The Militant Dyke
Interesting personal story.
The other day a good friend of mine suggested I follow somebody on Twitter. Hmmm… well, I’m more apt to go for the suggestion of a friend than that of a machine. And besides, we had all been chatting up a storm together over on UStream (which I hate, by the way, lest anyone think I’ve sold out) earlier in the day.
The chick in question was funny, witty, pithy as hell - in other words, my kind of gal.
So I decided to look her up on Twitter and follow her as my friend suggested. We exchanged a few witty barbs to and fro, before the question of my politics came up:
“So, guess you don’t believe in gay marriage.”
Um… I didn’t quite know what to answer. No, I don’t, but not for religious reasons. I don’t believe in it because I don’t see a point to it. Every question that gay marriage raises can be answered with a contract. Be it a will, a living will, a partnership contract or even a civil union - marriage need never enter the conversation. But I didn’t say this.
Instead I said that I didn’t see a point in discussing it, and ruining a good time. I would prefer to talk to this woman about pop culture and art (she’s a brilliant artist, and I had lots of work lined up for her)… Her response?
“What’s the point of making small talk with ideological opponents?”
She then went on to completely lose her shit over gay marriage, conservative Christians (the friend who introduced her to me is far more of a devout Christian than I’ll ever be - go figure), and all things outside her sad little sphere. She revealed herself to be that saddest and angriest of all lefty creatures: The militant dyke.
Did I know she was gay going into it? Yes. Did I insult her? No. Did my very existence offend her? Yes.
And so it goes. People may accuse us on the right of being polarized, insular, bigoted, whatever. But do those selfsame people ever look inwards at their own side of the spectrum?
Uh, why did she think that you would consider her an ideological opponent? Don’t both parties have to have intelligence to participate in that battle? I have yet to find anyone on the left that could even be remotely considered an opponent. Could I consider them an ottoman? Oh, fuck yeah.
Comment by Two Dogs — June 11, 2009 @ 9:55 pm
Well, you didn’t immediately rush to agree with her, therefore, you must be the enemy. DUH!
Comment by igster101 — June 11, 2009 @ 10:01 pm
“But do those selfsame people ever look inwards at their own side of the spectrum?”
Let me answer that. No. No time left from self pity and victimhood.
I mean, is it really our fault they were born sexually fucked up? Why are we to blame? Is it they believe it was the Christian god that did it to them, so those who worship it are to be hated?
Suck it up and shut the fuck up. Your handicap is a small one compared to blindness, missing limbs, retardation. You god the good one assholes.
Comment by Jim R — June 11, 2009 @ 11:09 pm
“You god the good one…” is “got the good one..”
Comment by Jim R — June 11, 2009 @ 11:11 pm
Sounds like she was the male version of Perez Hilton. Ask a question but doesn’t like the answer.
Comment by Pissedoff — June 12, 2009 @ 12:36 am
What are ya gonna do?
Some people have so much resentment bottled up inside themselves that they don’t understand (1) the value of small talk with one’s “idological opponents,” whatever that means, (2) how to determine who their “ideological opponents” are in the first place.
Feel sorry for her, but not in a sanctimonious way. A stance of embittered victimhood may be easy over the short term, but in the long run, one ends up unfulfilled from living in an echo chamber and lonely from having driven everyone else away. She’s hurting from something: I hope she gets happier, so that the hurting will stop.
Comment by Marco — June 12, 2009 @ 9:45 am
Have a chat with one of your allies, Wendy:
I haven’t spoken to my best friend or my half-sister for years, becaue they are unreconstructed socialists. They are not bad people. They are not even stupid. In fact, they are both quite intelligent, witty and otherwise fun to be around.
But their beliefs are destroying society. I no longer respect them, especially since 9/11.
Life is too short to spend it with people whose deeply held beliefs you find abhorrent, even for a couple of hours around a Thanksgiving dinner table. Never mind on a podcast or TV “debate”.
Kathy’s not alone in wanting only the comforting sound of an echo-chamber. I’ve been tossed from several screechy-right sites, not for being abusive (you know I am not), but essentially for disagreeing.
I’d save the finger-wagging for your ideological flatmates, if I were you.
Comment by Dr.Dawg — June 12, 2009 @ 9:51 am
Why are you being nice to an enemy of humanity anyway? These people should be lobotomized not conversed with. Hopeful, warm hearted conservatives will be the death of us all.
Comment by INP — June 12, 2009 @ 2:56 pm
Sad, isn’t it that the ones who expect the most tolerance and acceptance by the vast majority of society are the ones who are themselves the least tolerant and accepting of ideological differences.
If the differences are that intolerable, then just walk away without making a scene..without screaming prejudice…without practicing the hate that you profess to hate so much. Does that qualify as HYPOCRICY? I think so.
Comment by KP — June 12, 2009 @ 5:49 pm
As a non-heterosexual American, I don’t have the option to marry the person I’ve been with for 14 years. We are fortunate to live in a state where we were granted first domestic partnership and then civil union status. Our legal relationship is not recognized by the federal government. We have paid almost $10,000 in fees for wills, powers of attorney, adoption fees and name changes which would have been simply, freely rendered were we able to marry. My partner cannot get my federal employee pension or health benefits, despite Obama’s much ballyhooed recent bestowment, because we unlike married people must pay extra taxes on them. So, I have my health benefits, pension etc and my parner has hers. We cannot get each other’s social security benefits either should one of us die. We must pay taxes jointly in our state and as single head of household federally (we each claim a kid).
If religion has nothing to do with your opposition for “gay” marriage, where do you stand on barring religion from any contractual relationshup, ie marriage? I’d be ok if marriage were replaced with civil unions for heterosexuals, leaving “marriage” solely as a religious ceremony like confirmation or bar-mitzvah.
I mow my lawn, pay my taxes, volunteer in my kids’ school and my church, and am kind to kids, the elderly and animals. I am pretty boring. I am favor of a strong defense and of law and order. I am fiscally conservative. I believe we all have a duty to serve our country.
I also think it is unwise to exclude qualified people from serving their country in the military.
Finally, I think a society is more stable if most of its adults are legally commited in a long-term monogamous relationship with one other adult who they love and with whom they want to share a household. I think children living in such households will grow-up morely to be happy, productive memebers of society. The adults in sich households will also be more likely to be employed, law-abidding and tax-paying.
You may label me a “militant dyke” but that is my contrubition to a “rational” discussion with you. I wish you no harm or ill-will nor any one else on the “right.” Barring religious reasons, there is no logical reason to deny me benefits and responsibilities available to lawfully wed heterosexual couples.
Comment by suburban dyke — June 18, 2009 @ 9:46 am
PS. I love pearls!
Comment by suburban dyke — June 18, 2009 @ 9:49 am
In fairness, here is my post about your post wherein I quote you. http://suburbandyke.blogspot.com/2009/06/my-response-to-post-by-conservative.html
Comment by suburban dyke — June 18, 2009 @ 11:24 am
Good for you Suburban dyke. There are close minded people across the whole political spectrum. And this political spectrum makes less and less sense. There is no reason for someones views on abortion, gay marriage, defence and global warming to correlate. Our political culture would be better if we could judge each issue on it’s own merits rather than seeing each issue as a battle to be won by our own side.
Comment by Horace — June 18, 2009 @ 12:07 pm