roseweird posted:

most politicians have families

if mitt romney spent more time with his mormon brood and less time arguing for tax cuts i think we'd all be better off.

tsinava posted:

good job using the term "lifestyle" to describe an aspect of my life i have no control over

don't abdicate responsibility for being gay. it's a great choice you've made.

getfiscal posted:

i buy most of my groceries at walmart. by god it's the closest thing we've got to a soviet department store.

i went to a walmart it salt lake city and we asked an employee where the gun section was and he enthusiastically told us and then started talking about how one day soon he was going to shoot up the store and his bosses, funny stuff.

tsinava posted:

TG posted:

damn, these texas communists werent accepting of my lifestyle. better give up on every actually existing communist

good job using the term "lifestyle" to describe an aspect of my life i have no control over

ive never thought of a lifestyle as something chosen as opposed to innate but whatever

i still dont think you should give up on communism and go with the exploitative status quo just because some people were mean to you but also whatever

roseweird posted:

Agnus_Dei posted:

You should visit your local catholic church, gays are welcome there

whenever i enter a catholic church i feel a deep sense of egalitarian bliss as i realize, 'yes, finally, i have found a place where all sexualities are equal in their absolute repulsiveness to god'

my favorite component of catholic dogma is that condoms are OK but only if you are working as a gay prostitute

The assumption that "most women are innately heterosexual'' stands as a theoretical and political stumbling block for many women. It remains a tenable assumption, partly because lesbian existence has been written out of history or catalogued under disease; partly because it has been treated as exceptional rather than intrinsic; partly because to acknowledge that for women heterosexuality may not be a "preference" at all but something that has had to be imposed, managed, organized, propagandized and maintained by force is an immense step to take if you consider yourself freely and "innately" heterosexual. Yet the failure to examine heterosexuality as an institution is like failing to admit that the economic system called capitalism or the caste system of racism is maintained by a variety of forces, including both physical violence and false consciousness. To take the step of questioning heterosexuality as a ''preference'' or "choice" for women--and to do the intellectual and emotional work that follows--will call for a special quality of courage in heterosexually identified feminists but I think the rewards will be great: a freeing-up of thinking, the exploring of new paths, the shattering of another great silence, new clarity in personal relationships.

The "it's not a choice" line seems fully reactionary to me

Lesbians have historically been deprived of a political existence through "inclusion" as female versions of male homosexuality. To equate lesbian existence with male homosexuality because each is stigmatized is to deny and erase female reality once again To separate those women stigmatized as "homosexual" or "gay" from the complex continuum of female resistance to enslavement, and attach them to a male pattern, is to falsify our history Part of the history of lesbian existence is, obviously, to be found where lesbians, lacking a coherent female community, have shared a kind of social life and common cause with homosexual men But this has to be seen against the differences women's lack of economic and cultural privilege relative to men; qualitative differences in female and male relationships, for example, the prevalence of anonymous sex and the justification of pederasty among male homosexuals, the pronounced ageism in male homosexual standards of sexual attractiveness, and so forth In defining and describing lesbian existence I would hope to move toward a dissociation of lesbian from male homosexual values and allegiances I perceive the lesbian experience as being, like motherhood, a profoundly female experience, with particular oppressions, meanings, and potentialities we cannot comprehend as long as we simply bracket it with other sexually stigmatized existences just as the term parenting serves to conceal the particular and significant reality of being a parent who is actually a mother, the term gay serves the purpose of blurring the very outlines we need to discern, which are of crucial value for feminism and for the freedom of women as a group.

The implication being male homosexuality is also a choice which excludes women and erases patriarchy into LGBT reforminsm

Superabound posted:

marimite posted:

If you believe women wear make-up as a free and authentic choice, you're basically delusional. And, sorry guys, but that also means the women wearing the make-up. I'm not saying wearing make-up is bad, but if you believe it makes you free, well, I got some land to sell you.

imo denying straight men the social freedom to wear makeup is a much worse from of oppression than the expectation of women to wear it. After all, women are praised by their peers for subverting traditional gender norms, whereas men are punished for it. and an expectation is always a softer rule than a prohibition

I would say it's the other way around: a prohibition is a softer rule than an expectation. At least prohibitions are subjected to the reality principle.