Meghan McCain: Does It Sound Campy to Say I Like Gay Men?- Page 2

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 7/16/09 at 4:04pm

Most women I know do, too. I was just trying to clear up the question, but I really don't know, because lljay's comment is confusingly worded, so I'm not exactly 100& sure. I think some people use those words without thinking through the truly misogynistic implications of them. It doesn't change the fact that they are words rooted in misogyny, or that you have an understandably angry reaction to them.

I don't know that you are in the minority. You may just be the only one who actively says something.

As for Meghan McCain, it's great that she's a big fan of gay marriage. And perhaps her stance on it will help to shake the Republican party out of its sexphobia. In all truth, though, I expect that if she wants to remain a republican she will have to eventually backpedal or shut up. Look at what the party did to her "maverick" father.



Updated On: 7/16/09 at 04:04 PM

[ljay889]

Posted: 7/16/09 at 4:25pm

Sorry for the wording. I was asking why more women aren't taking offense to the word in this thread. As a male, I even do not like hearing women referred to as that word.

[Calvin]

Posted: 7/16/09 at 4:25pm

As for Meghan McCain, it's great that she's a big fan of gay marriage. And perhaps her stance on it will help to shake the Republican party out of its sexphobia. In all truth, though, I expect that if she wants to remain a republican she will have to eventually backpedal or shut up.

She's what...24? I don't doubt her sincerity on the subject, though I do doubt her ability to have any influence whatsoever within the GOP on the subject at this point. We have to wait until the Sally Kerns and Jim Inhofes are pushing up daisies before that happens.

[JudasIscariot]

Posted: 7/16/09 at 4:52pm

Say what you will, but Meghan McCain is a class act. I really don't understand all of the hate for her, as she is a Republican (the party of the devil, according to some of you) declaring that she is in support of gay marriage. This is yet again reiterating the fact that not all Republicans are against gay marriage, but because the religious base of the party is so outspoken in their intolerance, it's people assume that all Republicans must follow their views.

Sure, Republicans without a backbone might cave under pressure and declare their disgust for homosexuals, but that is politics. Sure, they may believe that gays should have equal rights, but they have no chance of getting elected with the wildly outspoken evangelicals steering the bus. Therefore, they change their views or just say what they think their party wants to hear. It's disgusting, but it works on both sides. I'm sure not all Democrats are for gay marriage (Obama), or maybe they weren't all against the war in Iraq, but when they saw it as politically tempting to do so, they may have changed their positions, but not fully believed in what they now stood for. This is why I don't believe that she is being used as any sort of pawn to show how new and edgy the Republican party can be. I believe she is just speaking her mind, because the way the the party is, she probably won't be elected to office any time soon.

Meghan McCain speaking out for gay marriage is a great thing because she is a young attractive member of a party viewed as anti-progressive, and an old-boys club. Sure, she may not have government influence, but she does influence thousands of people that read what she has to say. There are many of us who view her as a sort of figure head for a new era of the Republican party.

Any support for gay rights should be lauded, not bashed. She is more vocal about her support than our dear President of change, and I think that is a great thing. It really shows a shift in the times. As she grows and becomes a more prominent member of the Republican party, I think that the party will continue to grow with her. The youth of the party is really what matters, because the current members of the party have screwed things up.

I severely doubt that going against the "base" of her party and supporting what she believes is right is a scheme to further her political agenda. If so, she would be committing political suicide. Can't you just accept that even though she's a Republican, she supports equal rights for all people?

Sheesh.

[zoraksferal]

Posted: 7/16/09 at 5:01pm

Something about Meghan McCain I find really annoying. Is it that she really has no reason to be so vocal now about politics, when she is a completely irrelevant figure trying to milk her father's failed campaign? Yeah, I think that is it.

[JudasIscariot]

Posted: 7/16/09 at 5:05pm

Why does she have no reason to be vocal about politics? She's an American, right? Do you have any sort of reason to be vocal about politics? How exactly is she trying to milk her father's failed campaign? By being a positive role-model for progressive Republicans?

I'm not trying to be hostile, but I am a little annoyed by your statements there.

[Bluemoon]

Posted: 7/16/09 at 5:08pm

"Any support for gay rights should be lauded, not bashed. She is more vocal about her support than our dear President of change, and I think that is a great thing. It really shows a shift in the times. As she grows and becomes a more prominent member of the Republican party, I think that the party will continue to grow with her. The youth of the party is really what matters, because the current members of the party have screwed things up.'

For me, this was probably the wisest statement on this thread. Thank you, Judas.

[zoraksferal]

Posted: 7/16/09 at 5:10pm

Judas- She was not vocal at all, until she signed a 6 figure book deal. I take everything she says as completely contrived. She said virtually nothing during the campaign. Now, all of a sudden, she sees money in speaking, so she won't shut up. I find it annoying, and very fake.

[JudasIscariot]

Posted: 7/16/09 at 5:18pm

What forum did she have to share her views, really? I mean sure, she was the daughter of a nominee, but the media was more focused on her father than on her. She had a blog, which I do believed she stated her support on. After the election, she really gained more support and now she is using that support to spread a positive message about equality.

Remember, it wasn't her running for office, it was her father.
Updated On: 7/16/09 at 05:18 PM

[zoraksferal]

Posted: 7/16/09 at 5:20pm

Yeah, and I am sure if she was so consumed with attacking staunch conservatives, which at least she is now, the media would have happily had her on to do so.

[JudasIscariot]

Posted: 7/16/09 at 5:24pm

I just don't understand what you seem to be so bitter about. She admitted to not being as vocal about her support during the campaign. She is now though, and what is the problem with that?

It's the complete opposite of Obama, who seems to be suspiciously quiet about it now that his place is secure.

[zoraksferal]

Posted: 7/16/09 at 5:28pm

My problem with her is that she is trying to use the Republican party as a tool for her to make money and fame. Now that she is able to trash the far right, and see that being the maverick is what gets you national attention and money, I feel she is an attention craving nuisance. She is doing it for her gain now that she sees money in the mix.

[JudasIscariot]

Posted: 7/16/09 at 5:30pm

What makes you think that she's just doing it for money though? She has been vocal about equal rights before she was offered a book deal in April. Besides, she wouldn't be offered a book deal for nothing. One of the main reasons that she was offered it was because of how vocal she is.

[zoraksferal]

Posted: 7/16/09 at 5:44pm

I say she is doing it for the money because 1) She is seeking fights with certain, more controversial conservatives, 2) You can say she was vocal all you want before the book deal, but if she knew a book deal would be in the works in the future, then that would explain it. I am not going to give her the benefit of the doubt her, and I fail to see why anyone cares about this bimbo.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 7/16/09 at 5:54pm

She may have been vocal before her book deal in April, but she has been utterly silent up until her father lost the election.

I'm actually kind of moved that folks are so willing to take her word at face value. Such credulity is remarkable. Folks, sorry to remind you, but she is a Republican. Not exactly a group known for honesty, or for promoting gay interests. These are the people who told us that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, who instigated torture, and have loudly proclaimed that gays and lesbians are undeserving of equal protection under the law.

Of course, I may be wrong. She may really be deeply committed to progress within her party. She may really be in favor of same sex marriage. I refuse to believe it at face value. It smacks entirely too strongly of self-promotion to me. I am surprised that others are accepting her word so readily. Why was she so utterly silent during the campaign? Her statement in the interview that "nobody asked" is laughable: who asked her after the election?

But hey, after all, I may ultimately be wrong. When she is able to convince her father to endorse same sex marriage, I'll believe that she might actually have some genuine convictions in this matter. Until then, she's an exceedingly unpleasant young lady looking to further her own interests by assuming this bogus Maverick pose.

[JudasIscariot]

Posted: 7/16/09 at 5:56pm

Well, I'm sorry that you guys feel that way.

[zoraksferal]

Posted: 7/16/09 at 5:58pm

Roscoe, I agree with everything you said except the 2nd paragraph, but lets not get into that. She is a self promoting annoyance.
Judas, twas a valiant effort, but this appears to be one of those discussions where no one is going to be able to actually convince anyone of anything at this current time.

[Calvin]

Posted: 7/16/09 at 9:22pm

Like I said, she's 24. She comes from a completely perspective on gay marriage than her father does, so I don't doubt that she has no personal problem with gay marriage -- just like most other 24-year-olds who aren't either completely uneducated, isolated from the world, brainwashed by religious zealot parents or closeted frat boys. When the 24-year-olds of today are running the GOP (if it still exists then), then I have no doubt it will be a very different party on this issue. As will the Democratic party, for that matter, who -- sad to say -- haven't proven themselves much better on "promoting gay interests," at least not on a national level.

Is she self-promoting? Yes. Do I think she'll change the mind of anyone holding power in the Republican party, including her father? No. Do I think she'll even actively do much to try to change their minds? No. Will she convince me to vote Republican in 2012? Good heavens, no. Nor am I suggesting we elevate her to the status of gay icon.

But I don't really find her all that worthy of my vitriol, and if she wants to self-promote by verbally slapping Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham and Joe the Plumber, then just let her have fun with that. I have a limited supply of vitriol. I need that for the James Coburns and the girls who put kittens in ovens.
Updated On: 7/16/09 at 09:22 PM

[Byron Abens]

Posted: 7/17/09 at 11:44am

So Meghan McCain gets ripped apart for coming out in support of gay marriage when she has "nothing to lose" at the moment?

Now my question to the people ripping her a new one: Are you also ripping former President Clinton apart in the same way for only recently saying he now supports gay marriage? After all, this man did far more damage to gay rights by signing, and defending for years, DOMA and DADT.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 7/17/09 at 12:00pm

Yes. It's great that he supports gay marriage, too, but we could have used his support back when he was in office.

That said, Clinton's not going around making it his calling card, or they example to point to of how he's "not like the rest of them."

[Roscoe]

Posted: 7/17/09 at 12:05pm

Yeah, Byron, actually I do hate Bill Clinton's guts for having signed DOMA into law and enacted DADT and all that, and find his "evolving" stance on same-sex marriage as suspiciously conveniently timed and utterly unconvincing as Ms. McCain's.

For Bill Clinton to use Monica Lewinsky as his own living humidor while passing judgment on other peoples' relationships is as hypocritical as Obama's speech decrying the very bigotry toward gays that he himself suppports.

[Byron Abens]

Posted: 7/17/09 at 12:17pm

Roscoe, I appreciate your candor and the fact that you are not hypocritical in your vitriol against those you yourself see as hypocritical. Too many people out there blindly follow party lines and are willing to condemn somebody like Meghan McCain or Dick Cheney for claiming support for gay marriage after the fact but praise Bill Clinton for "seeing the light" as it would be.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 7/17/09 at 12:21pm

I haven't seen them on this board.

[Calvin]

Posted: 7/17/09 at 1:02pm

I'm pleased for anyone to "see the light." Not grateful. Not laudatory. Just pleased.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 7/17/09 at 1:24pm

This thread should be cross referenced with the Karma thread.

Fact is, boys (and a few women), many women take offense to the use of the words B and C, regardless of your intended meaning.

On the other hand and (mind you, I'm not excusing anything on anyone's part, and I think people should know better in a public forum, but) I think sometimes people don't really think about the implications of what they are saying. For example, for the longest time I used to use the word "tranny," never once for a second thinking that that was actually a word that most transsexuals found offensive. Then one day I informed it was and I felt like a horse's ass. Now I don't think it's an exact comparison, but I think that when some people use the B word and C word they are using it without the intention of offending all women. BUT it doesn't change the fact that many women will rightfully be offended.

I do think that the power of the word "BITCH" has become watered down in its intensity, if only for the proliferation of its use, especially by many women who will proudly claim to be one. I use that word a lot more than I use the C-word. To be fair, I use bitch with men, too. On closer examination, it probably is latently misogynistic to use the word at all, but there's just no good equivalent for it for men.

I used the freely use "dyke" without meaning offense (and thinking "hey, I'm gay, so I get a pass) until someone on this board actually said, "Hey, not cool," when I called her a dyke (with no malice intended, mind you). Of course she was right. That's why I don't use that word willy nilly like a lot of gay boys do.

And Colleen is right. Many of us would be up in arms if faggot was used the way bitch and c*nt are. (this last sentence actually pertains to the other thread)
Updated On: 7/17/09 at 01:24 PM