During a radio interview on Wednesday, SiriusXM host Clay Cane of “The Clay Cane Show” asked Buttigieg, who would be the first openly gay president if elected, about criticisms in “LGBT circles” that “more masculine-presenting men have more access,” posing the question, “How different would it be if you were quote unquote ‘more effeminate?’”ADDED: That really was a fantastic question from Clay Cane. And, really, there is a larger question here. Masculinity and femininity are always being monitored and reacted to. That's always going on when we look at the various candidates, whether we admit it or not. It's impossible to know what really works best — i.e., who has the most "access" — but it's obviously not that the most masculine man or the most feminine woman has the greatest advantage. It's more of a mystery. Remember this scientific inquiry into the mystery?
“It’s tough for me to know, right, because I just am what I am, and you know, there’s going to be a lot of that,” Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, responded. “That’s why I can’t even read the LGBT media anymore, because it’s all, ‘he's too gay,’ ‘not gay enough,’ ‘wrong kind of gay.’”
“All I know is life became a lot easier when I just started allowing myself to be myself, and I’ll let other people write up whether I’m ‘too this’ or ‘too that,’” he continued.
September 20, 2019
Pete Buttigieg attacks LGBT media.
Prompted by my son John at Facebook, I'm reading "Buttigieg: 'I can't even read the LGBT media anymore'" (at NBC):
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
74 comments:
This guy is an ingrate. If he wasn't gay, he wouldn't be able to run for President. The LGBT media is a big part of his ability to run. The media and his identity as gay is how he was able to raise so much money. If he wasn't gay, he'd just be a failed mayor of an industrial Midwestern small town with a university - not nearly as good as Creighton - plopped down there.
“That’s why I can’t even read the LGBT media anymore..."
That's why he just looks at the pictures?
It's not easy being light green.
I like his answer. It’s a good answer to a stupid question.
Ultimately gay men are first and foremost men, which means that if they do have any truck with this bizarre kine of “thinking” that has taken over the left on these issues, it will be only because they think it helps them personally or as a group to pretend to believe it.
I understand his sentiment, but now apply it to the rest of the media and the Democratic Party. After all, it is a Democrat Representative that said the party doesn't need any more "black faces that don't want to be a black voice".
Why can't a person with a black face (even the ones that paint them on like Trudeau and Northam) just be themselves? Why can't a gay man be: a gay, a man, and himself?
The part I love about that answer is that the same media he doesn't read will go crazy criticizing him. But he won't read it.
How Trumpian.
-XC
The favored status of Gay men had a long run while Straights still opposed them, but now that the establishment no longer opposes them, being anti establishment has morphed into the other categories seeking a favored status that now oppose the gay men. Not that there is anything wrong with any of the many new sexual groups claiming prime victimhood.
Is the NYT part of the gay media? If not, it should be.
"Why can't a gay man be: a gay, a man, and himself?"
Individual rights are the purview of conservatism. The Left's collectivism extends to every corner of existence and makes them feel like bullying others into conformity is a virtue.
Your identity politics obsessions, professor, have no place in choosing a president.
As Trump has proven, managerial competence and business experience are the correct criteria for the presidency.
Get rid of your identity politics obsessions. Get rid of the Marxist critical dialectics. That's evil shit.
Your aversion to hard headed macho business types is the very stereotype of the artsy hipster feminist girl who adores Dylan. NYU pumps out such girls by the zillions.
This part of your game is silly. You've been applying the wrong criteria to your choice of president your entire life.
I never started reading them in the first place.
Advantage: me!
‘he's too gay,’ ‘not gay enough,’ ‘wrong kind of gay.’
All true?
Maybe he should drop out and see if he.can finally figure out how to be a competent mayor of South Bend?
What if Trump was green instead of orange?
The "Q" in LGBTQ doesn't stand for "queen." That was Hillary's gig.
Here's President Trump as Queen.
Creating the New Man and New Woman according to your Marxist feminism is not a legitimate province of government, professor.
This part of your game is simply evil.
Seeing the presidency as the pulpit to advance your Marxist feminist ideology is evil. That's not the job, or a legitimate role for a president.
You're committing all the usual, stereotypical sins of the Marxist while claiming not to be one.
Ricky Gervais in “Extras” played the “too gay” trope to great humorous effect. It’s a Must-See TV.
"That really was a fantastic question from Clay Cane"
Fantastic from the point of view of women and gays who care about that sort of thing.
NYT TDS
WAPO TDS
Gay story
Gay story
NYT far left lib insanity
NY Mag TDS
For me,tiresome and tedious is what your blog has become. Sorry, I know it's your blog but it's become very boring to me.
When your world view is obsessed with classifying persons into various groups, deciding that everyone in each group should be the same if they like it or not, and then ranking said groups into hierarchies of worthiness, I am not sure why you would be surprised when the process repeats and those groups splinter into subgroups that jostle each other for top ranking. Of course the "True Gays" are going to denounce the "Insufficient Gays" and declare their own superiority. Any True Scotsman could have told you that.
Strong women have been around since time immemorial, but I doubt anyone would ever think of a mother, or a strong fronteir woman, or an empress as masculine, no matter how strong.
All of the great nations had one thing in common: their societies spent every day slicing the populace into smaller and smaller identities, which would establish sets of ever-changing rules on speech and interaction, with the result being not unity, but never-ending competition for cultural and political dominance, forever.
Some might call this chaos but they just don't get it.
So someone, who isn’t straight, is basically saying that Pete is an unserious novelty candidate who can be defined, for better or worse, by where he pegs on the Gay-O-Meter. Do they not recognize the invalidating foolishness of their own concerns?
Before I got to the bottom of the post I was thinking His answer works for me but would never work for me... (I'm openly hetero)
slicing the populace into smaller and smaller identities
One hand oppresses the other.
Prof, how did you come to the conclusion that your personal sexual fantasies and aesthetic preferences in men should be indoctrinated into the populace at large by government?
You see the government as rightfully wielding this power?
That video clip is pretty fascinating; I remember knowing that this performance existed, but hadn't watched any.
The woman reading Trump absolutely cleans the clock of the guy reading Hillary. For a complete moron, Trump did a pretty nice job there.
I tend to agree with ST here. Ann's interests are influenced by her son. Which is OK but pretty obvious sometimes.
Campaign ads:
Mayor Pete, a rainbow, but in pastels
Mayor Pete, on the gay spectrum
Mayor Pete,just gay enough for Indiana
Mayor Pete, hitting the gay sweet spot
Is Warren woman enough (we know she ain't Injun enough)?
Is Booker black enough?
Is Bernie sane enough?
Is Joe rational enough?
Are politics violent enough?
Obviously whether a candidate is the "right kind" of gay or black or whatever has little to do with if they'd be any good at the job. It seems like never has so much of a fuss been made over something so unimportant to the vast majority of people. Things really must be pretty good if all this concern is spent on nonsense. The problems of affluence are always preferable to the problems of scarcity, but it's often difficult to see this simple truth in the midst of it.
Even among gay people, they know, those who push this 'love wins' message is seething with hatred.
It's exactly why you never trust someone who says 'to be honest with you...' What? You weren't being honest with me before? Why do you need to say 'love wins'?
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the vast majority of lgbtaytei++ are massively very very unhappy people. It's both deflection and projection. Basic path-psych 101.
There media is obviously the same way. Even to the gay-but-sane, you can only stomach so many black pills...
"I tend to agree with ST here. Ann's interests are influenced by her son. Which is OK but pretty obvious sometimes."
WTF? Outrageous!
Not carrying Althouse's water but some of y'all need to look up the definition of "blog" I don't see a "Fair and Balanced" or "Democracy Dies in a Welter of Bullshit" underneath her name.
Mayor howdys going nowhere, he was a pet rock, but hes outworn his novelty.
"Masculinity and femininity are always being monitored and reacted to. That's always going on when we look at the various candidates, whether we admit it or not."
What about non-binary candidates? Shouldn't a Democrat candidate with one of the thirty-odd other genders be monitored and reacted to as well? This type of discriminatory language is what one would expect from a Trumpist Republican!
Butts may have had a good answer, but isn't he just taking advantage of his masculine "privilege"? Doesn't his answer apply to the entirety of the left's identity politics? Has he publicly denounced such politics and intersectionalism?
What Crack said at 9:45am. Sad that he had to be Captain Obvious, but it seems like it needed to be said.
he was a pet rock, but hes outworn his novelty.
They'll drop in little waves until there's three or four. Then a couple of them will outstay their tolerance from the elites and refuse to leave the stage...
Unknown said...
"Strong women have been around since time immemorial, but I doubt anyone would ever think of a mother, or a strong fronteir woman, or an empress as masculine, no matter how strong."
The two statues in front of the Kansas State Capitol are one of Lincoln and one of a pioneer woman. The pioneer woman is sitting with a baby in one arm, her other hand in a young child's head, a rifle across her lap and a dog at her feet. I've always felt it moving, talk about strong women.
Masculinity at least is a general advantage in leadership contests, or power struggles, or overt ones anyway.
It is a not so subtle back-of-the-brain imposition of authority, within a group mainly, but out of it as well.
There are other factors too, of course, some of which can overwhelm any deficiency, but it is in the mix.
The more masculinity the better, ceteris paribus.
So, they're saying that for our First Openly Gay President; we need a Pitcher, not a Catcher?
The kerfuffle between the LBGTQXYZ groups is actually quite hilarious. No one is "pure" enough for each of the warring groups.
If you haven't seen it...you MUST watch Dave Chappelle on Netflix Sticks and Stones. His Alphabet People scetch is spot on.
Here is a link to an audio clip of that portion of his show about the "Alphabet People"
I think Buttigieg will agree.
More access? Access to what, exactly? Was the question about political power, press coverage, the attention of the public, gay bath houses, or NFL football teams?
Maggie Thatcher wasn't called the Iron Lady because she was more masculine.
And Hillary Clinton isn't called a vengeful harpy because she is feminine, for damn sure.
Pierre Trudeau certainly isn't more masculine than say, the kicker on a high school JV football team, nor is Beto, and they aren't exactly suffering for their sins of nonmasculine characteristics.
I think the premise of the query needs to be explored, and perhaps repudiated.
I am convinced that much homosexuality may be the result of an inability to attract women, or some sort of inferiority complex on that score. Women can be a tough slog for many men, a steep learning curve, a hard sell, a minefield of rejection. All of which can cause a state of permanent or at least long term fear. Its much easier to woo men, as a substitute for sex and personal connection. Which probably then becomes a habit, making this state of affairs even harder to break out of.
I have nothing scientific on this, just a couple of cases I know of personally where a formerly gay man has "switched", in one case one who became very wealthy, and consequently I think became attractive to women or who aquired the self confidence to pursue them.
I don't see a "Fair and Balanced" or "Democracy Dies in a Welter of Bullshit" underneath her name.
Just an observation and I notice you don't refute it.
I always thought Liberace was, in fact, sufficiently gay, but now I'm confused about the proper standard of gayness. Perhaps, Mayor Pete can edify us.
It didn't sound like Buttigeig was "attacking" the Alphabet Media.
More like an observation that by just being himself (whatever that is) is making everyone unhappy because he isn't neatly fitting into each of those individual groups' ideal of what a "gay" person should be.
This is the problem with identity politics. Not everyone is going to fit into the one size fits all cookie cutter view of what that label is.
For instance. Tea Party. Not everyone has the exact same views. Possibly they share some main, common points. But...not all the same. Ditto with Black people, Hispanic, Conservatives, Liberals, various religious groups etc etc etc.
Ideological purity also exists in the LBGTQ world and evidently Pete has figured it out that they think he isn't "pure" enough.
Nice video at the end there. It really confirms some theories of my own that I have.
If Caitlyn Jenner, who now identifies as a lesbian, decided to run for public office would she be considered too masculine, or just too Republican to be part of the LGBTQ community? lol
Gender and sex. Their preferred candidate is feminine male. Perhaps transgender/neo-sexual. They will settle for a a male transgender/homosexual. Strange, where once transgender/homosexuals were a pure and prideful class in the spectrum.
That really was a fantastic question from Clay Cane.
Moving to more mundane topics, do you believe Federal expenditures should not exceed Federal income? If so, should the gap be closed by increasing Federal income or by decreasing Federal expenditures? what would you - Pet ButteredEgg - do as President to correct the disparity?
The funny thing is that Buttuvwxyz is less masculine than Warren.
Mayor Pete is clean, articulate, and doesn’t speak with an effeminate lisp unless he wants to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWbEHOng9F0
Link to Alphabet People audio. Don't know what happened to my HTML link in the posting process. /shrug
Get rid of your identity politics obsessions. Get rid of the Marxist critical dialectics. That's evil shit.
To her credit, she has taken affirmative steps to expose the gender/sex progressive cognitive dissonance, color judgments or diversity under too many labels, the witch hunts and warlock judgments, and the millions of victims of progressive policy in abortion chambers, including thousands of bodies that were inadequately sequestered.
" ... and this one is juuuuuuust right!"
-- from "Goldilocks and the 3 Gays"
I'm not the world's most masculine man
But I know what I am and I'm glad I'm a man
And so is Lola
Props to Mayor Pete for his cogent and reasonable response.
Buttigieg is what I call a credentialled idiot
Whoa, Nelly!
the vast majority of lgbtaytei++ are massively very very unhappy people.
They are by and large all bitches.
Pete should follow Red Bill and just give it up. He has about as much chance becoming President as he does becoming pregnant.
Though it won't be for lack of trying, I imagine.
Pete Buttigieg is gay?
I don't have a problem with gays. As for the gay media, gay drama queens, gay protesters, gay Hollywood spokesmen, and gay political activists, well, they are a bit tedious.
"Part-time" Pete is funny!
Dave Chappell had the bit in his show that called it re the G driving the LGBT* car exactly right.
I don't have a problem with gays.
The animus that appears here is generational. My extended family includes conservative Christians, and the younger generation, while having virtually the same views as their parents on most things, are quite tolerant of gays and even open to gay marriage within the church.
the G driving the LGBT* car exactly right.
The growing power of T may drive the L to jump out.
When the HB2 Bathroom Bill bro?haha! descended on NC, I couldn't believe the women's athletic associations sided with the T. Crazy to give up their privacy AND their stardom.
I always thought Liberace was, in fact, sufficiently gay, but now I'm confused about the proper standard of gayness. Perhaps, Mayor Pete can edify us.
Buttigieg was saying, "be yourself".
It is the gay press (I despise the alphabet soup thing) trying to determine the proper standard of gayness -- which, by the way, includes being a Democrat. Thus excluding me, among many others.
A schism in the spectrum between tg, tl, and tns.
The transgender spectrum is fading and losing its new religion sheen. Never go full Pro-Choice.
the "rainbow" is to connote inclusiveness along the whole spectrum.
within the subset of 'Gay', is there no 'rainbow'?
within the subset of 'Gay', is there no 'rainbow'?
No, just differing shades of violet and ultraviolet.
Identity politics is a zero sum game always won by the most ruthless Leninists.
Post a Comment