Homophobia

10 March 2007 in Politics

Andrew Sullivan (via 3 Quarks Daily) addresses Ann Coulter’s bizarre argument that her use of a common, viscious term of abuse for gay men to describe John Edwards isn’t homophobic because John Edwards is straight:

Coulter’s defense of the slur is that it was directed at an obviously straight man and so could not be a real slur. The premise of this argument is that the word faggot is only used to describe gay men and is only effective and derogatory when used against a gay man. But it isn’t. In fact, in the schoolyard she cites, the primary targets of the f-word are straight boys or teens or men. The word “faggot” is used for two reasons: to identify and demonize a gay man; and to threaten a straight man with being reduced to the social pariah status of a gay man. Coulter chose the latter use of the slur, its most potent and common form.

Homophobia diminishes us all, no matter what our sexuality. The verbal assault launched by Coulter and other homophobes, backed it should be noted by implicit and explicit threats of violence, serves to force humanity into narrow categories. It prevents, through ostracization and terror, the full expression of our selves. The gender identities available in US society are very narrow. How many of us really fit in those boxes? How many more of us would have more creative, more expressive, more authentic lives if people like Ann Coulter weren’t constantly policing the boundaries of proper gendered behavior?

And what is it about John Edwards that led Ann Coulter (who, like George Bush, I assume to be smarter than she lets on) to call him by a term reserved for gay men? That is, to say, what are John Edwards’ stereotypically “feminine” traits. See how homophobia and sexism are so closely related? It’s easy just to point to Edwards’ physical characteristics, but I think the real reference is to policy. Edwards is running a campaign centered around health care, poverty alleviation, and international cooperation. Care-giving and cooperation have been tasks ascribed to women in our patriarchal society and, as such, they have been devalued. They seem pretty important to me, though.

Let’s see what the right says about Hilary Clinton when she starts saying tough-sounding things about the military and defense policy.

Oh, and you supposed lefties who think it’s OK to trash Coulter for her femininity or lack of femininity or whatever, try not to stoop to her level. Sexism is still sexism even if its directed against someone who deserves scorn. She deserves that scorn because she is a hateful, war-mongering bigot, not because she’s a woman.