HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Gender & Orientation » LGBT (Group) » The Insanity of Democrats...

Sun Mar 31, 2019, 06:03 AM

The Insanity of Democrats Attacking Buttigieg--for Not Being Gay Enough

After weeks of glowing press coverage of Pete Buttigieg as he’s shot up in the Democratic 2020 field, the “Pete’s Not Perfect” posse has kicked into high gear with an unusually personal criticism: Buttigieg, they say, isn’t gay enough.

“Is Pete Buttigieg just another white male candidate, or does his gayness count as diversity?” Slate asked in the headline (since changed) of a much discussed piece this week by staff writer Christina Cauterucci.

The fact that the press and political class are even taking Buttigieg’s candidacy seriously is a historic first. An openly gay candidate has never qualified for a presidential debate, let alone become president (the jury is still out on James Buchanan, but whatever his orientation, he wasn’t leading any Pride parades in 1857).

Yet some liberal voices are now discounting Buttigieg’s sexual orientation (“still a white man”), or at least diminishing the historic discrimination gays have faced as compared with women and people of color (“most of the time gender and race are way heavier burdens than sexual orientation in the professional and political environment,” and “there was a time when it was illegal for us to marry interracially, women and POC could not even own property but a gay white man could”). For those critics, his race and gender negate the little credit they accord him for being gay.

All of this seems like an attempt to write Buttigieg off as “just another white guy,” standing in the way of more diverse candidates. It’s the Oppression Olympics at its worst: In a battle to prove that one community is more discriminated against than another, we tear each other apart rather than unite in common cause.

more...

23 replies, 2273 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 23 replies Author Time Post
Reply The Insanity of Democrats Attacking Buttigieg--for Not Being Gay Enough (Original post)
Behind the Aegis Mar 2019 OP
KelleyKramer Mar 2019 #1
William Seger Mar 2019 #7
KelleyKramer Mar 2019 #17
William Seger Mar 2019 #20
LuvNewcastle Mar 2019 #2
ancianita Mar 2019 #3
sandensea Mar 2019 #4
luvtheGWN Mar 2019 #6
watoos Mar 2019 #5
Honeycombe8 Mar 2019 #11
oldsoftie Mar 2019 #13
WhiteTara Mar 2019 #18
Name removed Mar 2019 #8
TheFarseer Mar 2019 #15
DinahMoeHum Mar 2019 #9
Evolve Dammit Mar 2019 #10
oldsoftie Mar 2019 #12
Perseus Mar 2019 #14
oldsoftie Mar 2019 #19
OneBro Mar 2019 #16
pdsimdars Mar 2019 #21
pdsimdars Mar 2019 #22
Odoreida Apr 2019 #23

Response to Behind the Aegis (Original post)

Sun Mar 31, 2019, 07:22 AM

1. Slate just ran a hit piece on Rachel Maddow


They basically called her a nut job for staying on the Mueller investigation

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KelleyKramer (Reply #1)

Sun Mar 31, 2019, 08:09 AM

7. But it was their TV media critic

... who admitted she hasn't been watching Maddow for years and only tuned in this week, apparently only to see if Maddow was properly humiliated and contrite. In her ignorance, she believes the right-wing propaganda version of Maddow as a Glen Beck-like conspiracy theorist and was faux-appalled that Maddow was still talking about all the stuff we still don't know, accusing her of desperately clinging to her debunked conspiracy theories. She also apparently agrees with Trump that TV ratings are the measure of all things important, and was self-satisfied that Maddow's ratings dropped this week while Hannity's rose.

Crappy articles like that are why Slate's reputation has gone so far downhill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #7)

Sun Mar 31, 2019, 09:19 AM

17. My point is, Slate hit piece is not 'Democrats' attacking Pete

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KelleyKramer (Reply #17)

Sun Mar 31, 2019, 12:24 PM

20. The Slate article referenced in the OP ...

... was apparently written by a Democrat, or at least she frequently writes about gay, feminist, and Democratic Party issues. My point was the low quality of Slate articles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Original post)

Sun Mar 31, 2019, 07:31 AM

2. Buttigieg himself said that he wants to see a day where it won't matter.

That's what I would like, too. There's nothing about him that should trigger this kind of ugliness; he seems to be a stand-up guy in all respects. These critics who are saying he isn't 'diverse' enough are mostly a bunch of homophobes. They're pissed that a gay man is getting the attention they want for their candidate(s) and they're trying to sabotage him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Original post)

Sun Mar 31, 2019, 07:42 AM

3. It better not become a media wedge into 2020 or I'll be SO pissed with the any purity gang.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Original post)

Sun Mar 31, 2019, 07:49 AM

4. For Pete's sake!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sandensea (Reply #4)

Sun Mar 31, 2019, 08:07 AM

6. "Yet some Liberal voices...."

How about some names, Slate? If those "Liberal voices" should actually be considered, then surely those voices don't mind being identified. I equate this with Dolt45 using the old "Many people are saying....".

And since we know there are troll farms situated throughout the US (as well as offshore) should any of these criticisms even be considered? Or even talked about here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Original post)

Sun Mar 31, 2019, 07:59 AM

5. It is all fun and games,

 

when it is ok to bash Bernie or Tulsi. Now that the divisiveness is spreading out to other candidates it's not so funny any more.

The only way we lose in 2020 is if we fight among ourselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to watoos (Reply #5)

Sun Mar 31, 2019, 08:30 AM

11. I think the criticisms of BS & Gabbard are ideological & party, not personal.

It's not about their sexual orientation or race, that I've seen. It's about their ideology, their political party affiliation, and such. Which are , IMO, legitimate to criticize any candidate for. Since that is precisely what voters will consider. Elections are ultimately about POLITICS, after all.

A criticism about whether a gay male acts gay enough, or a female candidate acts female enough, are personal and not related to politics. Those are things that I think most voters won't consider, but are things that activist groups go after. Activist groups, while good for certain purposes, have a different agenda than a political party. They are willing to lose, as long as their agenda gains some ground. Political parties want to win; without winning, they can't accomplish their goals for their base (increased minimum wage, protection of jobs, climate and environment protection, wildlife protection, voting rights, gerrymandering protection, etc.).

Just my opinion. But I don't think it's bad to be a white male, anyway. We want the best candidate. In our party, that can be any race or gender. If it turns out to be a white male, so be it. I certainly don't want to vote for a second best candidate based on race or gender or sexual orientation. I want us to win, which means I want the best candidate who can win.

It's like Loni Anderson said in response to criticisms of her bleaching her dark hair and becoming in all respects a "blonde bombshell" to get acting jobs. She said that she realized she could be a great actress, acting to herself alone in a mirror, but without jobs, or she could become a blonde bombshell and work at being a great actress while having acting jobs. (She had been pigeonholed as looking too ethnic for Hollywood at that time.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #11)

Sun Mar 31, 2019, 08:43 AM

13. You always have such a great way of making the points so easy to see.

I agree with everything you said. And its scary that so many actually have a problem with someone simply because they are white. I remember the last time when race was a disqualifying issue & that didnt go well either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to watoos (Reply #5)

Sun Mar 31, 2019, 09:48 AM

18. I don't think of this as infighting

I see this as vetting candidates. I have only a few reservations about Mayo Pete (as "they" call him on Twitter) one is that he seems to be a closet misogynist with a white male savior complex.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Original post)


Response to Name removed (Reply #8)

Sun Mar 31, 2019, 08:51 AM

15. Not insufficient liberal purity

Insufficient diversity. Insufficient diversity is a standard establishment hit, not from the progressive side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Original post)

Sun Mar 31, 2019, 08:22 AM

9. (sigh!) "Nothing-But-The-Best-For-The-Oppressed"

strikes again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Original post)

Sun Mar 31, 2019, 08:30 AM

10. The lack of tolerance among some alleged Democrats is appalling

Tribal; in their own exclusive (I'm right you're not) echo chambers. Very narrow minded and limited empathy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Original post)

Sun Mar 31, 2019, 08:35 AM

12. The Democratic party is becoming ridiculous . You MUST "check all the boxes" PROPERLY to qualify!

I remember Obama was also criticized for not being "black enough". Didnt come from a family with slaves in the past, etc. Like HE never faced any discrimination.
This article mentions gay white men being able to do "X", but they fail to mention that usually the "gay" part was kept hidden away. And you dont think gay people face discrimination in the black community??

Or is it more likely that some of the other candidates feel entitled to front runner status and dont like the young "upstart" taking away media attention?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldsoftie (Reply #12)

Sun Mar 31, 2019, 08:47 AM

14. Are you sure that was the Democratic party doing it and not the repub trolls?

 

Most democrats I know are "liberal", they don't care about the gender, or the sexual preference, color, etc. of other people, most democrats I know value other people for who they are, so I have a hard time believing those criticisms come from democrats and not repub trolls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Perseus (Reply #14)

Sun Mar 31, 2019, 10:44 AM

19. You dont recall the open criticism of Barack Obama not being "black enough"?

They werent anonymous criticisms. These were open statements. Cornel West, the LA Times did a whole STORY on it.
I have no reason to think these latest issues arent "in house" either; we see other examples of it as well with other candidates.
O'Rourke had to apologize because he made a joke about his wife doing most of the work in the family. EVERY husband will tell you that. Its just gotten ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Original post)

Sun Mar 31, 2019, 08:52 AM

16. A twitter troll or two are now "some liberal voices?"

The writer at Slate has essentially quoted a few random people (trolls?) on twitter then repeated the quotes though a megaphone to justify ringing a fire alarm bell re “some liberal voices.” There’s gotta be a word for that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Original post)

Sun Mar 31, 2019, 01:00 PM

21. Perfectly said, they can't resist attacking their own. I guess it's OK to attack Pete though

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Original post)

Sun Mar 31, 2019, 01:01 PM

22. For me it has never been about which boxes they check off, it's who they are and their ideas.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Original post)

Tue Apr 2, 2019, 11:01 AM

23. "Straight acting"? A pet peeve of mine.

I have been described as such.

I have been fully out for decades

I do *not* appreciate being told I'm putting on an act just because I don't mince around the room like Truman Capote or alternatively I don't look like a Tom of Finland model.

I'm old enough to remember when "the same only different" was the gay rights party line. Integration if you will.

I consider myself a total no compromise type when it comes to rights, yet somehow I don't dig identity politics.

I have been gay bashed when I was young, but being a victim is not "who I am".


Does this make me a traitor to my own kind somehow?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread