Homophobia and misogyny: Twin pillars of oppression

One distinct advantage of blogging under a pseudonym is that I can write more freely about work. I can never be sure when a blogworthy insight is going to strike me, but given that much of my day is spent at work, there's a pretty good chance that at least half of the time I feel the light bulb suddenly click to life, I'll be sitting at my desk, quite possibly staring at my email.

A few days ago, I was doing that very thing when I received a flurry of emails that had gone out on a particular mailing list that I happen to be a part of. Although it is composed entirely of coworkers, this list is not what you might call "work related." Its primary purpose is to enter a pool in which participants attempt to pick the winners of various sporting events with the goal of earning a free lunch for ourselves and our coworkers. The secondary purpose is to hurl all manner of invective at the losers of said competition.

Actually, "all manner of invective" may be putting it a little too strong. The discourse is typically consists of something along the lines of "you're a homo!" "No, you are!" If I'm lucky, I may just get to see someone type a message from somebody else's keyboard. Believe me, with this group of guys, that one never gets old, and they have a million more literally just like it. Often, that message is itself homophobic in nature -- perhaps, "I love cock!" or "Who is down to go to the gay clubs tonight?"

But the particular day I was reading my email was atypical in that regard. To be sure, the absentee keyboard prank was still in favor -- who among us can resist the siren song of such a classic gag? -- but the topic, mercifully, did not immediately start off in homoerotic territory.

Does anyone know where I can purchase an engagement ring?

Ah ha! The joke is that the absent sender in question has not had a girlfriend for quite some time! True, it isn't very funny, but at least give the poor prankster some credit for attempting a different style of humor.

While this thread didn't start as a screed against gays, it did quickly veer in that direction. One of the prankster's cohorts saw that his partner was floundering and decided to come to the rescue by moving the conversation into more familiar territory. Or perhaps it's just that any to a man who has been without a girlfriend for a few years is automatically under the suspicion of being gay. Whatever the case, this was the reply:

Doesn’t the “man” in the relationship usually buy the ring?

Whew! I was beginning to get nervous that nobody had defended their virile sexuality from a nonexistent attack in, like, 30 seconds. And with misogyny to boot! Because really, who wants to be a woman? To the women reading this: In case you weren't aware, that's a pretty harsh insult!

Still, it wasn't until the last reply that the light bulb came on:

The catcher is not typically considered the man.

For those who are not down with the latest homophobic lingo, that reference is to the latter half of the phrase "pitchers and catchers," which is another way of saying "tops and bottoms." And as our fearful emailer so kindly makes clear, the pitcher is considered the "man," whereas the the catcher is considered the "woman."

I'll admit it; I've been very slow at putting two and two together. But until I had it spelled out for me like that, I'd never realized just how intertwined homophobia is with hatred of women. In fact, it isn't so much intertwined as it is exactly the same thing. I've spent a long time staring at various homophobic screeds and wondering just what these guys have against people who like to fuck a different way than they do. But I've finally figured it out. They don't give a rat's ass about the fucking. It's the feminization that represents a threat.

It is the biggest insult they can think of to imply that they are in some way like a woman. Despite the fact that all of the men on the mailing list profess to enjoy certain activities involving a vagina, they can think of no greater indignity than to be a woman themselves. In a rational world this would represent definitive proof that the patriarchy is alive and well. If it wasn't, where is the threat? Clearly these men have a keen grasp on the perceived cons of being a woman, otherwise why get so worked up? Obviously there is something to lose something by not being a man or the posturing wouldn't be worth the effort.

I'm a little embarrassed that I didn't figure this out sooner. But maybe I shouldn't be that embarrassed. Maybe the real embarrassment would be to have understood it right away.

What does Donald Rumsfeld have to do with driving? You be the judge.

Tonight, I found myself in the first session of a two part defensive driving class to get a refresher course on the Tuna State's driving laws. This turn of events was made possible by certain circumstances of last month's three hour trek south to visit my family. If one were to posit that those circumstances included a car catching up swiftly from behind and then activating a set of whirling lights about an hour into said trip, well, let's just say I wouldn't argue.

Fortunately, the officer who issued my speeding ticket also brought with him a piece of paper with information about a class that, once completed, would allow me to get the citation dismissed. So I signed the ticket, thanked the officer, and continued on my merry way.

Twenty minutes later, I was pulled over again.

The second officer seemed rather amused by my pleas for mercy. He inquired as to the speed that I was driving the first time, and gave a half-hearted "heh" that I understood to mean, "Man, it sucks to be you, but that is just about the funniest thing I've heard all day." Like the officer before him, he retired to his cruiser, only to return about five long minutes later. When he returned, he informed me that, unfortunately, he is required to issue a citiation to anyone driving more than eleven miles per hour over the speed limit, but it just so happens that there is a class that I can take to dismiss the citation, and have I heard about it?

I assured him that I had.

So while I could think of better things to do tonight than spending four hours listening to information about
defensive driving that I already know*, it so happens that I have a greater stockpile of time at the moment than I do of money.

If I'd had my way this evening, I would have written about my sure-to-be-unique thoughts on Rumsfeld's resignation. Make no mistake, I intend to do that anyway. But I would've done it earlier. I'm just sayin'.

Yeah, so, Rumsfeld**. I think this was a pretty damn slick political manuver by George W. Bush. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to see Rumsfeld go, and even though I'm nervous about how it happened and what it could mean, I'm going to take a little while to savor the unexpected exit of the architect of the war in Iraq. But I still think this was a pretty shrewd move on Bush's part for several reasons.

For one thing, it would have been a no-brainer for the Democrats to call for Rumsfeld's head right out of the gate. It's something they've already been doing for months, and I think it is safe to assume that it would have garnered a lot more attention in the media now that they hold the majority. By preemptively bumping Rumsfeld out the door, Bush takes away from the Democrats the ability to frame this as the first big victory for the new Democratic majority. He also takes away one of the only issue that the Dems have been able to speak about with anything remotely approaching a common voice.

For another thing, it allows Bush to appear to be extending an olive branch to the Dems -- hey, Rumsfeld is gone, that's what you wanted, right? -- while immediately throwing the newly elected Senate into a confirmation battle. It appears to me that Bush is trying to make it hard for the Democrats to fight his cabinet nomination of Robert Gates. If they fight too hard, expect the conservatives to accuse the Democrats of partisanship, with lots of mentions of "gridlock" thrown in for good measure. If this early indication from Ezra holds up, this fear of mine may turn out to be unfounded. I don't know much about Gates; I'll be interested to see what we learn about him in the next few weeks.

This is a little off the subject, but I just realized that I have two half full glasses of water sitting next to me. I guess I'm double fisting it tonight.

So that's how I see the Rumsfeld thing. In my opinion, the Dems need to get their poop in a group pronto. They need to replace the calls for Rumsfeld's head with calls for investigations into the treatment of prisoners at all secret facilities around the world. They need to be ready to counter the inevitable Republican talking points that "those investigations are just a witch hunt and anyway it isn't important anymore because Rumsfeld is gone." These points are coming, so let's not wait and pretend to be surprised by the inevitable. Hit the airwaves and explain that we want to support our troops by figuring out which superiors gave them orders that would demonstratably harm their mission. And at the first mention of witch hunts, ask them why they don't support the troops. Or find a different way to frame it, I don't care. The important thing is to get the message out proactively. In this case, offense is the best defense.

Which, as I've been so recently reminded, is exactly opposite of driving.


* It occurs to me that the facts of my story might lead a less discerning reader to a contrary conclusion. But I trust that you are not one of those readers.

** Hey, it's a transition.

An easy prediction

With the Democrats taking back the House, and in all probability a Democratic Senate too, I think there is thing we can all expect: more George W. Bush vetos.

Congratulations, Democrats. Now don't fuck it up.

Welcome to the home of the conversational fish

Since I can't seem to pry myself away from the midterm election results, this is probably as good a time as any to introduce myself. Hi, I'm Tuna! So pleased to meet you.

Let's see, I should say a little about myself. I'm a software devoper located in the midwest. I have a wife, Mrs. Tuna, and two little tunas, He-fry and She-fry. I'm in my late twenties, and my kids have just started school. I'll defintitely be blogging about my family from time to time, so I do hope you don't find our psuedonyms too irritating. Of course, if you do, there is one thing that will give me comfort: It's my blog. Neener neener neener.

I'm going to break in on myself here and say that I'm currently blogging, refreshing several blogs, and -- and this is decidedly odd for me -- watching Lou Dobbs. That fat fucker just reminded his viewers of the election problems in 2000, and how everyone was laughing at them. But, he points out, now look at all the problems everywhere! We aren't laughing now, he assures us, chuckling. Yeah, Lou, 'cause it's pretty damn funny, isn't it? Every time I think about the election problems in the last three elections, I just laugh my ass off when I think about how that only seems to happen in the battleground states! What are the chances of that, huh? And every time it happens, its just a hilarious coincidence that it all works out in favor of the Republicans! Oh, Lou. Please stop! You're making my sides hurt.

She-fry has traced her lips with a blue pen. Pardon me for a moment.

Where was I? Let's see, I was donning my tinfoil hat. Forget it, it isn't important, let's talk about something else.

As you can probably tell, I'm a liberal. What you can't tell, yet, is that I'm an atheist, secular humanist, feminist, and skeptic -- not necessarily in that order. I also enjoy space and spaceflight, I'll be blogging about all that stuff, too, when the whim strikes me.

Thank the FSM, Lou Dobbs is gone and Anderson Cooper is talking now.

Another thing about me that may or may not be interesting: I've blogged before. In my previous incarnation, I wasn't a fish*. Several months ago, I wrapped up a blog that I wrote under my real name. I had various reasons for doing that, and I'll probably write about them in more detail in the coming days. For now, I'll just say that I have very little desire to get dooced. Thus, this the Talking Tuna was born.

Shit, Dobbs is back. He-fry just asked me, "Are we gonna watch this all day?" It's a fair question.

Alright, I'm gonna go. I've, um, gotta find a different channel.

* Depending on your beliefs, that might say something significant about me. But I'll let you judge that for yourself.