it at that.

  68. As I’ve mentioned before, this blog is my Grotesque Car Wreck. I want to look away, but I cant. I’m equal parts horrified and amused, much like watching campy horror films…

  69. I am fairly conservative personally but fairly libertarian politically. I like it here because you guys are willing to hear other points of view and talk to people without being snarky and rude. I read often, although I tend not to post much because I don’t want to get jumped on by the commenters. Which is funny, because I agree with 95% of what you guys say, but the 5% I disagree with are often the most passionately discussed.

  70. Robert, your defense of the use of force reminds me of Nietzsche. He was, of course, a bookish man with a delicate constitution, who wrote about the will-to-power while living a quiet life.

    You should get Lou Salome’s opinion on that, first.

Comments are currently closed.