Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

WHAT IF: That "lady" wins the Indy 500, then pops out of her open wheel kart and it turns out she's a guy in drag? Will she be disqualified because 'tweren't drag racin'?
 

Who cares? Open wheel's for sissies anyway!
 

Nick, on that we agree.

If newspapers are supposed to reflect the communities they serve -- and I believe they are -- then they should reflect!

Hell, send a city photographer out to the country and I PROMISE you he'll come back with a picture of a trailer house, or a car up on blocks, or a Rebel battle flag, or a hound dog sleepin' on a rickety porch -- for the same reason the guy in a dress on the back of a steer was the best picture:

Because it was the most unusual thing out there when the photographer was there! And those kinds of pix should always be the pix that get into the paper.

That guy on a steer ain't no stereotype. He's a type -- a type of gay guy.

Of course, don'tcha know the less flamboyant types of gays cringed when they saw it. But come on, it's a GAY RODEO. Sheesh.
 

Nick: e-mail me at my home address. I want to send you something and I don't have yer home address here.
 

Wait, you’re comparing flamboyant, “out-there” gays with the KKK? Since when have any gays strung up straights on trees, terrorized straight families and embarked on a sustained campaign to deny them constitutional rights such as voting, living where they want, equal opportunity, etc.? Apology time, ER?

Also, the biggest force today making fun of rednecks and their stereotypes are redneck elites. (Yes, it’s a real animal.) Ever see “Blue Collar Comedy”?
 

To Anon,
Good point. I reached too far for a comparison. Apologies to all. He said, speaking AS a "redneck elite." ... So, let's see: "Out there" gays ... match roughly to the neo-secessionists who are taking over, and ruining, my beloved Sons of Confederate Veterans? How's that? Both extremes want pretty fundamental changes in the government to force others to not only tolerate them, but to accept them and to legally approve them. My point is such extremism does more harm than good for their respective causes in the minds of Middle America.

--ER
 

No, again: the sons of the confederacy are supporting an institution that historically existed to promote slavery. In what sense are, say, drag queens or dykes on bikes supporting oppressing other people?

I understand your argument; unfortunately, it sets up impossible conditions. A better equivilant would be if I said, "every time someone chews tobacco, which I find revolting, it makes me hate all rednecks"--which would be a dumb thing to say. The problem with your argument is that it stems from prejudice in two respects. One, the tendency to extrapolate the actions of *some* members of a group to *all* members of a group (think of a corollary; when frat boys dress up in drag for comic effect, which btw I find offensive, do we go from there to an argument that all straight white men/all college males/all frat boys are offensive? No.). And two, the argument that in order to secure basic rights, people need to keep their heads down and not offend anyone. But the problem is that someone will *always* be offended. The "Reverend" Phelps is offended when kids get themselves killed on fence posts, or when they simply declare that they are gay.

I get your point about considering one's audience as a rhetorical strategy, and it's a good one (and this very argument is often made in gay organizations). But as a question of social justice, it is the wrong argument to make. And it's problematic considering the speaker: if two gay men argue about this issue, then it is clear that the argument is simply about rhetorical strategy (well, sort of: some gays are also kind of skeeved by flashy drag, but at least the presumption is that they both think that gays have the right to exist unmolested). But when someone who by his own admission isn't comfortable with gay rights, exactly, makes this argument, it sounds less like "practical rhetorical advice" and more like, "I'll support your rights as long as you don't make me feel weird." Which ain't right. Rights are rights; they're not conditional on making everyone happy with how you use 'em.
 

Hidy, B. I didn't see anything else you wrote because of this absolute error in your first sentence:

the sons of the confederacy are supporting an institution that historically existed to promote slavery

That's pure bullshit, and I don't have time to give it justice, and it probably wouldn't do any good anyway. The Sons of Confederate Veterans exists to honor men who fought honorably for the South. I am a member. My great-grandfather fought; he was from the Ozarks, was poor as dirts and I'm positive never owned slaves. Now, try again, if you wish, and I'll rejoin this discussion. :-) Dudette, read some real history for info on the Civil War -- not today's revisionists!
 

The Confederacy itself existed because of slavery, was my point.

I also spelled "equivalent" wrong, if you want to nit-pick. But I guess you didn't get that far.
 

Hidy, B.

Of course, my freakout over yer misstatement is much more than nitpicking, to me. But thanks for the correction.

Back to the point. Re, "when someone who by his own admission isn't comfortable with gay rights, exactly, makes this argument, it sounds less like 'practical rhetorical advice' and more like, 'I'll support your rights as long as you don't make me feel weird.' Which ain't right. Rights are rights; they're not conditional on making everyone happy with how you use 'em."

I agree. I am not made uncomfortable because a guy in drag was ridin' a steer at the rodeo grounds. But lots of middle-America is! So, I stand by my original assertion: Rights are one thing. Acceptance is another. Sometimes, the more flamboyant one is in asserting his rights, the more actual damage he does to the cause.

Which goes back to my comparison with the extremists within the Sons of Confederate Veterans. The aim of the organization is to do honor to honorable men who served the Confederacy. The aim of the extremists is to use the organization as one arm of a neo-secessionist movement. The first thing, while debatable, is not actually considered outside the mainstream. The second thing IS considered outside the mainstream, and while the extremists have the RIGHT to do what they do and say what they say, and, I dare say, to even agitate for secession, it makes people uncomfortable to the point that they then start to oppose those of us who just want to talk about history, defend public memorials and make sure people see that, while slavery sucked, and was even the cause of the Confederacy's creation, abolishing it was NOT the goal of the Civil War, not until Lincoln saw he could make political hay with emancipation. These are historical facts.

Circling again: Gays want to be left alone to live their lives as they see fit. I'm for that. Putting a drag queen on a steer, just because they have the RIGHT to, unsettles many people to the point where they then start to oppose the ones who just want to be left alone.

I wasn't making an argument for more effect rhetoric, realy, as much as I was commenting on the way extemism can work against any overarching political goal.
 

Ok, but frat boys (say) dress in drag all the time, and that doesn't freak people out.

The more salient issue, though, yes; I agree. But your post *did* use the first person: "I tolerate. Don't make it harder for me than it is." But like I said; it isn't the drag queen's job to make it easy for you to tolerate her existence. And sure, some of the stuff that goes on at gay pride events might freak some people out; but part of being free is not having to look over your shoulder alla time. When you're among your own kind, you can relax--and you ought to have that right, too.

So I stand by my original point. If middle America (whatever that is) is uncomfortable with homosexuality, that's their problem. Yes, those who care about public relations can try to bring 'em along; those of us who teach can try to meet 'em halfway. But it isn't, and never should be, the fault of an oppressed group to make other people comfortable oppressing 'em.
 

Got nothing to say..I am speechless.Almost everyone got a point! proud gay here.