Category Archives: lgbt

Evan and Gordon Talk: Separating Art From Artist

GORDON: Ladies and Gentlemen, boys and girls of all ages, welcome you here to Evan’s Dignity Memorial Art Gallery to view these lovely pictures of houses and flowers and stuff. The artist? Adolf Hitler.

Why, you ask, do we have Hitler’s youthful paintings and sketches? Because tonight we’re going to be talking about separating art from the artist, and whether or not such a thing can be done.

EVAN: To throw out an example, let me refer to the science fiction author Orson Scott Card, a man famous for writing Ender’s Game and for being pretty staunchly opposed to homosexuality in any form.

DC has hired him to pen a new “Adventures of Superman” comic for them, and quite a few stores have decided to boycott this product and not stock them. This being done, of course, as an act of protest.

GORDON: We’re not talking about some latent disapproval of homosexuality people, we’re talking about full blown vitriol on OSC’s part. Here’s a quote from him on the subject:

The dark secret of homosexual society—the one that dares not speak its name—is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally…

OSC straight up declares  in one piece of his, that he will not simply advocate, but will actively engage in the overthrow of the government should it ever attempt to legalize gay marriage:

Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage

EVAN: Which is straight-up reprehensible, which I hope you’ll agree with regardless of your personal stance towards the very loaded topic of gay marriage, etc.

GORDON: Absolutely.

EVAN: On a similar note, we have Frank Miller, a legend in the comics industry.

 The guy penned Batman: The Dark Knight, 300, Sin City, and had a marvelous run on Daredevil that really defined the character. The man’s a legend.

He’s also on record for calling members of the Occupy Movement “nothing but a pack of louts, thieves, and rapists, an unruly mob, fed by Woodstock-era nostalgia and putrid false righteousness.”

The Occupy Movement doesn’t have the same hot button status gay marriage does, and it’s arguable that people are less certain about it, but that doesn’t make the things Miller said any less ignorant or wrong.

GORDON: Again, this is true. But we’re not here to list off the artists and creative minds who have maintained ignorant or bigoted positions over the years.We’re here to talk about separating them from their art, and I’m going to submit that one some fundamental level, it can’t be done.

EVAN: Alright, let’s hear why.

GORDON: I’m going to cite Miller’s iconic work The Dark Knight Returns, which has just recently been adapted as an animated film.

It’s not hard to see Miller’s borderline fascist views bleeding through in the book, as he takes pot shots at “reform not punishment” imprisonment, youth (portrayed as violent, stupid, barely comprehensible thugs that even Alex DeLarge would be creeped out by), and even the latest Robin’s parents being portrayed was whiny, drug-addled liberals.

While I doubt Miller was using much restraint, I’m going to submit that the artist is almost always too close to his or her art for her views not to bleed through.

EVAN: So members of Oprah’s book club who read The Education of Little Tree, by former member of the KKK Forrest Carter, should have been able to pick up on his racial sentiments?

GORDON: I said “almost.” Obviously there are exceptions to the rule.

And this isn’t to say that the work itself is to be shunned; I really and truly enjoy Miller’s work, even though he has a goose-stepping, paranoid Islamophobe.

Because of this, in particular.

EVAN: So we shouldn’t let the beliefs of creators affect our enjoyment of their work?

GORDON: I’d hope not. That would preclude me from liking anything done by Dali, any music written by Wagner, and so on and so forth. My issue isn’t with enjoying something a despicable person has made, my issue is with hiring someone you know is despicable.

Would I listen to “Flight of the Valkyries”? Yes. if Wagner was alive today, would I hire that anti-Semite? No way.

EVAN: That’s a really good point. For example, anyone who buys the new “Adventures of Superman” comic will actually be indirectly funding various anti-homosexual movements that Card himself supports. In this case paying money for his product actually results in an action you probably aren’t okay with.

That doesn’t mean that you couldn’t read his comic and think, “Huh, that is a great take on the Last Son of Krypton,” which is entirely likely since he really is a great writer. His art isn’t necessarily affected by his beliefs, but your buying his art supports them, in a roundabout way.

It’s a metaphor for rejection

GORDON: Despite the counter-arguments in DC’s favor, the simple truth of the matter is people aren’t going to be boycotting these books simply because they’re angry at Card- they were angry at him before- they’re also angry at DC for not having the basic decency to not go into business with a raging homophobe.

EVAN: No matter how good a writer, or any other kind of artist, is, there will always be another who approaches them in talent who doesn’t espouse the negative views that they do. The fact of the matter is that DC has other options.

But going back to the topic at large, we confirmed earlier, in a way, that knowing about an artist’s beliefs after you’ve already appreciated and enjoyed their work shouldn’t rob you of that. If I see a painting and think it’s quite lovely, then find out Hitler painted it, that doesn’t suddenly cause it to become hideous in my eyes. At least, it shouldn’t.

GORDON: And because of the pressure we the audience can put on companies to ensure that bigots and nutcases aren’t given a platform, we should try to keep the artist and their work tied together.

EVAN: Voting with our wallets, which should really be done in every area of our lives [buying ethically produced products, high quality entertainment, etc.].

GORDON: Kinda thrown off by the fact that some wallets are thicker than others. But such is Capitalism. Overthrow the bourgeois. Down with the system.

EVAN: But that is a topic for another day. One that I may or not be hopping on, simply due to a lack of knowledge on the matter.

And it’s also about time we wrapped things up.

GORDON: I submit that next week we discuss poverty, as more and more of the nation (and world) slips into it.

EVAN: And I think that we should talk about Gordon never seems to win these polls.

Ha! Just kidding. We could maybe talk about . . . eh . . . yeah, I got nothing. I’m gonna open up my spot to be viewer submitted, just to see what ideas you have in mind.

GORDON: How gracious of you. Perhaps you’ll even close us out here?

EVAN: Thanks, as usual, for tuning in. If you have anything you want to tell us in general, feel free to email us at culturewarreporters@gmail.com, we’re always happy to hear from you.

Evan and Gordon Talk: Men and Manliness

GORDON: Moved by your incessant letters, as well as tearful pleas from more than one head of state, yours truly has returned for this and only this installment of Evan and Gordon Talk

You’re welcome, America.

EVAN: Truly, you are too gracious. [Also, we cater to an international readership].

This week the two of us will be discussing men and manliness [or masculinity]. Which makes perfect sense since we are, after all, men.

GORDON: MANLY men. We once made an axe using nothing but things we found in the woods. On the very same day, we built a grave for a drowned beaver.

EVAN: He is not lying. But, moving forward, one of the reasons I brought up this topic is because it’s loaded with possibilities. There’s the idea of the, for lack of a better term, the “Barney Stinson,” the fratbro who watches Spike TV day in and day and out, and this recent ad that appeared in The Times of India due to the gang-rape and murder of a 23-year-old woman [click on the image to visit an article on it].

GORDON: Well, let’s narrow down some the of core qualities that make a man a man. Or at least, commonalities in all cultures and subcultures of what “manliness” is.

EVAN: How about- the ability to provide for one’s family.

GORDON: We’ll take it. Ability to defend oneself, with either words or deeds?

EVAN: I think we could expand that to simply being physically able. Physicality means both being able to defend oneself and loved ones as well as attack others for whatever reason you might have.

GORDON: Assertiveness- that’s it. Not taking guff from any of these swine.

EVAN: Who exactly “these swine” are aside, I’d also like to suggest that, in essentially every culture out there, manliness is directly associated with heterosexuality.

GORDON: The Spartans, actually, were unbelievably gay. Heck, the entire basis of western civilization is pretty gay. I want to strike that one from the record; highly sexual would probably be a better statement.

EVAN: I’m gonna have to stick by it. The majority of cultures out there use the term homosexual derogatorily, I think it’s hard to look past it.

GORDON: I guess I’ll allow it. Tough. A man is tough. Stoic. Potentially emotionless.

EVAN: That sounds pretty good to me. Want to total them up? Really just list ’em all out for us.

GORDON: [AND THEN GORDON LISTEN THEM ALL]

  • A man is tough.
  • A man provides for his family [loved ones].
  • A man doesn’t take **** from anyone.
  • A man gets it on.

Scratch that last one and you have the stereotype of a black woman.

EVAN: Okay, now rate yourself by that list of qualities.

GORDON: I realize that there are billions of people out there who have hellish existences, but taking in what I’ve dealt with in my own life, I’d say I’m pretty tough.

EVAN: You’re definitely pretty emotionless.

GORDON: I don’t have a family, but I certain provide for myself, proud proletarian that I am.

I’ve yet to be in a situation I’ve been unable to diffuse diplomatically, but I certainly have my limits and lines that I will not allow to be crossed.

And I view my sexuality as my own business. I ain’t exactly good with the ladies (see the emotionless bit), but I also think anyone who judges a man’s worth by his sexual activity isn’t worth the time of day anyhow (see the “no taking crap from anyone” bit).

Yeah, I’m a man. Or a woman. It kinda falls apart.

EVAN: A man is tough: I’m a pretty emotional dude. I distinctly remember crying after I saw A Walk To Remember. I was also 13, but I guess that’s neither here nor there.

A man provides for his family: Like you, I don’t have a family. I live with my granddad, though to be fair I do take care of him, so I’m good in that area.

A man don’t take none: I am not a confrontational person. I also can’t say I’ve been in a fight-or-flight situation, though, This remains to be seen, I guess.

A man get it on: Since I live by a certain religious standard, I have not yet gotten it on. See my post on virginity. I am a virgin.

A man don’t take none: I am not a confrontational person. I also can’t say I’ve been in a fight-or-flight situation, though, This remains to be seen, I guess.

So how do we stack up as men by most cultural standards?

GORDON: I think we stack up well, all things considered.

EVAN: Okay, I just remembered why I wanted to discuss this topic in the first place, and it pertains to the last manly attribute on our list [the one that we both happened to fail]:

Yes, this actually happened to me, gaze at it in all its glory.

Click on the image to read it in a new tab.

GORDON: . . .

How exactly does one respond to that?

EVAN: I’d say an ellipsis sums it up pretty well.

GORDON: Yeah, I’m going to call BS on that. I couldn’t begin to list the number of men who were celibate and achieved more in their lives than this guy ever will.

EVAN: Which I agree with completely. It is pretty messed up, though, how many people [guys] live by this rule of thumb.

GORDON: I think the point remains that this isn’t any reasonable way to spend one’s existence. Nikola Tesla accomplished more than a week than I imagine this guy fishing on Omegle will in his lifetime.

EVAN: To take a line from your book, touché.

GORDON: Going back to the original list, the issue is that most of this could just as easily be said of a woman. I work with people who are in pretty rough situations. Many of the women I work with a single mothers, living below the poverty line, struggling to provide for their families. Pride is really the only thing they have left. They don’t take crap from anyone, and they can’t allow themselves to be dragged down by their circumstances. Are they “manly” woman?

EVAN: I’d say that they fit three of the four categories, but it depends largely on how you want to view the word “tough.” I felt like we sort of defined it as having to do with emotions, which, and I don’t think I’m spouting insanity right now, are something that women seem to be pretty in touch with. Which would then put them at 2/4, or half the qualities.

GORDON: Certainly we can agree that these women quietly endure crap that would have most white-collar executives curled up in the shower weeping.

Barring the issue of promiscuity, everything we’ve covered would be- by our standards today and most standards the world over- “womanly” characteristics.

EVAN: Including the predilection towards physicality and violence towards others?

GORDON: You ever fought a woman?

EVAN: You know neither of us have ever fought anyone.

GORDON: Speak for yourself. I studied Judo for five years, and I had my share of matches against female opponents.

EVAN: We’re talking actual fights, though. Not martial arts matches with set rules and moves without the added chaos of scratching and biting [which I would probably carry out with gusto].

GORDON: Believe me, I got my butt handed to me plenty of times. There’s nothing but prejudice keeping women from being just as effective at fighting as men.

EVAN: Right, but that’s not a cultural expectation, is it?

GORDON: Not in this culture, no, but in other cultures this does exist. I’d point to the high numbers of women in the militaries of countries affected by leftist ideology- Nepal, for example

EVAN: We are talking the majority of cultures, though. Just as I don’t think I’d
equate homosexuality with “manliness” because the Spartans [who were very manly] engaged in it, I’m likewise not willing to accept that most societies placed women in that physically aggressive role.

GORDON: Point taken.

EVAN: But I get what you’re saying.

A number of the key qualities we defined as being “manly” are, in general, key qualities of being successful human beings.

GORDON: Exactly.

My entire issue with contemporary feminism is that it tries spin traditionally “feminine” (i.e. submissive, weak, emotional) traits as being equally as healthy- if not more so- than traditionally “masculine” traits rather than trying to divorce itself from the old “feminine” trait set entirely.

I like my women like I like my men: self-assured, tough, and independent. That probably didn’t come out quite the way I intended.

EVAN: Don’t worry, I took it at face value.

And, since we’ve successfully transitioned away from a discussion on masculinity towards more of one discussing feminism, I’m forced to admit that we are well past our time limit.

GORDON: That we can agree on.

Until we get internet, it’s radio silence on my end.

EVAN: So I suppose you’ll have to say good-bye to these nice people until then, while I scramble to maybe find a replacement writer for the next little while.

GORDON: For whenever I get back, I’d recommend that we talk about our generation’s greatest strength or victory, as we spoke a while ago about our generation’s greatest failing.

EVAN: And I am going to recommend . . . okay, this is ridiculous, but our ideal girl. Just because I know your answer is something everyone wants to read.

That is all for today, folks. I’d like to thank Gordon [who left before this conversation could end] for heading over to his grandparents’ and getting online for this, he’s a real champ. Thanks for reading!

More Writing On Sexual Standards

The dearth of creativity that went into titling this post aside, I thought I’d tackle yet another double standard that appears to exist in our culture. To begin with, let me refer you all to my primary example, Season 4 Episode 5 of Top Chef: Masters, “Holly Madison’s Pool Party.”

In this case, the background behind the show itself is pretty inconsequential: 12 award-winnings chefs compete against each other to raise money for charity, et cetera. On this season the chefs spent the vast majority of their time in Sin City [Las Vegas, aka where Gordon resides] and rubbed shoulders with quite a few celebrities. The superstar for this episode was Holly Madison, of Playboy’s “The Girls Next Door” fame, and their task was to cater her pool party.

Enter James Oseland, editor of Saveur and one of the show’s judges. At the party musclebound hunks abound, and after one is encouraged to sit next to the critic he somehow manages to ask “how are you guys gonna like, keep the, this thing [abs], going with, wha- all this food.” As he refers to the man’s midsection he gives it a few pats, prompting responses like the following [which I found on The A.V. Club, of course]:


And Larrybaby’s points are all incredibly valid. Thankfully the guys and girls who peruse the TV Club reviews weren’t the only ones to notice this, and celebrity chef website [yes, it is a real thing] The Braiser did a short bit on the episode. Oseland’s antics are described there as follows:

So, naturally, the daytime cocktails start flowing, the croque madames sizzle on the griddle, and James Oseland starts giddily stripping pool boys. Wait, what?! Yes, Saveur editor-slash-very esteemed and shmancy Top Chef: Masters judge James Oseland gets a little on the trashed side of tipsy at brunch and takes matters into his own hands when a cluster of bikini-clad women fail to get a pool boy to take his shirt off.

James marches right on over to the ripped hunk of manflesh (née “Warren”) and strips his shirt right off. And then he grabs another equally buff guy and steals his shirt, too! James Oseland is shameless, you guys.

Of course, the article then goes on to describe how they’d love Oseland to be their celebrity BFF, but we won’t go into that. The point I’m trying to make is that this man, who, yes, is a homosexual, acted in a way that was inappropriate. More than that, he wasn’t stopped but was actually encouraged by those around him with cheers.

I’m not saying that I dislike watching homosexual characters on television, or that they make me uncomfortable; far from it. Max is easily my favourite part of the sitcom Happy Endings, and his adventures in romance  are both engaging and hilarious. I’m still waiting [and I know I’m not the only one] for Raj on The Big Bang Theory to come out of the closet, and more and more I’m realizing that it really is just art imitating life. Living in Toronto I’m very aware that there’s a gay population  out there, and it just so happens that TV has finally gotten around to representing them.

What I don’t want to see is gay people, men or women, being handsy when they shouldn’t be. I don’t really appreciate it in heterosexuals, and the same extends to all other orientations. If James Oseland thinks a pool boy is cute that is fine. If he wants to touch him, that is also fine. If he touches him in front of others and without the permission of said pool boy, to flirt openly in a physical way, that is not fine. It’s kind of gross.

There’s not much more I can add to what larrybaby said, because he [or she, I don’t know] sums it all up really well. I’m not a homophobe by any means, but I’d like the world as a whole to keep people to the same standards. Let’s not cheer someone on when they paw at another person they’re attracted to. If we’re going to acknowledge homosexual urges and relationships as on par with heterosexual ones let’s treat them the same way.

I end with another comment highlighting the actions of both Oseland and his fellow critics [context: the hunks were asked about sit-ups, and one actually did push-ups for the critics’ benefit a little later]:

jmann

2 Broke Girls, S2E13 “And the Bear Truth”: A TV Review

Last December it was announced over at The A.V. Club’s TV Club that “And The High Holidays” would be the last episode of 2 Broke Girls that they reviewed. As someone who has paid more attention to the show than it probably deserves, I felt that it was my time to take upon the mantle.

The mantle may or may not include a brand new “Evan Yeong Madness Watch” as such features have been put together [and probably for good reason] by the comments section over at The A.V. Club.

The last of the "PILOT VIRUET MADNESS WATCHES."

As a last point before I start, I write this with the assumption that you have a reasonable working knowledge of the show. If not, you can always read the other reviews here.

2BrokeGirlsTemplate

2 Broke Girls‘ return to television since its mid-season finale last night opens up where the centre of the show has shifted: the girls’ cupcake shop. Where the cold opens used to consist largely of Max snarking at customers in the diner, the status quo apparently consists of Max snarking  at [this time in asides] a customer at their shop.

The aforementioned woman tastes the girls’ wares with an enthusiasm that borders on the sexual, and it’s revealed that she has an upcoming wedding. Caroline is, as history dictates, optimistic that large sales are coming their way. Max is jaded and skeptical because she lived in a car growing up.

Back at the diner Han is holding some kind of raffle. Max makes a joke about Han being a “big promo,” because, as I’ve discussed before, apparently it is okay to have the long-running theme of calling a character gay when the producer and creator of the show is himself a homosexual.  The prize is a 2-room suite in the country, complete with a fireplace, because “daddy don’t skimp.”

Sophie enters to the usual undeserved round of applause, throws her business card into the goldfish bowl, and proceeds to choose the winning card. Her schemes[?] to win the prize herself ultimately fails when the card she pulls out is for Max’s Homemade Cupcakes.

The complications begin to arise when Caroline tells her boyfriend Andy that “we won a weekend getaway” which he understandably perceives as being for the two of them. This results in Caroline telling both Max and Andy that the other is the third wheel of the trip, and then they’re off to the country.

Lame car games aside [though Caroline gleefully answering herself to Max’s “I spy something annoying”  because she loves to win made me smile] this scene largely serves to introduce the idea that Max believes in alien abductions. That is all.

Original MADtv cast member Craig Anton is wonderful as the pony-tailed man who shows them their room. But my amusement at his presence was quickly stomped by the following exchange that draws laughs out of a possible past of sexual abuse:

Caroline: Come over here closer you big Eagle Scout.

Andy: Well now you sound like my scout master.

I, for whatever reason, did not realize how exhausting it could be doing a blow-by-blow of an entire episode of 2 Broke Girls, so we are moving ahead quickly. I can’t say I was actually proud of guessing what [or in this case, who] the bears in the episode title were referring to, since it’s just so on the nose. The large gay men in this case being named Deke and Derk, who were so pleasant and friendly it was hard not to like them.

There’s a little bit of tension introduced when dinner for two is served to Max, Caroline, and Andy, but the writing wasn’t quite tight enough to pull it off. Max’s eagerness to eat the food on every plate competes with Andy’s desire to share a romantic evening with his girlfriend, and Caroline’s decision to take a relaxing bath and remove herself from the equation was fairly believable but just not very funny. The other two talk over their food to reveal that a) it’s Andy’s birthday, and b) him and Caroline have not had sex in many a fortnight. Max is talked into visiting “Yogi and Boo-boo next door” and then, just as she’s about to leave, they dial up the drama.

Caroline completely forgot Andy’s birthday. Max frantically knocks at the adjacent cabin’s door for the bears to let her in. Max reveals she knew about their dry spell. Max pleads for the aliens to take her away for the love of God please now before it’s too late. In her absence Caroline and Andy are left to discuss the future of their relationship, and the latter is forced to see that the girls’ business clearly takes priority over the two of them. Andy makes his own way home and Caroline goes to join Max who is cuddling with the bears.

Back at the shop, Andy and Carline talk again, and Andy tells her that maybe they should take a break. It’s all pretty well-trod material sitcom wise, but Andy responds to Caroline saying it’ll be hard not seeing him with the line “Yeah, it will be. I work ten feet away” that’s delivered with a surprising amount of heartbreaking sincerity. Max yells for E.T. et al. to take her away when the shop is stormed by the bride’s equally large [and hungry] bridesmaids.

It makes perfect sense that Caroline’s relationship was doomed to fail in light of her work-centric lifestyle, and the fact that Andy remains so close to their shop hints that this isn’t the last we’ll see of them. While not the funniest episode [and yes, they do exist] “And the Bear Truth” does a reasonably good job highlighting a failure to communicate while also featuring two lovable fat gay guys.

The money counter at the end jumps up from $100 to $900, and I suppose it’s just assumed that their wedding deal went through. I’m not sure what they’re counting up to anymore, but it’s good to see their profits go up for once. This is my first time really covering a show [my review of Underemployed was scanter due to its being a pilot] and I hope to pare these down by a lot.

Stray Observations:

  • I first heard about swinging beds just this past weekend, and was thrilled to see one hanging in the middle of their cabin.
  • Max opens up a pair of slippers and, as she walks out, almost sings Granddad’s new shoes song in its entirety before Caroline interrupts her. 
  • Considering how many supporting characters remain in the diner, it’ll be interesting to see how the show deals with Max and Caroline spending less and less time there.
  • A trend I’ve noticed has forced me to start a 2 Broke Girls Cheesecake Menu to highlight when and how the girls show off a little somethin’ somethin’: In this episode, Max and Caroline wrapped in towels in the sauna [Beth Behrs glistening with sweat to increase authenticity].

Fame Day: Racebending.com

This Thursday I want to call attention to a website that’s been in this blog’s links-sidebar basically since its inception. I came across Racebending.com around the time it began, and their stance on equality casting and representation in the media is one of the many reasons I decided it was time to start writing more about what I thought mattered.

As their name might suggest, the site came about as a response to M. Night Shyamalan’s film adaptation of the Nickelodeon show Avatar: The Last Airbender. The entirety of the series was set in a distinctly Asian-inspired universe, and the casting decision was made to have the majority of the protagonists be played by Caucasian actors. The change is starkly apparent in the image below:

And for those of you who don’t think Zuko is a villain, click on the link for a thorough explanation.

The organization did a great amount in revealing the decisions that went into the making of the film. Most importantly was their breakdown of the casting calls that read “Caucasian or any other ethnicity,” and how the language affects those who apply for the roles as well as hinting at what they are looking for. They also exposed the blatant racism used by casting director Deedee Rickets, who was quoted as answering the question “Are you at a disadvantage if you didn’t wear a costume?” with the following:

Absolutely not! It doesn’t mean you’re at a disadvantage if you didn’t come in a big African thing. But guys, even if you came with a scarf today, put it over your head so you’ll look like a Ukrainian villager or whatever.

Although the movement was not enough to sway the studio, producers, or director of the film, the site stays up, continuing to work towards educating the internet on when and where whitewashing is taking place, and what people can do to stop it. They also take care to call attention to those who are advancing the role of minorities in the media, giving credit where it’s due.

Most recently the blog has been concentrating on the upcoming film Cloud Atlas, which stands out due to its use of “yellowface” by various actors. While the directing Wachowski siblings and others have cited the theme of reincarnation and  the fact that actors of colour will also be playing White roles, media liaison Mike Le lays out the stark difference between the two. In an interview with  the radio station Vocalo 89.5 he explains the tradition of yellowface in cinema as a means of controlling the perceptions of a race, and the damage it has done and can still do.

All in all, Racebending.com is run by people who are doing good things, and who care about representation whether it be based on race, gender, or orientation. They strive to see the media reflect the immense amount of diversity in our world, and that alone should be worth checking them out.

Shame Day: Concerned Women for America

“Concerned Women for America.”

It sounds almost like a cartoonish satire of the kind of people who storm into PTA meetings demanding to know why their children have been
“exposed to filth” after discovering a copy of Catcher in the Rye, Slaughterhouse Five, or Harry Potter in their kids’ assigned reading list. The kind of people who warn about the corrosive and unwholesome messages hidden in rock songs, or who sit horrified in front of the TV as some sensationalist dead-inside “journalist” warns about the latest secret teenager trend that’s sure to kill them/get them pregnant.

And as much as it sounds like something that’s ripped out of Footloose, Concerned Women for America is very real.

And that is an absolute shame.

Let’s take a look at some of the bilge that these guys are producing.

What caught my eye was a recent article of theirs on Malala Yousafzai, a heroic Pakistani girl and women’s rights and peace activist. In this post, the authors launch a vicious attack on Islam as being an inherently barbarous and misogynistic religion with a murderous agenda for any who dare oppose it. As the article states

“Malala questioned the station of women under Islam’s oppressive thumb, and the Taliban tried to put her six feet under the ground.”

This, quite simply, is a lie.

Yes the Taliban tried to kill Malala, and yes, Malala questioned the station of women-but what the authors of the article neglect to mention is that Malala Yousafzai is a Muslim herself.

Apparently it’s not enough that this fifteen year old girl (and she is fifteen, not fourteen, as the CWA article wrongly states) has to deal with the threat of violence and murder- she now has to endure her activism being hijacked by the “Concerned Women for America” bent on turning her sacrifice into a smear campaign against her own religion, which they claim is both “false” and “hate-filled.”

But why stop there?

The “Concerned Women for America” are also turning their ignorant ire against the “Slut Walks,” which for those of you who may be unaware, are parades of women wearing clothes of different degrees of modesty or exposure to make the point that it doesn’t matter how you’re dressed- one’s wardrobe is never an “invitation to rape” as some sex-offenders have tried claiming.

Being the moral, upstanding people that they are, CWA has sent up a howl of protest against these walks, declaring:

“The latest desperate bid for attention by the publicity-starved feminists is to sponsor SlutWalks — events where scantily clad women take to the streets en masse to claim their “right” to dress and behave however they want or to go anywhere at any time without the risk of being sexually assaulted or deemed streetwalkers.”

“They propose somehow to make the point that even if what they wear, their drunken state, or their presence alone in a very vulnerable place might indicate their willingness to participate in a sexual free-for-all, women should not be subject to lewd propositions or be at risk of being raped.”

Now I could leave it right there- those two statements alone are enough to demonstrate without a shred of doubt just what vile, reprehensible misogynistic scum the CWA is made of, but just to hammer in a few more nails for safe measure, here are some of there other quotes.

Here’s a lovely little comment regarding the Russian punk-rock protest group “Pussy Riot,” recently sentenced to two years in prison for singing an anti-government song in a cathedral.

Their formal statements about the incident reveal their utter lack of morality, embrace of a “blame-everyone-but-us” ideology, and disdain for capitalism and individual responsibility. Like their U.S. counterparts, they want “human rights, civil and political freedoms” for themselves but not for Christian believers or anyone else with different beliefs… Christians around the world are facing intolerance of their beliefs and sometimes violence as well. In spite of the Constitution, religious liberty is under attack in the United States, with the federal government telling religious institutions that they must violate their beliefs and support homosexual “marriage,” homosexual adoptions, contraception, and abortion or face penalties.

Really? A handful of women sing a song in a church decrying the increasingly totalitarian state, get the ridiculous sentence of two years prison for doing so (the same action in the US would merit a fine, if that) and it’s you who are the persecuted ones.

Here’s another good one- outrage that a Macy’s employee was fired for confronting a transgender person for using the women’s dressing room.

Transgender?  Give me a break!  First of all, there is no such thing; it is a choice of behavior.  And hope as we might, our desire to behave in a certain way does not legitimize a chosen behavior.  It certainly does not entitle them to circumvent the rights of society and our moral tenets in order for them to “have their way.”  Natalie Johnson, the employee in question, was quoted in an ABC interview, “I refuse to comply with this policy,” and “There are no transgenders in the world.  A guy can dress up as a woman all he wants.  That’s still not going to make you a woman.”

An easy call? Certainly not, but this self-righteous outrage is just plain stupid. What if the person in question had been born a hermaphrodite? How would he or she be treated then? Would that kind of ambiguity have justified the guy/gal being denied service? If that’s our logic, why not deny service to people in wheelchairs for not conforming to the societal norm? That logic just doesn’t hold up.

End of the day, “Concerned Women for America” is what cancer would look like if it were an social movement. Shame on this vile organization.