Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler



June 21, 2013 - 3:50 am

The New York mayor’s race exploded in controversy yesterday when candidate Anthony Weiner insufficiently chastised a Democratic voter for using the word “dyke,” a scene described in a Washington Post article thusly:

“You a registered Democrat?” he asked an elderly woman wheeling a shopping cart by him.

“I am,” she said. “And I’m not voting for uh, what’s her name? The dyke.”

“Okay. I just need you to sign the petition to get me on the ballot,” said Weiner, who then noticed the incredulous reaction of a reporter and added, “and you really shouldn’t talk that way about people.”

“Oh, I’m sorry,” the woman said.

“It’s okay,” Weiner responded. “It’s not your fault.”

For the unpardonable crime of hesitating slightly before publicly humiliating an old lady for using a somewhat antiquated and faintly crude word, Weiner earned the white-hot wrath of the LGBTQ Outrage Machine:

The response left Assemblywoman Deborah Glick and State Senator Brad Hoylman–who have both endorsed Ms. Quinn’s campaign–seething.

“We are appalled by the account in the Washington Post of Anthony Weiner’s unacceptable response to a prospective voter’s homophobic, misogynistic slur in reference to Christine Quinn,” they wrote in a statement Thursday. “Weiner’s response to this blatant display of homophobia is completely inappropriate and extremely alarming. There is nothing ‘okay’ about homophobia and it’s never ‘okay’ to condone bias-based slurs or hate speech of any kind.”

They argued that such language was indicative of the larger challenges faced by female and openly gay political candidates.

“The voter’s use of the term demonstrates the challenges women candidates and lesbians in particular face, and Weiner’s failure to swiftly and firmly condemn her language demonstrates his lack of moral courage,” they added. “We demand an immediate apology from Mr. Weiner on behalf of LGBT and women New Yorkers.”

The Empire State Pride Agenda also added its admonition in a release that also criticized Mr. Weiner for not responding to an anti-gay comment at a recent mayoral forum.

“It’s unfortunate that we need to issue a public statement on this at all, but this is becoming a disturbing pattern,” said the group’s Executive Director Nathan Schaefer in a statement. “Anthony Weiner should know better: actually, Congressman, it’s NOT ‘okay’ to condone a homophobic slur, and it’s also not okay to sit by in silence as they are used in your presence.

Needless to say, within a few hours Weiner was falling all over himself to grovel in abject apology for his Crime Against Humanity.

Now, let’s pause and back up for a moment. Weiner’s mayoral opponent — the one whom the elderly Democrat wasn’t voting for — is Christine Quinn, the openly gay Speaker of the New York City Council. That’s why when the old lady couldn’t remember Quinn’s name she chose to describe her by Quinn’s most well-known personal detail — albeit using a word that’s now (unbeknownst to old ladies pushing shopping carts) verboten.

But here’s where things get confusing.

According to Quinn’s own bio, she was for years the director of the Gay & Lesbian Anti-Violence Project, which every June with Quinn’s approval co-sponsors the “Dyke March as part of Pride Month. Just a few days ago Quinn marched in the Brooklyn Pride Parade alongside “Dykes on Bicycles” and other dyke-named groups. She’s also scheduled to appear next week in the NYC Pride Parade alongside the same “dyke”-named groups.

All of this would strongly suggest that Christine Quinn is perfectly comfortable with people using the word “dyke.”

To top it all off, in past years Quinn has herself marched in the Dyke March, apparently thereby self-identifying as a “dyke.”

So: Since Quinn is OK with people using the word “dyke,” and since she considers herself a “dyke,” then why can’t a Democratic voter refer to her as a “dyke”?

Interestingly, still online at Quinn’s former group the Anti-Violence Project is this intriguing document which addresses the matter directly, a quiz which asks reader to match up the words “Fag/Dyke/etc.” with the following definition:

Fag/Dyke/etc. — Terms which may be oppressive when used by people outside the community but which some people have chosen to reclaim despite their history of being used in hurtful ways.

Now, the whole purpose of “reclaiming” a once-nasty word is to defuse its power. The most well-known example of this process is the word “gay” itself, which long ago used to be a crude sexual innuendo but has been so thoroughly reclaimed that most people now have no idea that “gay” was once considered an insult. The same process is currently happening with “queer” — and presumably “dyke” as well. So many people and groups now enthusiastically self-identify as “queer” that eventually the word will have no sting, as it formerly did. At least that’s the plan.

But if you blow a gasket and act Deeply Offended every time someone “outside the community” uses your reclaimed word, then you are sabotaging the entire reclaiming process. You are announcing that the word not only retains its power to hurt, but that the pain of hearing it spoken has become nearly intolerable. So naturally, if some bozo out there wanted to piss you off, he (or she, in this case) now knows the exact word to use. Reclaim FAIL.

What disturbs me most of all about this whole imbroglio is the phrase “outside the community,” which establishes a caste system for who is or is not allowed to use certain words in the English language. Essentially it comes down to this:

We are allowed to say dyke. You are not allowed to say dyke.

“We” in this case are people with politically correct thoughts. “You” is everyone else — the cultural untouchables whose corrupting heteronormativity makes them cruel oppressors simply by not being dykes themselves.

This attitude is summed up by the final definition on the gay quiz linked above:

Heterosexual Privilege — Unearned privileges that go to straight people simply because they are straight: e.g., the ability to legally marry a partner and talk publicly about crushes and intimate relationships.

Clear? A teenage girl talking about her crush on the quarterback is an unearned privilege; marrying someone of the opposite gender is an unearned privilege. And to that list we can add: Old ladies using words that we have reserved for our own exclusive use was an unearned privilege but now they no longer even have that privilege because it was rightfully taken away.

There are academics and intellectuals who already deem any public manifestation of heterosexual presumptiveness as an act of oppression and hate, and would cheer if society skated down that slippery slope to the banishment of all heteronormativity. Until that happy day, they’re content to enforce the new caste system in which “haters” are forbidden to say or do the exact things which are allowed to the morally sophisticated elites.

You, old lady pushing a shopping cart down the streets of the city, you may not speak as we speak. You are so toxic that anyone who fails to promptly punish you for speaking will themselves become contaminated by you.

You are the new leper, the new untouchable.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (18)
All Comments   (18)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
I wish I was a lesbian; I'd like to be a dyke.
I could hang with K.D. Lang; Mel Gibson take a hike!
I think it would be nice to love someone who was alike.
Oh, I wish I was a lesbian; I'd like to be a dyke!


I dare Casey Kasem to play this!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All this makes perfect sense when you recognize that Leftism is a cult. No, really, this isn't just an epithet. Cults have words that only insiders can use and when outsiders use these terms it completely throws the cult member off. So only LC priests can be "devout, holy" priests, only Republicans can make "obscene profits" (lol, you should have seen the scene when I calmly discussed Kermit Gosnell's "obscene profits"; a woman actually told me I wasn't allowed to use that term). You get the idea. These are called "thought-stopping phrases" which are used to bring cult members back into line. Try it! Deliberately "misuse" one of the Left's thought-stopping phrases and see what it does. We won't get our country back until we help people exit this cult in great numbers.

(One note: Cult experts don't actually use the term cult to describe a particular high-pressure group because the term is so divisive and loaded so it's a word only laymen use-kind of like how the professionals don't use terms like "crazy" or "psycho" to diagnose)
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I was bemused to hear a program on BBC Radio on a trip to Europe in 1991. A spokesman of a homosexual group declared that he thought it was long past time that the word "gay" was abandoned as it was too "bourgeouis". He favored a return to the less genteel terms "queers" and "faggots".

In retrospect, it wasn't clear if he meant that only fellow homosexuals were to be encouraged to use those words or whether straight folks were also be encouraged to use them.

I'm not sure if his proposal was ever adopted. I haven't been to Britain since that trip but I haven't seen his preferred words re-emerge as acceptable so I'm assuming he wasn't persuasive in getting people to change their speech patterns.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I gotta say, our side could learn a thing or two from the activist left.

Gays comprise somewhere between two and ten percent of the population, depending on whom you believe. Gun owners, Christians, Conservatives or some combination thereof are between twenty and fifty percent. Yet somehow they're able to dominate conversation after conversation and march through one institution after another virtualy unimpeded.

We seriously need to start using their tactics.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"We seriously need to start using their tactics. "

NO!! Resorting to their tactics would make us as sleazy as they are. We need to discredit their tactics so that no one uses them any more.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
If you think you can accomplish that before they finish taking over the entire country that'd be great. Given what's been going on the last 30 years I have no confidence it can be done.

The central problem with your desire to take the high road (admirable though it may be) is that for the high road to work you need an electorate that is largely educated, engaged, thoughtful and reasonable.

Now, honestly, do you think those words describe most American voters? I'm sorry to say it, but I sure don't.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
If we approach your point pragmatically, yes, of course you're right. Your proposal is more likely to bring us to power than refusing to adopt those tactics.

I'm simply talking about principles. I'd like to be from the political movement that still honors honesty and integrity and treats people as equally deserving of respect without letting all sorts of self-chosen minorities jump the queue.

If we start adopting the tactics of the Left, how are we any better than they are? We might end up winning some victories - and we certainly need some of those - but one of the prices we'll pay is ratcheting up cynicism still further when it is already at dizzying heights.

Is there no other way forward than to become that which we despise?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
" The most well-known example of this process is the word “gay” itself, which long ago used to be a crude sexual innuendo but has been so thoroughly reclaimed that most people now have no idea that “gay” was once considered an insult. "

I don't know when "gay" was first an insult but I strongly suspect it was _not_ that all that long ago. Think back to the closing credits to The Flintstones, the original run of which ran in the early 60s when I was a kid. Remember the words? "We'll have a gay old time!". I'm pretty sure there was no homosexual implication in the word at all; it was just a synonym for merry.

I don't think there was a homosexual connotation to the word gay until at least the late 60s if not well into the seventies. That's when I first heard it. But maybe other areas adopted the word earlier. I'm not an etymologist (word historian).

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
See also: "Have A Gay Old Time" on TV Tropes for the best laugh you may have all day:

My favorite example is Jester Wools, who's "robbed the rainbow to make you GAY!"
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
From an etymological dictionary in the "gay" entry:

"Usage note
In addition to its original and continuing senses of “merry, lively” and “bright or showy,” gay has had various senses dealing with sexual conduct since the 17th century. A gay woman was a prostitute, a gay man a womanizer, a gay house a brothel. This sexual world included homosexuals too, and gay as an adjective meaning “homosexual” may go back to the late 1930s."
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I had no idea. I've learned something today.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Oops, sorry for the mis-wordings of what I meant to say. I should have said:

- "...I strongly suspect it was _not_ that long ago"

- '...the original series of which ran..."
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
How do you know the old lady wasn't gay? She coule be a dyk3 too.

Also, Blacks have a similar issue with "The Sheriff is a nig##!" Mel Brooks is the only white guy that can say the N word.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
What else did you expect from a colonialist racist cishet white male privileged tech pervert? Political correctness is a form of cannibalism, as these morons lay semantic tiger traps all over the place, forget where they put them, and then stumble in.

Here's the end to an actual blog post by an ultra-feminist nimrod:

"ETA: This post was originally titled Old Men Yelling At Clouds: SFWA Lunacy. I then changed that last word to idiocy, as it was pointed out to me that the use of lunacy was ableist; but as idiocy is also abelist, I’ve changed it to sexism."

These people are gibbering, retarded, idiotic, lunatics.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Thank you for restraining me when I was about to - horrors! - potentially feel some sympathy for that useless little ratfink Anthony Appropriately-Named Weiner. Bit of a near thing, that.

I'm not psychic, but I feel confident in predicting, and grateful, that no one in my "community" will ever feel compelled to "reclaim" the word "k!ke."
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The episode of South Park, "It Hits the Fan", comes to mind.

Sadly, I do not believe the details would make it through most forum filters. Needless to say, if you choose to look it up, it's NSFW.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
People who annoy you:


Those of us who are not racists will pick the right vowel. The rest of you, well, LOL

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
That's... actually a completely different episode, and not particularly relevant.

"It Hits the Fan" has an extended section where Mr. Garrison goes on about how he can use the word f*g (including as an insult against other people) because he's gay, and nobody else can.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
View All