Why is it considered a vicious attack if a professional female is accused of being a lesbian ?

[saracat]

Why is it is considered "hot" or acceptable is a glamorous celebrity is gay? Why, when it is very obvious lesbians come in all types just as the rest of humankind? Why is it assumed that a somewhat frumpy looking woman who is single is gay? Particularly if they are successful? It seems that it is considered an insult for an average woman to be called Gay but it adds to the allure of a glamorous one and the contradiction doesn't seem to bother most people.

Glamorous successful women who are unmarried are rarely accused of being gay. When a plain woman announces she is a lesbian, the frequent reaction if of course. As if to say and is some times actually said, no one else would want her, as though it was a "choice".

Political women especially seem to be held to a certain standard. If you are 40+ and unmarried, as well as being no beauty queen, or even just average, you are automatically gay. People said Janet Reno was Gay. People insist Janet Napolitano is Gay. Sec. Napolitano has repeatedly denied this. She had publicly stated that if she were gay , she would admit it but that she isn't. I have an Aunt who actually wanted to "fix" Janet up with a relative and asked "Why haven't you ever gotten married". Janet answered,"Because no one ever asked me". What a simple answer and just as possible for all these women as any other. Some folks are now demanding that she be asked about her orientation before congress. Can you imagine anyone ever asking any unmarried middle aged male appointee such a question?

It is a can't win situation for women in the public eye and another example of the misogyny and homophobia that effects our society.
I have no idea what sort of Justice Kagan may be, but I find it very dad and disturbing that instead of judging her on her opinions and experience, both sides of the aisle are judging her on her appearance and what they wish to perceive her sexual orientation as.

[Sebastian Doyle]

1. You seem to be answering your own question.

By first asking why it is considered an attack, and then laying out all the ways in which it is done as exactly that.

Right wingers consider homosexuality to be "evil" and "wrong", so they'll use that as an attack. Also, as far as Kagan specifically, I've read mentions on this board recently where her partner was named in some article or whatever (I haven't read it.) so that would raise the question of whether she's actually closeted or not.

Should it matter? Fuck no. Will it matter to the right wingers. You bet. I wouldn't be surprised if Lindsey Graham is pressured by the other Repukes to do the calling out so it can't be called "homophobic".

[pinboy3niner]

4. Good OP, and good response

But the response doesn't address the OP's first question: Why do WE consider it a vicious attack when someone is "tarred" with the label, "lesbian."

My answer is that our outrage is not about a view that being a lesbian is a horrible thing to accuse someone of. We are outraged that someone would see that as a horrible thing, and that sexuality is even raised as something that is relevant.

[saracat]

26. Thank you but what I didn't get across clearly is the fact that it is considered acceptable for a

gorgeous woman to be considered gay but an insult to an ordinary looking woman.Being Lesbian should never be an insult and certainly it should not be considered a "choice" based on looks.I am aware of a candidate for a statewide office who is male and at least 40+ who is single and not movie star handsome who is never asked such a question, and he is running on his resume which is impressive. ironically, he is openly gay and most of the opposition don't even realize it. Not that it should matter but there is a distinct difference in how women are treated. However for both males and females too often gay is a pejorative. Ironically, for the male it is more likely applied if the man is attractive.

[readmoreoften]

2. I hear ya. I have no idea if she's gay or straight.

For all I know, she's intersexed. For all I know, she's heterosexual. One thing we do know from her photo documentation that she is not transsexual. But that's the same thing I know about Obama or McCain or Clinton or Harriet Miers. Are they straight or gay? Are they intersexed? Who the fuck knows? And who really cares....

Now, if she were an OPEN LESBIAN, it'd be a different story because that has political ramifications and it's a political statement to choose an LGBT candidate. But all this speculation is bullshit.

[iris27]

3. I don't consider that a vicious attack.

I do, however, think that the appalling shit I've seen elsewhere on the internet today certainly fits the bill.

"Fred Flintstone"

"I didn't think her type wore pearls"

"Kevin James in a necklace"

...


:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

[BrklynLiberal]

7. I guess they cannot attack on any valid principles, so name-calling is the next best thing for them.

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[BrklynLiberal]

5. True or not..it should be irrelevant to her ability to do the job she has been chosen to do.

[BrklynLiberal]

6. True or not..it should be irrelevant to her ability to do the job she has been chosen to do.

[pinboy3niner]

8. Worth saying twice! lol

[BrklynLiberal]

10. LOL. Lucky accident

:thumbsup: :hi:

[pinboy3niner]

19. Hats off to the Mods

Normally, they don't allow double-posts to stand. Doing so is, in itself, a statement. What an elegant--and and yet eloquent--way to express soldarity and moral utrage. :yourock:

:hi:

[caledesi]

18. Well said! nt

[Warpy]

9. Because her sex life or even lack of one is none of their goddamned business

It's like attacking her looks, her choice of clothing, the size of her feet, or any other stupid, shallow thing the right wing can think of. It's demeaning, dehumanizing, and completely inappropriate in any discussion of a candidate's suitability for high office.

In addition, only WOMEN have to face this stuff. The right wing gets especially RABID whenever a woman is proposed, or maybe you have forgotten what they did to Sonia Sotomayor.

We're furious not because we think something is wrong with lesbians, but because the issue should never be addressed, at all.

It's just more double standard bullshit from a disgusting right wing playing gutter politics.

[ashling]

11. Why do some people have so much trouble

mixing up the words "if' and "is"

:rofl:

[Nikki Stone1]

12. I'll tell you what worries me: Kagan does not see a right to gay marriage in

the Constitution, and if that is the case, I'd hate to have a closeted gay woman voting against a gay marriage case, like the one shaping up here in CA. It's like Rachel Maddow says: it's your own business if you're not using your position to deny it and make everyone else's lives miserable. Kagan seems ok, but I would much prefer someone who was out.

[saracat]

13. I too would prefer a liberal, and as for preferring someone who is "out" no one knows wether

she is "in" or even Gay and my point is it shouldn't matter anda woman shouldn't be prejudged as anything on the basis of appearance and her sexuality should not be an issue under any circumstances.

[prolesunited]

15. How do you know she's in?

And you're already imagining a vote she's never made, so how is Maddow's quote even relevant? What actions, real not imagined, has Kagan taken against the gay community? Way to further a lame RW argument.

[Nikki Stone1]

16. I have no idea what her sexuality is. But Kagan will be voting on gay rights issues

and, like every other candidate, I am concerned with where she stands. I don't want to find out when she votes against gay marriage. If she IS gay and she rules against gay marriage or, I will VILIFY her like I do any conservative closet case.

[Nikki Stone1]

17. I have no idea what her sexuality is. But Kagan will be voting on gay rights issues

and, like every other candidate, I am concerned with where she stands. I don't want to find out when she votes against gay marriage. If she IS gay and she rules against gay marriage or, I will VILIFY her like I do any conservative closet case.

[saltpoint]

14. It doesn't seem to me to be anyone's goddamned business whether

Kagan, or anyone else, is or is not a lesbian, as regards public sector positions. Or private sector positions, for that matter.

The howling haters over at the Family Research Council have announced their opposition to Kagan largely (solely?) on the notion that she is, or they assume she is, a lesbian.

It's a vicious attack because no straight nominee would be rejected for being straight. It's snake-bone mean, it's nasty and subversive, and it is extremely debasing.

saracat, it's a can't-win situation for many women, as you indicate, and it's shameful that the folks in the Family Research Council (and other groups) operate like that. It's a for of public bullying. Kagan is an accomplished citizen, and very intelligent. I'd pay good money to hear her debate the fools at the FRC on just about any topic.

Recommended.

[saracat]

20. So it is now considered appropriate to unrec threads defending women

against misogyny and homophobia? Is it wrong to question those who judge SCOTUS appointments on the basis of gender, appearance and not only assign sexual orientation to women based on appearance but utilize the assigned sexuality as a pejorative? How can anyone claim to be any form of a liberal, and hold that this is not despicable?

[Spheric]

22. K&R...

Did you forget where you are?

[freddie mertz]

29. Nothing is surprising anymore.

They unrec threads about Sestak surpassing Specter in the polls.

They unrec threads about the challenge to Blanche Lincoln.

It just goes on and on.

[saracat]

30. And usually with no debate. How very sad it all is. How can anyone call themselves

a Democrat and be against Civil Rights and Women's Rights to the point of not even wanting discussion about those topics?

[freddie mertz]

31. They cannot call themselves liberal or even moderate.

Which is the extremely disturbing truth.

[saracat]

33. But yet they will and some even believe they are so. The definition of the "Big Tent"

has expanded to include those who do not even support the party platform. Support of the platform is now optional. I was once told on DU that liberals did not support "choice". The poster was shocked when I directed her to the place in the Democratic platform that did so. She had catagorically stated that we wewre "Pro-Life.". This is about as familiar as some are with Democratic values. But with Democratic candidates not supporting their own Party Platform, we should not be surprised.

[freddie mertz]

39. Some of these folks seem to have no notion of history.

Their world began when Obama promised them "change," and they can't live with the fact that very little has in fact changed, and some of what has has not changed for the better.

[saracat]

40. Lack of historical knowledge as well as institutional memory

combined with a deliberate effort to distort in order to promote a fictional narrative creates quite a mess doesn't it?

[Scuba]

21. Nobody's business but hers.

[KharmaTrain]

23. It's Called The "Kitchen Sink"

I knew this was coming...you can hear the dogwhistles starting to fire up on the right. While those on our side of the sandbox may disagree with Ms. Kagan's qualifications...from Siegleman to her tenure at Harvard to unitary executive...these are divisions based on substance. The right doesn't have such abilities or compunction. They're going to try to find something to stick on her...call her "inexperienced" and "too liberal", but those arguments won't energize as much as the dog whistle of "teh gay". They don't want to disqualify her, their modus operandi is to destroy her...or at least for the shrinking number who wear their homophobia and sexism on their sleeves. It's who they are, it's what they do...and expect things to get ugly as the corporate media plays the "some say" game here.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

24. There's going to come a day....

when being labeled "Gay" is going to be as earth-shaking as being labeled "Left-handed." There will still be some minor irritants for gay persons just as there are for those of us who are living openly left-handed (fucking scissors). But by and large, the day will be coming when "accusing" someone of being gay will be met by an indifferent shrug. That day is not here yet, but it's coming. It's inevitable.

[WeDidIt]

25. Because we remain a nation of bigoted assholes

Reality is a harsh mistress.

[backscatter712]

27. The Rovian whisper campaign at work.

They're desperate for excuses to attack her, so insinuating she's a lesbian because she looks "butch" is the first thing out of the right wing hate machine.

It is despicable and juvenile. Misogynistic and homophobic. :mad:

[freddie mertz]

28. K & R. It is ridiculous in this day and age.

WTF decade is this anyway?

Sexism just will not seem to die.

[librechik]

32. if it's untrue, what else would it be

If true, a merely unfortunate and impertinent intent to attack.

[backscatter712]

34. Something to add about the misogyny and sexism.

The same shitheads who question Kagan's sexuality, because she "looks butch" are the ones who leer and cheer when two beautiful blonde bombshells in bikinis kiss and make out on those Girls Gone Wild videos, and fantasize about having a threesome.

Note that they only bitch when they think a woman looks too much like a man. In other words, when she is perceived to challenge male dominance. Gives you an idea how these toads think, doesn't it?

[saracat]

35. Y You have said exactly what I was trying to say and much more clearly! Thank you.

[Old Troop]

36. Who people screw is none of my business unless

they want my sweet little puppy.

[Old Troop]

37. Who people screw is none of my business unless

it's my wife and the mailman.

[undeterred]

38. People don't accept single women. Period.

They need to be explained. Fixed. How can any woman survive without a man? :sarcasm:

[saracat]

41. Spot on. Simple but true.

[eppur_se_muova]

42. "Professional" not the issue -- it's "public", "government".

While the tide is shifting, it still has a long way to go. The people who "charge" public officials with being gay are trying to discredit them in the eyes of the voting public, a great many of whom are still pretty reactionary towards acceptance of homosexuality. Repugs and fundies in particular know that their base will bombard their congresscritters (both R & D) with angry letters, emails, faxes, and phone calls, warning them not to admit that "God-forsaken pervert" to a position of a power, where they will proceed to corrupt the soul of America and pave the way for the final triumph of Satan.

As for acceptance of movie and rock "stars" as gay, that's just the profit motive, operating through the likes of People Magazine. Not the same thing as for an elected official in anyone's eyes, and aimed at completely different audiences anyway.

Or maybe I'm just being cynical. :evilfrown:

[laughingliberal]

43. K & R nt

[tango-tee]

44. Great OP!

In an enlightened society, it shouldn't even be a topic. For myself, all I can say is that I just don't CARE if someone is gay, lesbian, bi or hetero. A person is who he or she is, and it is his or her accomplishments and qualifications which are subject to scrutiny, nothing else.

The word "accused" alone points out that there is "something the matter" with being lesbian. And "frumpy". Who has ever cared if a male looked "frumpy"? Hell, that word is reserved for women only, anyway.

It is such an unholy alliance, as you've pointed out. Age, looks, sexual orientation. No man wanted her (frumpy), she's like a slice of leftover pizza (old), therefore she had no choice but to "become" lesbian.

I understand exactly what you are saying and particularly like the way you've summed up the problem in your last paragraph.

[Drops_not_Dope]

45. Thank you saracat

:kick:

[TheKentuckian]

46. I do believe I see the answer in the body of your question

"If you are 40+ and unmarried, as well as being no beauty queen, or even just average, you are automatically gay. People said Janet Reno was Gay. People insist Janet Napolitano is Gay. Sec. Napolitano has repeatedly denied this. She had publicly stated that if she were gay , she would admit it but that she isn't. I have an Aunt who actually wanted to "fix" Janet up with a relative and asked "Why haven't you ever gotten married". Janet answered,"Because no one ever asked me"."

"Can you imagine anyone ever asking any unmarried middle aged male appointee such a question?"

Certainly can. You don't even have to be an appointee, I've been single when baseball tickets have been passed out at work. You get in your thirties around these parts without being very recently divorced and don't know who your date is or if you'll have one raises eyebrows and starts questions pretty quick. God help you if you don't have kids.