Exposing alleged liberal hypocrisy, a gay conservative's attacks backfire

Cross-posted on Rising Up...

Highlighting the "hypocritical liberal" is a regular meme of Stephen Miller's Indegayforum CultureWatch blog. Miller's contention is that when conservatives bash gays, everyone goes nuts, but when liberals reveal their homophobic stripes, nobody notices. So he points out the hypocrisy. Fair enough. Sounds like a reasonable enough blogging project to me. But does it work?

Unfortunately, the most recent three examples from Miller's posts that I can find are positively loopy. First, there was his critique of Maureen Dowd's "hateful Brokeback column." It seems that she said jokingly that now John Wayne "sounds like a guy who might get arrested in a bus station bathroom." In Miller's eyes, this makes her "hateful" and "mean-spirited." He is shocked, shocked, that none of the liberal "gay watchdogs" has criticized her column. Criticized her for what? For besmirching John Wayne? For suggesting that men who frequent bus station bathrooms might be less than completely savory? Or should we criticize her for mentioning a gay stereotype in the column, specifically playing off the stereotype that gay men are fashion-conscious and therefore concerned about having a "bad hair day"? I'm sorry. I'm not feeling the outrage yet.

Then Miller went after this cartoon by an "Iraq-war opposing, Republican-despising" cartoonist, Jeff Danziger. A joke between two cowboys concludes with one cowboy acknowledging an intimate relationship with his (talking) horse. He's working on a screenplay. It's a clever cartoon that parodies the slippery slope argument about gay marriage (let two cowboys marry, then you won't be able to stop them from marrying a horse!) Once again, Miller doesn't think it's funny. He thinks the cartoonist is comparing homosexuality to bestiality, and that the only reason nobody's complaining is that the cartoonist is liberal. Does that sound like a sensible response to you? I'm scratching my head.

Most recently, Miller attacks this parody of homophobes by Larry David. David, in his best deadpan style, says:

I haven't seen "Brokeback Mountain," nor do I have any intention of seeing it. In fact, cowboys would have to lasso me, drag me into the theater and tie me to the seat, and even then I would make every effort to close my eyes and cover my ears.

Later in the piece, David goes on to mock several other homophobic memes, including the ever popular "I have many gay acquaintances" defense. Miller seemed to miss the humor, implying that David should be called to testify about his presumably "unimaginably neurotic and puritanical" attitudes about sex and/or gays.

If these three examples are supposed to illustrate how there is a hypocritical double standard between liberals and conservatives on homophobia, count me unpersuaded. What they seem to demonstrate, on the contrary, is that conservatives can be humorless and tone deaf in their efforts to score points by attacking their opposition.

I'm willing to buy the idea of a double-standard, but not with evidence this foolish. There is something interesting about Miller's rough efforts though that is mildly disturbing, a highly suspicious demeanor that overturns every liberal rock convinced that there will be a buried secret there. Like the sad efforts by religious fundamentalists to find gay conspiracies behind Tinky Winky or the Barbie doll, there's something about this line of criticism that backfires badly. My advice to Miller and other conservative bloggers: if you persist in offering this line of critique, the next time you want to demonstrate a double-standard, pick examples that really, truly offend.

There are other examples Miller cites to prove his liberal hypocrisy meme (Mickey Kaus on Slate, a crtical movie review somewhere else). There's no point in denying that liberals are capable of homophobic responses. If you look hard enough, you're sure to find examples of homophobic liberals. I don't find it a very interesting sort of blogging to score partisan points by tarring the opposition. Miller and other conservatives would attack liberals for not feeling outrage at liberal homophobes; but if they did, they would probably be attacked for being in a "victim mentality" by showing their outrage. They're in a trap, a no-win situation.

What I think would be very interesting is looking at the different ways that liberals and conservatives each reveal their homophobia, for it doesn't express itself in the same ways. When liberal Mickey Kaus got caught with his fingers in the homophobic cookie jar, you get the feeling that the moment came as a growth in self-awareness. He learned that his purported reasons for wanting to avoid the movie were more like lame rationalizations once he wrote about them and thereby began to hold them up to scrutiny, and later he acknowledged that he was learning stuff about himself. Why should liberals, or anyone, express outrage at something like that? Miller is demanding that liberals do just that in order to avoid charges of hypocrisy, but who wants to walk into an obvious trap?

Comments

[Ken Mahan]

Sorry Joe, I don't agree. As a Christian who happens to be Gay, I am actually offended by all three of your examples. While I do not normally agree with Miller - or read it regularly, I also don't agree with you - but I do read this blog regularly and normally agree.

Dowd very clearly and offensively implies that all gay men do is hangout in bathrooms cruising for sex - very offensive to me. I'd normally add something whitty here, but this is not funny.

The cartoon makes fun of a very serious movie and and the love between two men equating it to making love to a horse.

And finally, Larry David is just offensive - nowhere near funny. I have not seen anything funny come from this man since Jerry went off the air. If his show wasn't filling an airtime requirement of HBOs commitment to being more than a movie network, he would have been on UPN at 3AM 2-years ago - right before the Veg-A-Matic infomercial. I equate him to "Barbra" singing about the birth of Jesus on her Christmas albums - anything for a dollar. Way to sell out the Jews, Babs - maybe you should be wearing a "brown shirt" and arm patch - nope no money to be made there. DO NOT get me wrong, this is not a Jewish-Money slam, it is a Barbra and the Commercialization of Christmas slam. Papa can you pay me?

OH, NO! I just attacked Barbra. Lucky for me I have Jesus. Ah, we all have to keep smiling.

OK, I am a Christian, Gay and a non-Barbra-worshipper... but give me points - I can spell her name correctly.

[Joe Perez]

Wow... I'm a bit surprised to see the difference of opinion. Thanks for opening my eyes to the diversity of opinion.

[Dan Glenn]

Yep. I found the horse cartoon pretty offensive. It does equate my love for a man to bestially, which I find offensive.

Though I imagine that if I had an erect penis large enough to satisfy a horse I wouldn't much mind our relationship in the slightest, if he didn't mind my mega pornstar status. Talking horses can give their consent, which is a plus. However, when the talking horse has won the right to vote and pays taxes we'll talk about his civil rights and the possiblity of an open, public relationship between us, until then he should keep his mouth shut.

[Stephen]

With so few (if any) positive views of homosexuality, when a movie comes along that destroys the myths and stereotypes, I can understand why "jokes" about it, if indeed they are jokes, could easily offend. I do know there is a definite double standard. If, for example, the same three examples you cite had been developed in the hands of the Uber Right, the GBLT groups would come unhinged. "Tasteless," "cruel," "foul," "insensitive," etc. kinds of epithets would have been lobbed without a moment's hesitation. But, because these indecorous "responses" come from the Left, we're supposed to understand that they're entirely humorous, not egregiously vulgar. I believe THIS is Miller's point, and I find it not only compelling, but exposes the double-standards that queers will allow their "allies" to do things that if the same things had been done by their "enemies" would engendered outrage. Personally, I found all the instances you cited utterly tasteless, regardless of the sources, and that these tasteless, even repugnant, "jokes" at our expense anything but humorous.It's not that I don't have a sense of humor, it's that even our "allies" humor wasn't in the slightest bit funny, and I can't excuse these tasteless responses just because they come from the Left.

[Joe Perez]

Stephen:

Well, I grant that YOU didn't find these examples of humor funny. But plenty of people do, including me. And we don't take offense at supposed insults. Personally, I don't care if the humor is by Maureen Dowd, Larry the Cable Guy, or a funny conservative (can't think of any offhand, can you?), if it hits the right humorous sensitivities.

There may very well be a double-standard of some kind, though I doubt it's simply about liberals and conservatives. Let's face it. Humor is full of double standards. You and I could tell a gay joke about fisting in a gay bar, and both groan at its insensitivities while laughing the whole time. A conservative Baptist preacher using the same joke in a fiery sermon and getting a chorus of laughter from an audience of fundamentalists is likely to be judged by different standards. Simply saying that there might be a double standard isn't really that interesting. Of course there are lots of double standards in humor, because context is everything.

Where some people like yourself see the juxtaposition of two cowboys and two horses and some sort of evil Santorum-like attack on homosexuality as a bestiality equivalent, I think that's hypersensitivity. I think the comic is actually making fun of the thing you think is so wrong. It's humor at the expense of the homophobes, not gays. And I think you and others miss that. Your loss. I'm sure you find many other things funny, and good for you. It's a funny world out there, and people laugh and get offended by different things.

Joe