November 7, 2008
Religious and Civil Rights
I can't help wondering about the motivation of the blacks who voted against homosexuals' civil rights. Was it religion or misogyny?
(Of course, it can be hard to distinguish between misogyny and fundamentalist religions.)
But the video url posted to the right makes it clear that not all abominations elicit the same gut revulsion that motivated these voters. Then what is so disturbing?
I believe it is unconscious misogyny, which is a fancy way of saying those men hate or fear women.
To a fundamentalist man who thinks women should be subservient to men like the church is subservient to Christ, I am sure the mere idea of men as lovers means one of those men must be subservient. Patriarchal men (and women) are emotionally allergic to this idea.
What evidence do I have that fundamentalist men think they should always be tops and never bottoms? The difference in their reaction to gay men and their reaction to lesbians. It's always ok for women to be bottoms.
(Of course, the main cause of any modern feminization of men is all the organic industrial chemicals that we have inserted into our environment since 1945.)
Anyway, it is not totally surprising that black people, whose ancestors were enslaved, might be more allergic to the idea of their men being subservient. But I say to them that oppressing homosexuals tells me they are not yet completely free.
Women, who are the mothers of all sons, cannot be oppressed and abused without also oppressing and abusing sons, whether those sons are gay or not.