« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
04/24/2008
'It's time for androgyny. Here comes Matt!'
Since there are only so many times one can uses phrases like "San Francisco values" and "radical, militant, activists" without them growing stale, it's always exciting when Matt Barber inscribes a new phrase into his book of reliable code-wording. However, we do wish that when he adopted a new way to denigrate gay lives and loves, he would at least make sure that he's not completely misusing a word.
This from a new press release in which Matt congratulates the anti-gay activists who have reportedly collected enough signatures to get their proposed marriage amendment on the November ballot:
"Marriage and family are the bedrock institutions of civilization. In today's postmodern culture, radical secular humanists on the left are desperately attempting to redefine those institutions into oblivion. The people of California have spoken. They are courageously standing firm against the ridiculous, androgynous and oxymoronic notion of so-called 'same-sex marriage,' which new age extremists have forced into the modern lexicon."
Okay, so "ridiculous" and "oxymoronic," while both offensive misrepresentations of our unions and desires thereof, are words he can totally use if he wishes. But "androgynous"? Uhm -- WHAT?! That word means expressing characteristics of both genders. So wouldn't it therefore be heterosexual marriages that would more readily be defined as androgynous? If you're talking about the notion itself, wouldn't a wedding featuring two dudes or two chicas be among the least androgynous of scenes? Hell, in theory, there could be a same-sex wedding in which not one member of the opposite gender is in attendance!
Now, it's likely Matt is operating with the "Which one of you wears the dress/tux?" mindset, an inappropriate generalization that it all-too-familiar to gays and lesbians. And if he wants to use that juvenile idea to refer to the participants, then he certainly can. But in this little sound bite, he is talking about the custom, so that is also where we're directing our attention. And when speaking of what are truly paragons of ulltra-masculinity or ultra-femininity, his "androgynous" classification is misclassified as the movement that calls itself "pro-marriage."
Signature Goals Achieved In California! [CWA]
**NOTE: It's come to our attention that some folks have interpreted the above image of Matt as us making some sort of snarky statement. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is merely a "pop art" image. We have one for almost all of the usual stable of "pro-family" players, and use them from time to time to break up the monotony of using the same head shots.
We do photo parodies sometimes in which we insert folks into a silly situation; but we are not in the business of manipulating photos as a way to futz with someone's appearance. If you've seen an unflattering photo of someone on here, it's because the photo or screen cap we have just happens to be unflattering. We don't try to "ugly" anyone up or make them look "devilish."
Your thoughts
I agree with you Jeremy - there's absolutely nothing wrong with this picture of Barber. In fact, it IMPROVES his look. Who the hell would be offended if their picture was made almost identical to a Warhol pop art photo? For that matter, this picture is the sole nice thing about Barber on the net! Matt PROBABLY has it on his desktop background.
Posted by: Scott | Apr 25, 2008 3:30:37 PM
comments powered by Disqus
