By Ann Rostow
Where The Girls Are
Clinton is suffering, not from a gender gap, but from a generational gap. So as a proud Hillary supporter I was taken aback by the tone deaf, out-of-date feminist rallying cries on her behalf from Madeleine Albright and Gloria Steinem, as if gender alone should transcend the many interwoven factors that comprise a voter’s decision. No wonder younger women were annoyed by the condescending implication that they were simply ignorant of the debt they owed to the previous generations. (Editor’s Note: Albright’s full statement, made on February 7: “I have long believed that there is a seat of honor reserved for any woman who takes the time to help another woman, and a special place in hell for those who do not. When it comes to politics, you should support the candidate who best reflects your views—regardless of their gender. But if fair pay, reproductive rights and other issues that directly affect women are your priority, then there is no better candidate than Hillary Clinton. She has spent her life fighting for women, and I’m proud to fight for her.”)
We all struggle within the generational context that fate assigns us. Had they been born decades earlier, today’s 20-something women would have advanced the cause of feminism no less than we did (and our mothers and grandmothers before us). History is something to be acknowledged and taken into account, not a special accomplishment that demands bows and scrapes from successive cohorts. The greatest generation won World War II because they were there, not because they were great. They rose to the occasion, as one assumes future generations would have done as well.
As for Steinem’s off-the-cuff suggestion that younger women are supporting Bernie because that’s where the boys are, could she have leveled a more patronizing charge? That said, I admit I’d understand perfectly if women chose to team up with the Sanders campaign in order to cruise the ladies.
Octo-Justice
Every four years, we are warned that the presidential election carries the threat of major change to the balance of the Supreme Court. But this time, the warning seems certain. Four justices are over 75: Ginsburg (82), Scalia (79), Kennedy (79) and Breyer (77). And while it’s true that these veterans could theoretically continue on the Court into their mid to late eighties, it’s also likely that an eight-year President could replace all four. You don’t have to be a Court watcher to notice that three out of four of these justices vote in our favor, ergo a conservative in the White House could set us up with an antigay Court for years to come.
I support Clinton for many reasons (not including her gender, which I think of as a political lagniappe) and high on the list is her electability. The negative ad campaign against a Sanders candidacy in the general election would be horrific. And while Bernie has deliberately been left alone by the right so far, Clinton has already absorbed years of sustained attacks and millions of dollars of bad publicity while staying on her feet. I think she will win, but he would surely lose, pushing the Court rightward in the process.
And we need the Court on our side. Yes, we won marriage, thank God. But just think of the constitutional issues that remain unsettled.
Sould discrimination against gays and trans-people be evaluated under a higher legal standard, as is now the case with discrimination based on race, gender, religion and other factors?
Can a private business be obliged to follow gay and trans rights laws that conflict with the owners’ religious beliefs? Recall that Alito ruled in the Hobby Lobby case that religious views do not trump civil rights laws, but would he and a conservative majority make an exception for LGBT rights? It’s quite possible.
Do federal civil rights laws like Title VII and Title IX implicitly include the LGBT community under the protections against “sex” discrimination? Many courts say yes, as do the EEOC and the Obama Justice Department. Would a conservative Court agree? Indeed, regardless of Court action, what would happen to these gay friendly interpretations under a rightwing president?
Would a Cruz or Rubio justice department agree that Title VII covers gay bias? Um, no.
So far, aside from some reflexive anti-marriage commentary from Republicans, GLBT rights have not emerged as a major issue in the 2016 race. But make no mistake; there is no greater harbinger for our near-term future as a movement than the outcome of the next election.
Bottom Feeding
Before we abandon politics, I am having trouble determining my least favorite GOP nominee. It’s like Whack-a-Mole. I pick the one I hate most. I mentally bash him with a powerful wooden mallet of vicious thoughts. And before you know it, he’s down, but I realize that the one I really hate is the one whose little pointy head is now sticking up through the board.
Currently it’s Marco Rubio, the panting moron. Smarmy, grasping—a Chatty Cathy of bellicose slogans that put fear in the hearts, not of ISIS, but of any reasonable American citizen.
Before that, it was my own senator, the narcissistic, repellent vampire who managed to sell the Iowa voters on his snake-oiled personality.
Prior to that, it was the grandiose lunatic, Mr. Trump. But in recent days I’ve found myself rooting for him as a buffer from the aforementioned Rubio and Cruz.
As for Carson, he didn’t last long enough to earn a whack, although I did see enough of him to cringe at his topsy turvy view of the world, a world where Joseph built the pyramids, Earth was formed a few thousand years ago, the Chinese are fighting in Syria, evangelical Christians founded the United States, and health care reform is on par with slavery.
And just the other day, reading about the possibility that Jeb Bush might be able to continue long down the primary road, I felt a frisson of dislike for the low energy also-ran, who recently announced blithely that he’d like to take federal money for transportation, health care and other government functions and “give it to the states.”
There’s no small irony in running to head the federal government on a platform of shrugging federal responsibilities off on the states. But worse: Have you seen how some of our state governments are operating these days? Have you checked out the schools in Kansas? The roads in Oklahoma? The health care system in Mississippi? Jeb’s head hasn’t popped up yet, but I think I’m ready for it if it does.
Dirty Up Your Act
Do you think Mr. Clean is gay? Just asking. He sports an earring, obviously works out on a regular basis, is partial to tight white t-shirts, and likes to keep a sparkling home. I read an article about this somewhere in cyberspace, and subsequently learned that the Proctor & Gamble icon has been the subject of speculation for many years.
According to the company he represents, however, Mr. Clean is not gay. He has devoted his life to housework and has no sexual orientation. Sorry guys. I also learned that he was discovered as a baby by a farmer, P&G reports, and as he grew, “so did his love of cleaning.”
This reminds me, for some reason, of another article I recently encountered, one which asks whether or not gay men are being undermined by an overly positive image on TV and in movies. From the charm of Will, to those handsome best friends who take attractive women to weddings and help them raise illegitimate children, it seems our gay brothers are being stereotyped as witty, urbane sweethearts, inevitably on hand to protect and serve their lucky heterosexual gal pals.
Where’s the grit?
Leaving aside for now the question of whether or not gay men are truly being mistreated by the entertainment industry, I’ll say again that we won’t be equal until Hollywood and Netflix alike feel free to depict members of our community as sleazy scumbags, bad mothers and serial killers. Just from time to time, mind you! For the moment, it does seem as if any gay, trans or lesbian character must be heroic lest the wrath of our community descend on the wayward producer.
I still think Mr. Clean is gay, by the way. I mean, c’mon!
Bestiality Bites
So, last year the Human Rights Campaign says state lawmakers introduced 115 antigay proposals, of which many have been carried over to 2016. With rare exception, however, these measures were either killed or delayed.
Indeed so many of these gay bashing bills are little more than platforms for conservative grandstanding and “accomplishments” to headline fundraising appeals. The worst ones cannot gain traction, and even the merely bad ones are usually sidelined in committee. It is simply no longer good politics to champion discrimination. And as Indiana learned last year in one of the signature moments for antigay legislation, the price of hanging a “bigot” sign on your state is the loss of corporate investment and public support.
I’m not being complacent (maybe a little) and I will cover an actual threat if one arises, but we’d all go nuts if we wrote and read about every misbegotten piece of bull puck that gets filed in Oklahoma City or Montgomery.
This preface is to explain why my attention was jarringly caught by none other than a headline about antigay legislation. This time in Michigan where news broke that the senate had voted to outlaw sodomy. Say what? You know, of course, that sodomy laws are unconstitutional thanks to the Supreme Court’s 2003 ruling in Lawrence v Texas. Yes, many states still keep these unenforceable laws on the books for symbolic reasons. Remember, for example, that Alabama kept its law against interracial marriage until 2000.
But to actually vote and pass some new sodomy law seemed inexplicable. Here were some headlines that cut through my legislative ennui!
It turns out that the Michigan senate was passing an animal rights measure, and for pragmatic reasons, the section of the sodomy law that bans bestiality could not be detached from its original context. Ergo, the entire sodomy law somehow became a part of this animal protection bill. As you can tell from the vague description above, I did not delve too deeply into the mechanics of the legislation once I realized the whole thing had nothing to do with actual sodomy, and everything to do with bestiality.
Yes, there was an antigay element, given that the bill’s author felt that deleting the ban on human sodomy would be a distraction that might make it harder or impossible to protect the animals. But considering that the human part of the sex law is moot, it really didn’t matter now, did it? What really annoyed me was the decision by various writers to effectively make a false claim, composing sensational headlines about sodomy that were fundamentally untrue, if technically accurate. For shame.
By the way, if any of you remember last year’s ill-conceived plan to place a constitutional gay rights amendment on the Mitten ballot, I can tell you that it has been abandoned.
Family Affairs
Before I forget, my step daughter Sarah Zipp, her husband Aaron Zipp and our two granddaughters, Addy and Gwen, will star in “House Hunters International” on February 11! I have appointed myself a publicist for this event, so we’ll see if the San Francisco Bay Times editors go along with this absolutely irrelevant tangent. Maybe they won’t notice. (Editor’s Note: For more info: http://m.cjonline.com/news/2016-02-09/family-moved-topeka-amsterdam-featured-house-hunters-international#gsc.tab=0)
Mel and I have been watching episodes of this show in preparation for the Zipp’s appearance, and we’ve been stunned by the people who travel to some island or some beautiful coastal town and tell the real estate agent they want to buy a house for $200,000 or $300,000, or even less.
How is that possible? Surely you can’t just plop down a few grand and have the right to live somewhere without official papers, can you? I understand that you can effectively buy your way into some countries with several million bucks. But $80,000? What would that buy you in San Francisco these days anyway?
The Zipps rent, sadly. If they had the money to buy a house in Western Europe, we’d be on the next plane claiming grandmother immigration status. That’s a thing, right?
arostow@aol.com
Recent Comments