The title of this post is a joke. I have no idea whatsoever about Elena Kagan's sexual orientation. I just figured we'd get a lot of hits. If this is what the conversation is about, she'll be confirmed easily. So keep going, right wingers, keep pressing the "gay" thing. Maybe she should walk right up to Jeff Sessions and plant a warm wet one on his lips.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I think they're in "throw the spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks" phase of judicial nomination obstruction.
I got into a quarrel with a homophone in the 1970s.
The best statistics that were peered reviewed, that I could find, had enormous discrepancies, the male homosexuals at 8 to 16 per cent of the population.
The best female statistics were 4 to 8 percent of the population.
My argument was that I totally supported homosexuals because I was a heterosexual.
If the smaller number is subtracted from the population of males, then I was compete ting with 92 percent for the available heterosexual females. Since subtracting the lower number from the females left 96 percent of the females as heterosexuals.
I had a comparative advantage of 92 male competitors for 96 female competitors.
Examining the numbers further, I discovered that being in Washington DC gave me a competitive advantage of 100 females for 86 males.
Homophobes are insane. They have an advantage unless they are homosexual.
Did Souter have to put up with this nonsense?
When Souter was nominated, people didn't talk about the "gay thing" in public much, unlike today. Rumors about Souter never made the mainstream press, and there was no 'net.
I'm going to throw it out there that she trips every one of my gaydar alarms, but then again, I've been frequently and magnificently wrong in the past (I tend to wildly overestimate).
But I think this is really about stereotyping. She's a middle-aged, not particularly attractive woman without a husband. As conservatives seem to be fondest of sexed-up, heterosexual pageant babes who endlessly defer to men/father figures (e.g., Sarah Palin), the idea that a woman might be successful on the force of her personality and intellect seems deeply distressing to them.
Of course if she was really pretty and unmarried, she'd be an uptight witch who was ruining America by not finding a man. And if she was pretty, or unpretty, and had kids, she wouldn't have enough time to be a Supreme Court Justice.
OK. Rant over.
-Seventh Sister
Well, the American right is making progress - sort of. 30 years ago they'd've been muttering about her being Jewish. 20 years from now, they'll be complaining that some nominee is openly a non-believer.
Secular Jews have been on the SC much longer than women.
But was the right wing happy about either?
True that.
Post a Comment