Why I am so offended by Pink Tutu being used as an equation for cowardice

I know many, many gays who are brave, who faced or sometimes still face, on a daily basis both phsyical and mental abuse just to get an education. Let me mention just one. Mikey Gonzalez of Levanworth Kansas. He goes to Lansing high school. He took death threats, being shoved into lockers, and goodness knows what else. He could have gone to another high school, he is Melissa Etheridge's nephew, but chose to stay. He did so, because he knew a freshman would be coming after him. That takes courage. When people equate what is obviously gay imagery with cowardice, that is disrespecting all the Mikey's in the world. I won't be bullied into being silent about this. You can call me paranoid until the cows come home and give birth to aliens. It is the least I can do.

But I'm bad at this kind of thing anyway.

than it does being gay or girlish.


When I see the term pink tutu dem, I don;t think that the dem is being called gay or female.


I think they are being called weak willed.

Hm.

However on stage the persona is very different...


I'm curious why you would assume the comment is in reference to off-stage behavior or persona and not those on stage.

I'm curious as to why you would assume they are.

Often lifted, carried, tossed into leaping jumps etc. As opposed to doing the lifting and tossing etc.

That doesn't mean as individuals they are weak willed... however the image of the ballerina on stage is of someone who is dainty, delicate, and easily moved.

That's what I've always figured the term means when applied to dems, that they are delicate and easily moved around by the opposition.

"Easily-moved." Got it.

I think meaning is found in context. The CONTEXT of the phrase "pink tutu Dems" is perhaps "easily moved around by the opposition," but there's definitely more to it. Why "dainty and delicate?" Why not liken them to pawns, or call them lightweight, or pushovers, etc.?

The main thing to me is that if a gay man I know and believe says "I find this offensive," I don't argue. In addition, I know the use of feminine traits to mean "cowardly" and "weak," vs. male characterizations to mean "brave" and "strong." It's not a big leap to understand that the application of feminine traits to MEN could be offensive to gay men who've also experienced terms like "pussy," "sissy," "girlie-man" etc. as pejoratives.

Maybe that's something worth thinking about.

In that the roll of the person in the pink tutu is very often to make things look so much easier and effortless than they really are.

I've seen dancer put their hands on the waist of a ballerina and lift her up and toss her into the air, seemingly effortlessly. As if she was practically floating.

When I hear pink tutu dem, that's the image in my mind... some republican grabbing the dem and moving them so easily from one position to another. On another level the only reason it looks so easy is that the ballerina is facilitating the movement and aiding in the process... which also comes to mind when thinking of pink tutu dems, helping their opposition a la Lieberman.

There is also the note of dancing with the opposition, rather than say standing up to them.

"I know the use of feminine traits to mean "cowardly" and "weak," vs. male characterizations to mean "brave" and "strong.""

But that's a two way street... many male gender specific terms can be used as pejoratives. What about calling someone a dick or a prick or a cock sucker? Now theres a puzzler for you...what gender is insulted by the term cocksucker?

If I call W a prick, does that mean I hate men?

I know several gay guys who self-characterize as fem or butch... is that insulting to men or women?


I think the bottom line is that too often too many people seek power in victimhood, because they think if they can be the biggest victim, then they can use that as leverage against others. To me it is phony more often than not.... and phony outrage is poutrage.

Yes, I know. That is the bottom line beneath everything you've been saying -- that was obvious from the start.

...and says more about the person using it than the person whom it's directed at.

Homophobia is, in many ways, a product of the sense that gay men are acting like women and thus letting down the team.

A lot of people need to grow a thicker skin.

And, of course, these are the same people who tell us we're not really offended by their idol sucking up to homophobes, but just engaging in "faux outrage."

she had posted threads about elite actually equalling uppity but was outraged when I called her on this.

All criticisms of her idol are racist, but she's free to sling whatever shit she chooses at whomever she likes.

Last election, she and I supported the same candidate, and she was a daily embarrassment to me. I am so glad that we are not on the same side this go around.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Such hate speech shouldn't be permitted on DU.


See how easy that is?

...nevermind.

I want them to remain here in this thread to show clearly and undeniably that the folks whining the loudest about how wrong it is to make a comment that might in any way attack someones sexuality (as long as they are gay) are more than happy to themselves launch into personal attacks on someones sexuality.

Thanks for working so hard to prove my point about the hypocritical double standards of those spewing poutrage over the pink tutu comment being a veiled attack on sexuality, by being so willing in the same thread to openly, outwardly and directly attack my sexuality.


:eyes:

because it is great proof of exactly my point... that those spewing this red herring about how wrong and horrible it is to make a comment that might insult someone's sexuality... are fucking hypocrites.

Your go to response is to attack my sexuality.

Very very telling...

Frankly, your comments seem to confirm the whole "mama's basement" thing.

Attacking someone by calling them a virgin is precisely an attack on their sexuality....

But feel free to explain exactly how calling someone a virgin as an attack, has nothing to do with their sexual behavior.

Go ahead... you may need a shovel.

Definition of sexuality (from google definition): http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+sexuality&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

"Involves giving and receiving sexual pleasure, as well as enabling reproduction."

Since you've obviously never given/received sexual pleasure (with another person), it's not an attack on your sexuality.

Actually, sexuality has to do with sexual character or potency as well as sexual development and reproductive behavior.

So attacking someone for a perceived inability to get sex, is an attack on their sexuality. In fact it's rather like saying a lesbian just needs a good d**king to set her straight. That's the same mentality you are currently expressing... if i just got the right type of sex, I'd somehow come around to your way of thinking.

But please keep digging.

___________________________________________________________
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
sex·u·al·i·ty Audio Help (sěk'shōō-āl'ĭ-tē) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. The condition of being characterized and distinguished by sex.
2. Concern with or interest in sexual activity.
3. Sexual character or potency.

That's what I've noticed throughout this exchange :eyes:

Are you saying there is something wrong with being a virgin vs not being a virgin?

Please do tell me what type of sexuality you consider permissible.

Sorry if we struck a nerve.

by showing you really have no problems bashing someone on the basis of their sexuality, sexual choices, and sexual experiences.


Oh btw another explanation for the "sucking up" = "gay bashing." was that I was demonstrating the tenuous and ridiculous connection between "pink tutu" = "gay bashing." But you seemed so eager to attack my sexuality, that you missed the point.

YOUR argument was "tenuous and ridiculous." However, dsc's was neither, in my view.

Gay-bashing is serious. Your "demonstration" was not, and so I didn't treat it seriously.

And for that you attack my sexuality.


"Gay-bashing is serious."

And yet virgin bashing is OK?

What about gay virgins... are they OK to bash?

If you sincerely feel offended, I apologize. You might, in future, refrain from making analogies based on things you don't really know about.

And as I also posted, gays have long been subjected to physical violence in addition to emotional abuse and discrimination on a range of levels. If/when you can show me that "virgin bashing" is on a par with that, I'll take you seriously.

"If you sincerely feel offended, I apologize. You might, in future, refrain from making analogies based on things you don't really know about."

And again you attack my level of sexual experience and understanding.


"And as I also posted, gays have long been subjected to physical violence in addition to emotional abuse and discrimination on a range of levels. If/when you can show me that "virgin bashing" is on a par with that, I'll take you seriously."

Oh i get it, you think it is OK to bash one group based on their sexual history, sexual experiences, and sexual choices... as long as you consider that group to have been less victimized than the group who's sexuality you claim it is wrong to attack?


Again, what if I were a virgin because I was gay and had not found a suitable partner? WOuld your hateful bashing still be OK, or would it not be OK?

I simply don't believe you. I think you're having fun feigning offense. If not, quit while you're ahead, because it's just too easy.

The fact your attacks do not offend me, doesn't change the fact that they are attacks.

Attacks that completely undermine the whole premise of your poutrage over the pink tutu comments.


Why would your attacks offend me... they have zero power and are based on your total ignorance of my life and my sexual history. All your attacks demonstrate is that you're perfectly willing to attack my sexuality, even as you condemn the use of a term that some might purposefully misconstrue as an attack on sexuality.

Again... If you were seriously offended by the jokes, I sincerely apologize. If not, and I was correct that you were being facetious yourself, then I don't.

Don't know how I thought that.

pouting and having a tantrum... over nothing, over not getting your way etc.

I am specifically demeaning and belittling Mikey Gonzalez and those who relate to him... exactly.

That was the secret plot all along... you've figured it out.

You've broken the code.

:sarcasm:

Hatred of gays isn't nothing.

so those offended by the pink tutu comment are offended over nothing.

And your opinion is more informed than dsc's because...?

Doesn't mean that opinion has anything to do with reality.


You can have the opinion that skunks can fly 300mph if you feed them gumdrops... and you have a right to have that opinion.


Just as I have the right to have my opinion, that this other opinion is ridiculous bullshit.

Nor is it strictly a feminine nor masculine activity. So, unless one has extremely limited sexual experience, I can't quite see how "sucking up" could be considered "gay-bashing."

My apologies if you're sensitive on the subject.

Mama's basement.

You are doing a fantastic job of demonstrating the hypocritical nature of the poutrage.


You are more than willing to attack my sexuality, sexual experiences, and my living situation.... all of which you know nothing about.


And why.... because I dared to disagree with your manufactured poutrage on a message board... poutrage about the EXACT same types of attacks, that you are currently directing at me.

Obviously you are OK with attacking someones sexuality, sexual experiences, sexual preferences, and now their living situation.

Very telling.


Go ahead... bash me some more. Perhaps attack my race or gender too?

By the way, why do you say "poutrage" instead of "outrage?"

What if I changed my remark a little, to say that believing "sucking up" = "gay bashing" would imply a lack of sexual *knowledge* rather than "experience?" Would that make it less upsetting?

in fact i found them rather amusing in the degree of hypocrisy they demonstrated.


"What if I changed my remark a little, to say that believing "sucking up" = "gay bashing" would imply a lack of sexual *knowledge* rather than "experience?""

It would still be a personal attack on my sexuality. Because rather than say that my comment made no sense or asking me to explain what I meant, your go to response was to bash what you assumed was my level of sexual experience/knowledge etc.

Again you missed the point entirely. In a thread where folks are decrying the evil wrongness of making a comment that can be even remotely construed as an attack on sexuality, some of those same folks have no problem at all launching into direct personal attacks about someone's sexual history.

Did you honestly believe I was attacking your "sexual history?" Really?? Do you really not understand oral sex?

I considered your post facetious, and responded in kind.

And meanwhile, why "poutrage" instead of "outrage?"

You insinuated I must lack sexual experience, which is a pretty clear attack on my sexuality.

And you do it again in this very post...

"Do you really not understand oral sex?"


Do you really not understand pink tutus?

There's a lot out there about oral sex -- it's worth learning.

Yes, I understand pink tutus more than you realize.

and therefore are hardly the iconic indicator of sexual preference you seem to think they are?


Just like oral sex can be enjoyed by straights or gays... are you starting to grasp the point now?


Try a little harder, I'm sure you'll figure it out.

Women. Women only.

The vast majority of women have never worn a tutu... just like the vast majority of men.


Even the majority of dancers have never worn a tutu. Ballet is very specific and disciplined art that most avoid because it way too hard.

But that's all irrelevant to the real point, which is that the term pink tutu dem isn't an attack on women... or gays... or gay women... or dancers... or gay dancers. It is an attack on weak willed dems to capitulate to the opposition... in a way that visually is very reminiscent of a ballerina being picked up by another dancer and moved seemingly effortlessly from one position to another.

If dsc says he finds it offensive, who are you to say he's wrong?

Why is "moved from one position to another" a "pink tutu?" Why not a "tutu?" Why not a "pawn" or "chess piece" or "checker" or "kitten?" Why not a "feather" or a "laptop" or a "bowling pin?" Do you really not believe people who say their own experience tells them that "pink tutu," like "pussies" or "sissies" or "girliemen," is intentionally a feminine reference?

You REALLY think it's gender-neutral?

Neutral... no. I just don't think that the real punch of the term is couched in gender or sexuality...

Honestly, calling Hillary a pink tutu dem... is that an attack on her gender?

Now calling Lieberman a pink tutu dem, there's clearly the element of him wearing female attire... however if cross-dressing was the point of the attack, why not say dress or skirt wearing dem?


"Why is "moved from one position to another" a "pink tutu?" Why not a "tutu?""

Aren't most tutus pink? Would you really feel better if the attack was white tutu wearing dems? Or just tutu wearing dems?

:shrug:

So I took a term and twisted it to spin as an attack on something, which it clearly wasn't attacking, to illustrate a point and you missed the point entirely... yet, you proved my point for me, by then attacking my sexuality in response.

I can understand why dsc felt offended. If you were attempting to make the point that no one *should* feel offended -- by using what you call "spin" -- I believe you failed. There is no similar connection between the phrase "sucking up" and being gay.

as the connection between pink tutu and homosexuality.


That was the point.... and you not only missed it, but proved it correct by then attacking my sexuality.


You proved, quite well, that the folks who are so offended by this alleged pink tutu attack on sexuality.... are more than willing to themselves attack someone's sexuality.

Tell me, what if I was in fact a virgin, but because I was gay and hadn't yet found the right man? Would your attack then still be acceptable to you or would you consider yourself a gay basher?

I'm just trying to more accurately map out your double standard for what attacks on sexuality are OK and what are forbidden.

There's simply no connection between "sucking up" and "gay bashing" that I can see. There IS, however, a connection between "pink tutu" as a term for "cowardice" that I can see.

If you were trying to show that dsc is wrong somehow, it isn't that I missed your point -- it's that you didn't make it.

I treated your analogy with the same level of seriousness I believed you felt when you posted it. None. If I thought you were sincerely offended by the phrase "sucking up" as gay bashing, I'd probably apologize and learn from it. And if I thought you were sincerely offended by my logic (that such a connection shows a lack or sexual understanding and/or experience), I might apologize and send you a PM linking to some explanation of male-female, female-male, and female-female oral sex. And even then, as far as I know, attacks on virgins aren't exactly on a par with the attacks on gays such as the one dsc described here.

So, if you have a real point to make, you might try making it without sarcastic, disingenuous rhetoric -- at least until or unless you get better at it.

Your standards for what is an acceptable attack on someone's sexuality are arbitrary.

That's the whole root of the issue, arbitrary decisions to make the choice to be offended or to not be offended by something based on preconceived conclusions and agendas.

The pink tutu comment is supposed to be horrible and wrong because it might peripherally attack someone's homosexuality.... yet the same folks who act as if that is so horrible and wrong to attack someones sexuality, have no problem attacking my sexuality directly and personally.

It demonstrates the fact that the poutrage over the tutu comment is disingenuous and manufactured.

If you were really truly offended by the notion of attacking someone's sexuality... you wouldn't then turn around and bash what you perceive as my lack of sexual experience.

The fact is that my sarcastically acting offended by the use of the term "sucking up," is as ridiculous and baseless as acting offended over the term pink tutu... but the fact that the go to response for you and a few others was to attack my level of sexual experience and bash me by calling me a virgin, only further demonstrates how totally baseless and phony the whole pink tutu issue is.

You clearly have no problems attacking someones sexuality... you proved that. So you can;t then turn around and say you're offended by the pink tutu comment because you think it attacks sexuality.

In my view, you really haven't made it. Your attempt at drawing a parallel simply didn't work.

You want to proclaim what you call "poutrage" that I "attacked your sexuality," when I didn't do that.

Your argument is just silly. The OP explained that he was offended, and I accept that. I don't understand what your own problem is, and at this point, I don't really care.

As I said... were I a virgin because I was gay and had not found a partner, would that make your attack an attack on sexuality?


My point has been made fantastically well.... and you continue to make it with every post attempting to defend insinuating that I'm a virgin as being something other than an attack on sexuality.


" Your argument is just silly. "

My argument is that you can choose to be offended by anything... and it is often ridiculous to expect that others should have to alter their behavior to avoid offending you.

The whole thing is manipulative arbitrary bullshit. Sure, I can accept that someone might be offended by the term... but so what? Should the universe change to suit them? What about the person offended by an interracial couple on a tv show... should that person's feelings of offense be treated as seriously as someone offended by the term "fireman" being used in a show?

All to often today people make the choice to be offended as a means to manipulate people.

"My argument is that you can choose to be offended by anything." Yes, I know.

"Um... I'm not sure how sexually experienced you are, but... nevermind. "

followed by QC saying...

"Hard to get any action in Mama's basement. n/t"




The offense behind the term pink tutu is so bogus and manufactured that those claiming to be so offended had no trouble bashing someone else based on their perceived sexual experience.

Your response proved my point... the outrage is phony, conditional, opportunistic, BULLSHIT. And you'll bash someone based on sexuality without hesitation.

:eyes:

the pink tutu dem comment is bashing someone's sexuality.


Your quote proves you have no problems making the same kinds of attacks you condemn.

Let me know when somebody physically attacks you for your virginity, and I'll beat them up for you.

and when the next gay bashing right winger psycho uses "pink tutu dems" as an attack on Mikey Gonzalez, I'll be the first to call them on it.

they say "faux" instead of "fake" because it's way gayer sounding that way.

One, most Obama supporters have not "screamed racism" and the ones that have brought up racism usually had a good reason to. Two, have you heard Barack Obama ONCE say he has been a victim of racism during this campaign? NO, you haven't.

has repeatedly posted threads saying that anyone who called Obama's San Francisco comments elitist actually were calling Obama uppity. If that isn't screaming racism, please tell me what it is.

other than this one where I have. Put up the link or shut the fuck up.

I am asking you, right now, aren't you screaming homophobia? Also, you have taken every chance to call Obama and his supporters homophobes, here is one from the night of Iowa: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=62293&mesg_id=62293

if that is a problem, tough shit.

Are you the poster who was ranting that Obama wouldn't sit for an openly hostile interview from a gay rag?

Or was that another of the "obama hates gays" bashers?

I asked why he wouldn't sit for an interview with a gay paper which endorsed him and one where the person had endorsed Kucinich.

were openly hostile and demanding he sit for an interview with no prep and an openly hostile interviewer who refused to let him know what questions would be.

Seems reasonable to refuse that kinda clear ambush.

And didn't someone point out that Obama did other interviews with other gay publications?

and you are out and out wrong about not knowing what the questions would be. Actually, the interviewer told both Hillary and him exactly what the interview would be about (a report that had come out about problems with civil unions in new jersey). Since then Obama has done one more for a total of three. In comparision I found, with virtually no effort, five that Hillary had done.

And he did another since then.... so what's the problem.... is there some gay mag interview minimum he's expected to meet in order to not be considered a gay hater?

both were McClurkin damage control with one being about literally nothing else. The second was never reported on broadly (no one had heard of the interview including the person who posted the link even though it had occured months before). The third one only happened after the blank page ran meaning that when the thread ran it hadn't occured yet.

that would satisfy you, since your simply looking for a rationalization for a pre-established conclusion.

He could do it in an interview or an ad. "Within the first 100 days of my Presidency I will sign (fill in ENDA, anti hate crimes legislation, or repeal of DADT here) and by the end of my first year I will sign all three." It would be nice if he mentioned McClurkin while doing so, but not required.

and refusing interviews with the gay press.

people who buy into the Church of Unending Victimhood. Each branch, it ought be noted, believes that their victimhood is valid (and will respond to challenges by overgeneralizing valid examples of the harm caused by -isms or -phobias), and scoffs at the beliefs of those in other brances (and will back up this disdain by overgeneralizing bogus examples of the other branch's more-outlandish claims.)

other than this one, in which I criticise homophobia. Go ahead. I demand that link or an abject apology.

A bit eager to cry meta-victimhood, it seems.

go ahead. I guarentee you that for every one you find I can find several crying racism.

"Oh, sure, you might be able to find hyperbolic declarations of homophobia--but I bet I can find more for racism!"

The relative number of victimhood-criers for each category of victim does not have any bearing on the dynamic I suggested. Victim-issue posters believe their victimhoods are valid and worth posting about ad infinitum. They also scoff at the notion of other victim groups doing the same thing.

first you all but accuse me of spamming the board with threads alledging homophobia, and when called on that you back off, instead accusing others of doing so. Now you move the goal post again. The fact is your campaign's supporters have repeatedly cried racism from the rafters, sometimes justifyably but often not. I have posted one, count it one, thread decrying homophobia and only did that after being called a name, and you have the nerve to act this way. If we have been spammimg the board put up, other wise shut up.

as moving all over on this is that you're trying to read a nonexistent position out of what I've posted. I haven't accused you of spamming anything.

You claim that Obama supporters have posted many ridiculous threads about racism. They have. Victimhood is attractive. Hillary supporters have posted many ridiculous threads about sexism, too. And there have also been many ridiculous threads about homophobia. (Keep in mind that the my declaration of ridiculous threads about something does not mean that I believe that there are no legitimate threads about homophobia, sexism, or racism. Many are legit.)

However, since you and others have claimed that I have walked into multiple threads about homophobia and claimed false victimhood, you're conceding half the point--that many such threads do exist. You've already conceded the other half--that you find victimhood threads for other groups to be "often not" justified.

My entire point was the single-issue exceptionalism that activists often display. In an attempt to attack my personal credibility, you've conceded the point.

I didn't say you had a history of coming into threads about homophobia, I said, and stand by, that you haven't ever gone into ones about racism, even those you conceed were invalid. The fact is I am still waiting for all of these threads to be linked.

where does the charge of only caring about their own issues appear in your post.

taken issue with exceptional victimization on DU. I have accused sexism-, homophobia-, and racism-criers of the same activity just now--that is, of marginalizing other groups while claiming their own complaints are valid. You don't even seem to deny that such is the case; you're just angry that I lumped you in with the groups you dismiss as generally invalid.

and lied about what you have and haven't posted. And yes, I do have a problem with people lying about what I have posted.

as we all have legitimate reasons to complain.

I'm accusing people of holding different standards of marginality for complaints coming from groups with which they identify, and from complaints coming from groups with which they do not.

The fact that people have responded to that charge with claims of marginalization is telling.

Because that marginalizes valid complaints of racism, sexism, etc. It is dangerous territory for a party that champions itself as an equal rights party.

people are happy to accuse other people here of playing the victim, but are hypersensitive to declarations that they themselves are engaged in victim-playing. What started my participation here was a person (who had just complained about homophobia) bashing another for crying victim over racism.

where someone is complaining about Obama being the victim of racism, and bring up your points about the Church of Unending Victimhood.

I've seen you do it many times when people are discussing homophobia.

Maybe a bit of selective accusations of "victimhood?" (which, btw, as you know, is a rightwing meme to begin with, designed to attack anyone who legitimately points out racism, sexism or homophobia.)

just like I am sure that I am going to climb mount everest tomorrow.

Clearly, it's time for all us ungrateful nellies to quit our whining, grow thicker skins, and get on the unity bus--but in the back of it, please, so as not to offend the fundamentalist bigots Mr. Unity has been sucking up on so assiduously for all these years.

I don't recall ever previously referring to victimhood in homophobia threads--or any other threads. I recall denying that Obama supporters were homophobic. I recall denying that McClurkin was as large an issue, months later, as some claimed it was.

But generally, yeah, I've usually steered clear of both racism and sexism arguments, though I've engaged in both. Those aren't my turf; I'm white and male and so I can't get into personal aspects of that, though. I can legitimately talk about GLBT issues, though, and from personal experience.

You're ending that with something I already mentioned, by the way: presenting the existence of legitimate complaints to dismiss the possibility of illegitimate complaints.

that is what previously means.

I am one of those straight guys who just really doesn't care who anybody else fucks... however my lack of concern one way or the other has gotten me label a "homophobe" as well as a "faglover" depending on which hate group's mandate for permissible thought I happened to run astray of that day.

And to be honest I see those who scream "homophobe" exactly the same as those who scream "faglover" because it is the same divisive us vs them mentality being perpetuated by both extremes. They're all hateful assholes... behaving like idiots, trying to out-victim each other because they think doing so provides them with some guilt or fear based emotional leverage they can use to manipulate people into doing what they want.

It's all ridiculous manufactured poutrage.

But say people compared Hillary to say, Rosie O'Donnell... in the same way that Obama was compared to Jesse Jackson... would you argue the comparison was gay bashing?

I'm not sure what you mean. If you are trying to say I don't understand homophobia, you are very wrong. I am gay. I am just sick of certain people hating Obama and his supporters becasue they have convinced themselves he hates gay people.

"Pink tutu" meant more than cowardice. It meant, performing for the crowd by doing something totally out of character. Like KKK ballet dancing. Call me naive' I guess. I think it's more a slam on ballet dancers than any sexually orientated group. I just can't apply it to broad brush gays in my mind.

I've never seen any of them wearing a tutu.

Perhaps the folks crying homophobia need to take a look at their inner imagery and ask why they assume that pink tutu = gay.



Every time I've seen ballet... which admittedly isn't very much, there's always someone in a tutu being tossed about by someone in tights. I've always thought the pink tutu remark was about being easily moved or controlled by others and being basically weak willed.

That didn't stop people on this very board from using it to describe Daschle and other Dems years ago.

I won't go on Bart Cop solely due to this issue.

That's where the whole thing really started.

I agree, too, with the posts saying it's sexist, as well. The whole notion of cowardice being feminine or women being weak, etc., is an old insult and yes, the idea of men in tutus or "pussies" or "sissies" is used as an insult to/about gay men, as well.

P.S. - thanks for spelling tutu correctly as one word, too.

than ballet or the ballerinas.

a pink tone.

It is incredibly hateful to claim that only white people wear tutu's.

ballet is closely linked with Slavic peoples, as Russian is one of the primary schools of Ballet. The word "slave," of course, has its roots in the word Slav: both come from middle-latin "Sclavus," denoting both a Slavic person and a Slavic person who has been taken prisoner in war and put to slavery.

Mention of a pink tutu is therefore tantamount to calling such person a slave--which has obvious racial overtones in America.

refuse to donate a cent to your candidate, don't dare ask why.

Activist groups generally think internal politics is a zero-sum game.

I did so in Ohio and Mississippi among other places. I am not single issue. But when a candidates supporters are nearly uniform in being self rightous jackasses it makes me wonder about the candidate.

Odd, if I refuse to support Hillary, it is because of her and what she has said and done... not because I'm having a tanturm over one of her supporters exposing the insincere nature of some manufactured poutrage over the wrong words being used on a message board to criticize the candidate I support.

:wow: Not really sure, though. :wow:

He has the power! LOL!

then either you are engaging in hyperbole or you have led a sheltered life. I'll assume the first.

after independence the violence and unrest was horrific. Combined with the slavery imagery

I would have to agree that the only clear meaning to take away from this language is associated with

the subconscious archetypal "black man free of slavery is a dangerous man".

Usage of the color pink is meant only as a distraction and was obviously added on to confuse.

Pink Tutu is the dog whistle of the 2008 campaign.

for your candidate. I will vote for his worthless ass and not a thing else. No dollars, no phone calls, no canvasing, nothing. I will work for Jim Neal or for our gubenorial nominee but not for him, and people like you are a big part of why. Your worthless ass supporters brought up the pink tutu not me.

What does my candidate have to do with a Bartcop photoshop?

BTW, the picture has nothing to do with gays - it is a reflection on dems getting in line and dancing to the WH tune (and THAT is the slander, because Kerry and Edwards did not, while Lieberman wrote the tune). A chorus line of Rockettes would have said the same thing. If anything it is mysogynistic, feminizing Dems.

But it's a great piece for faux outrage. Something for the trolls to point to and say "I will never vote for your guy" - as if they had any intention to in the first place.

Fucking red herring.

to rationalize preconceived conclusions... exactly.


Someone who has spewed nothing but hate for a candidate since day one, suddenly saying that because someone on a message board called them on their BS red herring victimhood guilt leverage ploy, they're NOW not going to support the candidate they've done nothing but attack?

It's BS... weak ineffectual BS that's fueled by bitterness over the fact that same candidate they've relentlessly attacked, is still winning.

I loves me some good word games.

that the vast majority of pink tutus are made in China, by sweat shop workers, who are subjected to inhuman conditions and workplace abuses.

Therefore use of the term pink tutu is not only racist, sexist, and homophobic... but also anti-labor and supportive of communism.

I never posted it but I see where you are coming from.

I will especially apologize for associting them with Joe Lieberman

now THAT is something to take umbrage with

You covered the offensive - I'll cover the stupid. Just what we need is to perpetuate the myth that Democrats are weak. I've always hated it. Isn't it funny how that graphic has disappeared around here since John Edwards became the unlikely hero of the left.

why not blue or yellow? We know what pink means in this instance.

Thats incredibly odd.

Once by a Hillary supporter and once by an Obama supporter. I didn't think it was appropriate either time.

It has been nice to see how they have honored Melissa Etheridge but no way would they be this nice to her if she hadn't sold a bunch of records and put their town on the map.

i don't think Leavenworth gives a damn.

:hi:

honestly I am considering just staying out of the presidential race in november. the thought of elevating a candidate who has supporters like these makes me vomit.

"honestly I am considering just staying out of the presidential race in november"

How friendly to GLBTG concerns do you think a McCain administration is going to be? I'll give you a hint: not very.

"the thought of elevating a candidate who has supporters like these makes me vomit."

Many of us feel the same exact way about the HRC boosters.

For what it's worth, I agree with you about the "pink tutu" business.

:thumbsdown:

so... I will not use it. Looks like one of the people who used it said they renounce it and wouldnt use it anymore either.

I support you in this. There are better and less bigoted ways to express one's contempt for lack of moral or political courage.

But you and I know it's the context.

Nominated. Enough with letting people pull this cr@p.

it's primarily sexist, by using a traditionally-feminine article of apparel as a mark of weakness. Further adding to the sexism is the fact that ballet is actually extraordinarily physically and mentally demanding; the sole reason for its use as an insult is that it is worn by graceful-looking women.

We then move sideways into homophobia, since we are calling a man feminine as an insult implying weakness--which runs parallel to homophobic thought about gays. It's essentially taking homophobic arguments and using them in a slightly altered context.

One can easily view it through a lens of homophobia, of sexism, or of both. One cannot, however, excuse it.

To say you are a pink tutu wearing dem, isn't saying.. you're like a woman, or a gay woman, or gay man or whatever the hell the victim police are trying to claim it means.

It is saying you are just putting on a show, one where you dance around and get tossed about by others in the show.

I think those trying to spin this into a gay bashing or female bashing comment are purposefully taking the comment out of the context of the stage performance.

Really? "Pink tutu" means getting tossed about in a show? That's a new one to me. And I'm a dancer.

And since you attacked my sexuality previously in this thread, your faux poutrage on this whole issue has been exposed as hypocritical BS.

But hey why not post a picture to show how full off crap your whole position is.... tossed about, here ya go.

:crazy: :rofl:

Here....take your pick.



Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
toss Audio Help /tɔs, tɒs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation, verb, tossed or (Literary) tost; toss·ing; noun
–verb (used with object)
1. to throw, pitch, or fling, esp. to throw lightly or carelessly: to toss a piece of paper into the wastebasket.

5. to throw, raise, or jerk upward suddenly: She tossed her head disdainfully.

–verb (used without object)
11. to fling or jerk oneself or move restlessly about, esp. on a bed or couch: to toss in one's sleep.

14. to go with a fling of the body: to toss out of a room in a fit of anger.

–noun

16. a pitching about or up and down.

20. a sudden fling or jerk of the body, esp. a quick upward or backward movement of the head.

Ballet dancers do NOT refer to lifts as any of these things. We are not pitched, flung, jerked, or tossed out of a room in a fit of anger... :rofl:

Further, there's a lot of physical effort for the liftee, as well. Very rarely does choreography call for a dancer to just stand there and get lifted, much less "tossed."

You are seriously cracking me up. Sorry if this offends you! :rofl: :rofl:

As in to lift on up and into the air... to throw lightly etc.

Are you saying dancers are never lifted into a jump or jump into a lift?

"Further, there's a lot of physical effort for the liftee, as well. Very rarely does choreography call for a dancer to just stand there and get lifted, much less "tossed.""

There's nothing in the definition of tossed that indicates a lack of effort on the part of the liftee nor a lack of participation in the lift/toss/jump.



and here's a a few vids of what I'm talking about when i say tossed about

http://urbanfarmgirl.net/pas/swan.shtml

http://urbanfarmgirl.net/pas/bluebird.shtml

http://urbanfarmgirl.net/pas/arabesque.shtml

We are not "tossed!" Sorry! I don't need to see any videos.

that meets the definition to raise upward suddenly or go with a fling of the body... but frankly i don;t really care if you view them.... they prove me correct regardless.

:rofl:

Just that the physical activity is aptly and accurately described by the term tossed about.

I always took it as a reference for being a little ballet class 6 yr old girl..running to Mommy when someone shows her a bug..

I never got a gay reference from it ..

Is therefore somehow automatically insulting to gays?

Insinuating that gay men are just women/girls is very ignorant and insulting to gay men, many of whom are masculine and proud of their masculinity.


Very very insulting and ignorant.


(Again, see how easy that is to spin comments as bashing.... I could be a professional victim.)

n/t

Ballet is a gorgeous and sensual art form, but sometimes hockey sticks are what's needed.

I can understand how you feel, though, because of the rep the ballet corp has for being filled with gay men.

I don't think you are being overly sensitive, I just don't know of a better term that sums up in so few words the scathing indictment that should rightfully be heaped on Dems that don't stand up for tha people.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I remember a loooong discussion here about whether or not the confederate flag is offensive. A lot of people said they were offended by them, and yet a lot of others claimed they were not offensive, to them or anyone else!

If this offends, it's offensive.

... In this case, the question of whether or not something SHOULD offend somebody.

I'm not taking a stand on any particular case - just pointing out the rhetorical cowardice of the tautological argument.

The question is how one chooses -- or feels they SHOULD -- respond to the fact that somebody else is offended.

Your argument is about making judgments on how others should feel.

Mine is about thinking about how best to respond to others' feelings when they are offended.

as obviously it has offended some. Read the post where I decided to weight in on the "FrenchieCat" but lets not use her name, but let's make it clear that we are talking about her thread.

The fact that I was personally attacked, and your husband was right there in the pile-on is something that I am offended about. NOw, do I have a right to be offended, or just those who called me names based on me posting something that they didn't like?

Do you think that this is how someone should be approaching their displeasure for a term used; by calling me names and deriding my person?

And if you have something to say to me, say it to me.

You are a sorry, lonely case.

"And if you have something to say to me, say it to me."

Here's your post prior to me even weighing in on this thread:


Husb2Sparkly (1000+ posts) Sun Apr-20-08 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #17
55. I've had the same experience
We shared a common enthusiasm for a candidate last cycle. And then, in fact just yesterday, I was branded by her as a wearer of pink tutus.

I therefore had to post a picture of me in an actual pink tutu.

Whatever .......

Yeah, she was an embarrassment when we had a candidate in common. I bet she's viewed that way by some of her fellow candidate supporters this go-round, too.

:grouphug:

had no problem turning around and attacking my sexuality and calling my a virgin who lives in my mother basement. When I asked if it would be OK to bash me for being a virgin, if I was in fact gay and a virgin because I'd not found a partner... it suddenly became time to change the subject.

Odd how consistent hypocritical folks are when presented with their own double standards...

You made a facetious argument that made NO sense, and didn't even stand as a claim unless made by someone with an extremely limited understanding of sex. The joke was turned back on you to show how dumb an argument it was. Nobody was bashing virgins, nor is that a problem in our culture the way gays are attacked -- even physically, and even murdered. You didn't make your point, and you're still trying. Give it up.

"Um... I'm not sure how sexually experienced you are, but... nevermind. "

followed by QC saying...

"Hard to get any action in Mama's basement. n/t"




Personal attacks on my sexual experience and on my living situation from people who claim to be so offended by pink tutu dems.

Very telling.

Your post clearly implies that everyone complaining is a hypocrite who did this, so I demand a link of my doing it.

I feel it is bashing... lets see, shrimpers.

Yes, I feel your comment bash and belittle the struggles of toe fetishists... therefore I'm offended.

And if that's how Hillary supporters treat shrimpers and the shrimping community, then she can forget about my vote.



:eyes:

and yes i fully wish to offend your worthless ass.

The very icon of the party... or wait, were you demeaning prostitutes?


The plight of the discount hooker?


LOL!!!

therefore, you are offensive?


Is that about right?

Then I have a choice about what, if anything, I might do about that.

is to question the validity and sincerity of that claim of so called outrage.


If I were offended by blue skies... does that mean the sky should be made cloudy for me, or that maybe someone should tell me I should get the fuck over it?

These days it seems everybody wants to whine about being offended by things... as if the simple possibility of them being offended should require everybody else to walk on eggshells to avoid denting their fragile little bubble. It's manipulative bullshit.

We've developed this economy of guilt, where being offended is the currency.

Just asking.