RECENT  POSTS:  » I'm pretty sure Maggie Gallagher just called the National Org. For Marriage ineffective » 379 companies that want their logos paired with uplifting music in inevitable marriage (in)equality documentaries » NOM affiliate group to give Roy Moore a 'Letter from Birmingham Jail Award' » Save the Date: SCOTUS to hear history-making marriage cases on April 28 » Wall Street's biggest put stock in equal bonds » Gross: Tony Perkins makes some sort of 'ugly baby' joke at Hillary Clinton's expense » Really, suddenly contrite Ben Carson? Because you were pretty cocksure before! » ADF links A-Rod's drug suspension with florist's anti-gay discrimination; huh?! » NOM: Marriage means putting choking hazards on your baby's toes » Video: Ben Carson is apparently one felony conviction away from fellating a man  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

12/31/2012

NOM's Roback Morse: Why can't a 'very masculine woman' satisfy a gay man?

by Jeremy Hooper

After promoting an article headlined "Yes, gay is a choice. Get Over it." six-figure-compensated National Organization For Marriage employee Jennifer Roback Morse proceeds to have this jaw-droppingly reductive exchange about feminism, gender roles, attraction, and associated nonsense:

201212310844
[Jennifer Roback Morse's Facebook wall]

No, Jen (and Tony)—when we say that gender is irrelevant, we mean that it is not the roadblock in terms of abilities (be it in career, parenting, loving bonds, etc.) that the rigid social conservatives have made it out to be. We are saying, rightly, that the portrait of the American family comes in many forms, and that the ultimate relevance is not where you all typically place it: in the groin area, mainly. We are saying that two mothers and two fathers can be just as fantastic (or as bad) at parenting as one of each, not because one half of a same-gender couple has to pretend he or she is of another gendered role but because the traditionally gendered roles are far from the happy home guarantors that the "family values" crowd has insisted they are.

Saying that gender is not a barrier or limitation (or special enhancement, in the inverse) is not even close to saying that gender is detached from attraction and the overall biology of desire. It is the height of anti-intellectualism to suggest that it is.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails