LGBT
Related: About this forumThe Insanity of Democrats Attacking Buttigieg--for Not Being Gay Enough
After weeks of glowing press coverage of Pete Buttigieg as hes shot up in the Democratic 2020 field, the Petes Not Perfect posse has kicked into high gear with an unusually personal criticism: Buttigieg, they say, isnt 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 Buttigiegs 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 wasnt leading any Pride parades in 1857).
Yet some liberal voices are now discounting Buttigiegs 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. Its 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...
KelleyKramer
(8,848 posts)They basically called her a nut job for staying on the Mueller investigation
William Seger
(10,742 posts)... 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.
KelleyKramer
(8,848 posts)William Seger
(10,742 posts)... 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.
LuvNewcastle
(16,820 posts)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.
ancianita
(35,812 posts)sandensea
(21,528 posts)luvtheGWN
(1,336 posts)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?
watoos
(7,142 posts)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.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)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.)
oldsoftie
(12,410 posts)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.
WhiteTara
(29,676 posts)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.
Response to Behind the Aegis (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
TheFarseer
(9,308 posts)Insufficient diversity. Insufficient diversity is a standard establishment hit, not from the progressive side.
DinahMoeHum
(21,737 posts)strikes again.
Evolve Dammit
(16,632 posts)Tribal; in their own exclusive (I'm right you're not) echo chambers. Very narrow minded and limited empathy.
oldsoftie
(12,410 posts)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?
Perseus
(4,341 posts)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.
oldsoftie
(12,410 posts)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.
OneBro
(1,159 posts)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. Theres gotta be a word for that.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Odoreida
(1,549 posts)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?