Now I’m Really Confused

The Conservative View:

Islam: Bad.
Rights for Gays and Lesbians: Bad.
Women’s Rights: Bad.

Except when we want to use gay rights and women’s rights as evidence that Islam is really bad. Then we’ll trumpet our “liberalism” for all its worth.

Let’s review: Conservatives in the United States are working day and night to roll back women’s rights and further limit the rights of gay and lesbian citizens. When some Islamic nations actually succeed at rolling back the rights of women and members of the LGBT community, they are wrong because they did it in the name of Allah instead of in the name of Jesus. They are bad because they are too conservative when it comes to women and teh gays, and we are good because we are very conservative when it comes to women and teh gays. They give very few rights to women and gays, and are therefore bad. We think women and gays should have fewer rights, and are therefore good.

Head spinning yet?

Similar Posts (automatically generated):

33 comments for “Now I’m Really Confused

  1. Sniper
    September 14, 2006 at 5:33 pm

    My favorite riff on this is on the lines of “oh, boy, those liberals think Christians are so dangerous. Wait until their weakness allows the Islamofascists to take over and start cutting off heads and forcing women into burkas. Then they’ll be begging for a Christian theocracy!”

  2. September 14, 2006 at 5:50 pm

    It’s like they think there is some “just right” level of rights that people should have that they alone have figured out, and Islam is too far to the right for them, but feminists and gay rights advocates are too far to the left. Call it “Goldilocks Syndrome.”

  3. Sue
    September 14, 2006 at 6:09 pm


    Tremendous point. Here’s hoping some of that insight trickles into the conservative movement, and that the feminism movement starts purging members-in-name-only who overlook the crimes commited against women in fundamentalist societies in the name of cultural reletavism.

  4. Esme
    September 14, 2006 at 6:39 pm

    I have the answer you seek!

    It’s Michelle Malkin.

    What were you expecting? Sanity? Human decency? Intelligence? I thought more of you Jill. *sigh*

  5. Seraph
    September 14, 2006 at 7:59 pm

    I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying, Sue. You aren’t doing the exact thing that Jill is pointing out, are you?

  6. September 14, 2006 at 8:36 pm

    Four legs good! Two legs better!

  7. Sylvs
    September 14, 2006 at 8:57 pm

    Would it be considered too nitpicky if I noted that women all over the world (mostly “Developing Nations”) are treated like shit and its not just in Muslim lands?

    (SIDEBAR: Although everyone understands they don’t “just mean Muslims”, it seems to be that Muslim women have become the disproportionate “poster” group and due to this, I’m annoyed.) I get so touchy when it comes to this subject (maybe because I am Muslim woman? I don’t know).

    :: sigh ::

    Also, please do not take the above rant that I’m deflecting or that I don’t recognize the issue at hand. Like, I said, just annoyed….

  8. name
    September 14, 2006 at 11:17 pm

    you’re kidding right?

    “our discretion” means you censor posts that disagree with you?

  9. j swift
    September 15, 2006 at 12:12 am

    name, I seem to remember calling Michelle Malkin a “cunt” on this blog once and I did not get banned. That set your mind at ease?

    and this is an attempt to point out supposed liberal hypocrisy when in fact the argument is disingenuous, malkin does not give a shit about muslim women or gay muslims, thus being a hypocrite is not her only problem. .

    Oh yeah and she is a cunt. .

  10. name
    September 15, 2006 at 12:20 am

    sorry, i dont understand your point. why would that set my mind at ease? it seems to prove my point. your seem to show that the bloggers do not mind foul language but they do mind someone who, step by step, explains why they’re wrong and intellectually dishonest.

  11. September 15, 2006 at 12:22 am

    What on earth are you talking about, name?

  12. name
    September 15, 2006 at 12:30 am

    i posted a lengthy comment that essentially disputed both the blogger’s point in this particular posting and in general the approach taken in many of the blogger’s posts. within hours (minutes)? it was removed.

    like i said, clearly this isn’t a place one is permitted to disagree (at least not persuasively disagree)

  13. September 15, 2006 at 1:01 am

    clearly this isn’t a place one is permitted to disagree (at least not persuasively disagree)

    This from someone who makes arguments in which he refuses to cite statistics, specifics, or time periods. Honey, you’re many things. Persuasive sure as hell ain’t one of them.

  14. Esme
    September 15, 2006 at 1:47 am

    Ah yes name, tis all about YOU, you being oppressed by us evil feminists. Aren’t we such bitches. I guess you’ll just have to leave.

  15. September 15, 2006 at 7:52 am

    like i said, clearly this isn’t a place one is permitted to disagree (at least not persuasively disagree)

    I don’t know what happened to your post, name. I never saw it, and I certainly didn’t delete it.

  16. Mikey S
    September 15, 2006 at 9:27 am

    I think I can win every argument this way. Whenever something shows up I don’t like, I’ll wait fifteen minutes, then say I had a brilliant, reasoned rebuttal that would have shredded you like Arthur Andersen, but you deleted it. And I won’t post it again, because you don’t allow disagreement.

  17. j swift
    September 15, 2006 at 9:30 am

    Dearest Name,

    Since it appears that my use of foul language offends you, I will refrain from doing so when addressing you.

    I find profanity useful when dealing with the righteous and arrogant. They sometimes get overwrought and in their excited state they very often express more of their emotional and true nature. Sometimes I find it pleasant to embellish my language with choice four letter words. Sometimes, I must admit, I simply succumb to its use out of emotion myself.

    My pedestrian use of profanity aside for the moment, might I suggest that you check other blogs. Perhaps, in your fit of intellectual brilliance and zeal you posted it at Little Green Footballs by mistake? There’s a good chap.


    j swift

  18. Anne
    September 15, 2006 at 9:32 am

    Our conservatives are just jealous of their conservatives.

  19. zuzu
    September 15, 2006 at 9:33 am

    Name, quitcher whinin’ and stop derailing the post.

    Re-submit your brilliant argument if you want, just don’t whine endlessly about censorship.

    Because people who derail threads and whine endlessly about censorship are trolls, and we go for a higher-quality troll around these parts than you have proven to be. I seem to recall that you had a wee little problem with the concept of backing up your assertions with facts.

  20. September 15, 2006 at 11:02 am

    My head spins so much from listening to the conservative spin that I had to nail my head on because it kept spinning of.

  21. name
    September 15, 2006 at 2:47 pm

    I don’t know what happened to your post, name. I never saw it, and I certainly didn’t delete it

    all i know is that it was there for a at least 15-30 min., perhaps more, and then it was no longer there.

    Ah yes name, tis all about YOU, you being oppressed by us evil feminists. Aren’t we such bitches. I guess you’ll just have to leave.

    huh? i posted a lengthy comment which was there and then it was gone. the “evil feminists” and other words you use are your own, please dont attribute them to me.

    yes, i will just leave, again.

  22. September 15, 2006 at 3:11 pm

    Dude, why don’t you just make your damn argument?

  23. Sniper
    September 15, 2006 at 3:39 pm

    Jesus. He managed to hijack the thread on the basis of a post which may or may not have existed. Amazing!

  24. Rhiannon
    September 15, 2006 at 3:41 pm

    Name, do you think it’s possible that it simply did not make it through the moderation que? I know on a lot of sites that there are automated mods, that delete posts that seem like spam.

  25. Rhiannon
    September 15, 2006 at 3:45 pm

    On Topic: My head would be spinning from confusion regarding the Con-talking points, but I’ve learned not to pay much attention to Cons.

  26. name
    September 15, 2006 at 3:45 pm

    rhiannon: good point, but no, it made it through.

    sniper: chill. it was awfully long and i’m not typing it out again. anyway, they update this site constantly and at this point have essentially moved on.

  27. zuzu
    September 15, 2006 at 3:51 pm

    Name, just accept that this post is gone and move the fuck on if you’re not going to re-type it. If you whine anymore about it, you’re banned.

  28. name
    September 15, 2006 at 4:00 pm

    huh? what did i just write above? i responded to someone and said “and at this point have essentially moved on.” also, you really need to calm down.

  29. September 15, 2006 at 4:05 pm

    also, you really need to calm down.

    And now I’m having flashbacks to the post over at Amanda’s blog, wherein there was much discussion of “Jeez, don’t get angry about it” as a debate-ending tactic.

  30. zuzu
    September 15, 2006 at 4:08 pm

    Exactly, and it’s the exact tactic he pulled in the previous thread he derailed. He’s out.

  31. Clint
    September 16, 2006 at 12:06 pm

    Are you all kidding, here??

    I’m not a huge Malkin fan, but her point was that some progressives (and specifically comedian Rosie O’Donnell) don’t seem to recognize the difference between opposing the legal recognition of same-sex marriages or the service of openly gay soldiers (as many American religious conservatives wrongly do) and supporting the state-sponsored execution of anyone suspected of homosexual tendencies (as Saudi, Egyptian, Sudanese, Iranian, and Taliban “conservatives” wrongly do).

    This is not a subtle moral distinction.

    Do you really not see it?

    You’ve responded by making exactly the sweeping generalizations Malkin accuses Rosie O’Donnell of making. If it was done to be ironic: bravo! You took me in.

    The political differences between Barbara Boxer and Rick Santorum are trivial in comparison to the political differences between either one and Iran’s “moderate” former President Khatami.

    The former disagree about whether American women in the third trimester of pregnancy should be allowed to abort their fetuses. The later disagree about whether the state should jail rapists or execute rape victims.

  32. zuzu
    September 16, 2006 at 12:21 pm

    Clint, the distinction is one of degree, not kind. Both executing gays and keeping them from marrying stem from the same place — a belief that they’re not really human, not to mention hatred, fear and othering.

    The same thing with Santorum and Khatami — they both consider women not fully human, though they differ in the consequences of that belief that they will support. Santorum’s content to simply keep women down, shame them and make them less than free; Khatami’s all for killing them.

  33. Clint
    September 17, 2006 at 1:34 pm


    “the distinction is one of degree, not kind.”

    Looked at from an abstract enough level all differences are ones of degree, not kind. The difference between snubbing your Aunt Zelda by not inviting her to your son’s baptism and hiring a hit man to have her killed is also just a matter of degree. But it’s a very, very important degree, and doing the first doesn’t make you remotely like someone who would do the second.

    Take an example from the opposite side of the ideological spectrum — Bill O’Reilly’s rants about the War on Christmas. He makes exactly the same two mistakes that I see in your argument about Santorum and Khatami: (1) conflating radically different views because they both fall in the same direction from your own (e.g. ACLU lawyers stopping public funds from being used to display a nativity scene is just like that terrorist attack on the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem a few years ago — they both want to keep Christians down.) and (2) assigning hatred, rather than honest disagreements, as a motivation (e.g. The increasing use of “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas” is motivated by a pathological hatred of Christians and Christmas on the left.)

    Very, very few religious conservatives in *this* country think women or even gay men are less than human, as you suggest.

    The strongest indicator of whether someone is pro-life or pro-choice is whether they believe that the fetus in question is a human baby. The strongest indicator of whether someone is in favor of same-sex marriage is whether they see homosexuality as an orientation or a behavior.

    Yes, those who think an unimplanted embryo is a human baby are just plain wrong — but it’s not helpful to think that they believe that out of a pathological hatred of women.

    No doubt there are Americans who hate gay men with a fiery passion. No doubt they agree with religious conservatives on the issue of same-sex marriage. But they aren’t the ones passing state amendments against same-sex marriage. They are the ones being laughed down when they try to argue that we need to outlaw icky gay sex. And they don’t deserve the respect of suggesting that they have the support of strong majorities in most states, or of the 236 congressmen and 49 senators who voted for the MPA.

Comments are closed.