Truly astounding.
I do want to ask him in which golden age there was never divorce. And since when “what nature wants” is the basis of good public policy.
Return to: Homepage | Blog Index
26 Responses
Comments are closed.
(or browse the Archives by date, category, tags etc)
get blog updates
Recent Comments
- Sam on Prudie on “real” rape
- EG on Pete Hoekstra is super racist, doesn’t understand the word “satire”
- EG on This Is What Happened to CeCe
- Kathy Ashley on Pete Hoekstra is super racist, doesn’t understand the word “satire”
- Anon21 on This Is What Happened to CeCe
- Tomek Kulesza on So should we just start calling high heels “body modification”?
- karak on This Is What Happened to CeCe
- Brian Schlosser on This Is What Happened to CeCe
- Anecdotal on This Is What Happened to CeCe
- Anecdotal on This Is What Happened to CeCe
Most Commented Recent Posts
- An Asexual Map for Sex-Positive Feminism (138)
- Women refuses to give raped daughter EC, brags about it on internet. (129)
- Some Transformative Justice Links (127)
- Prudie on "real" rape (119)
- FNTT Season 8, Round 1: the REAL FEMINISTS edition (77)
- "Kill the Gays" Bill is Back in Uganda (74)
- Facts, myths, and blankety-blank lies about Planned Parenthood and the Susan G. Komen Foundation (65)
- Shameless Self-Promotion Sunday (63)
- FNTT Season 8, Round 1: the Slutty Slut-Sluts edition (62)
- The Annual Post About Sexist Super Bowl Commercials 2012 (62)
Yes Means Yes!
Reproductive Health Matters
We’re in the Guardian
More of Feministe On
For wordpress.com support
just for you, a widget as requested
Sponsored By
Tried and Tested
The authors of this website have hand-selected these titles because we believe they may be of interest to a feminist audience.
Consider them for gifts to friends, family, or yourself! We do receive some income if you choose to order these titles based on our recommendations. All funds help support our costs to provide this space.
Consider them for gifts to friends, family, or yourself! We do receive some income if you choose to order these titles based on our recommendations. All funds help support our costs to provide this space.
What an asshole!
Past breedin’ age? DIE!
“Natural” does not equal “good.” Murderous rage is “natural.”
To me, that sounds like a recipe for spoiled rotton kids. I’m monogomous, but my husband and I hold center stage in our family. Priorities – 1.) the needs of everyone in the family (thankfully, we don’t have to choose priorities on this one) 2.) parent’s desires 3.) parent’s desires 4.) parent’s desires 5.) child’s desires.
I really wish more people would just come out and give some concrete examples of what they’re talking about instead of relying on metaphors, like, I’m sure he doesn’t actually mean that good parenting involves a lot of standing and smiling like helpless mannequins in the background, but I’m not quite following how them wearing polka-dot shirts will be bad for the kids. Maybe I just don’t get nuance.
Obviously nature does not care about the emotional well-being of older people, because the emotional well-being of parents has no effect on their ability to raise children or something?
Children taking centre stage is a 20th and 21st century phenomenon, and one which is even now confined to relatively affluent societies. For families who are living at the subsistence level (like, ya know, most families throughout history and pre-history), if you’re old enough to play, you’re old enough to work, too.
I’m not a big fan of Garrison Keillor but I’m pretty sure that piece is meant to be some sort of ironic meta-commentary about platitudes and nostalgia and government studies of bullshit. The whole thing is way too over-the-top, even for him, considering his own family looks more like the ones he’s decrying, and his description of “stereotypical gay men” is also very close to being a self-description. However, I think it’s a really flat, half-assed attempt at irony that doesn’t seem to have much of a point… but then, he never has had that much of a point.
As a lifelong Garrison Keillor fan, I am scratching my head over this one. It is often hard to tell how serious this guy is in anything he says, and whether he is actually expressing the view in question, making fun of it, or just trying to weird people out.
It should also be noted that he has been married multiple times and has a test-tube daughter (which he told us all about when I went to see him live.)
If he’s serious, he’s an idiot.
Parents who aren’t miserably unhappy make better parents.
As a lifelong Garrison Keillor fan, I am scratching my head over this one
Not only that, I’m more than a little pissed off at him. I never once suspected he was a bigoted jackass, though that isn’t saying much. I’m just kinda floored right now.
I don’t get what his paragraphs on meeting a bunch of children who didn’t look like him and telling them about being a cowboy had to do with the rest of the article.
My cats have hyphenated last names, and it doesn’t seem to have harmed them any.
Of course, they’re not very good spellers anyway.
And you think there’s a shortage of children in the world?
She doesn’t care about the emotional well-being of children either.
I don’t think it’s just because I ordinarily love Garrison Keillor, but I really, really think he’s kidding.
The whole thing struck me as gently sarcastic false nostalgia, and maybe a ribbing for the whole “we like our gays entertaining, not parenting” attitude on the part of others.
The end, to me, read as a “diversity is awesome, and all of these kids had the important things in common–like enjoying hearing silly stories about cowboys–I really think it’s gonna be okay, guys. What are you scared of, fancy pants on parents? I thought it was all about the children, huh? So the parents don’t matter, they’re window dressing. May as well start trying to figure out all this nonsense with hyphens. Oy.”
Maybe I’m too charitable, I don’t know. I just have a hard time believing he’d say this stuff seriously, even if he managed a straight face.
I guess I should clarify: I read the bit with the children at the end as the point: “Things are really different than they were when I was a kid. Right here. There’s lots of new things. And it’s okay; we’re all people, and what matters holds firm, so take a deep breath, okay?”
Little light and others who think that Keillor should be given the benefit of the doubt:
My problem with this holds even if he IS joking. I think he’s coming up with this “satire” (or hateful bigoted nastiness, your choice) from somewhere — those gay stereotypes came from somewhere when he was writing this. Does that make sense? I guess what I’m saying is that I think on some level he believes some of this nonsense, whether he’s kidding in this particular article or not.
Didn’t I hear something about suicide rates for married women plummeting after the advent of no-fault divorce? Could be a myth (I can’t find data on the subject), but I thought it an interesting theory.
As several people have noted, that is the whole point of the article. If you didn’t get that paragraph, you missed what he was trying to say, which is why you are pissed off. He never was actually a cowboy and, in exactly the same way, the lifestyle he described in the first paragraph never existed. And he knows that. They are fairytales, and people like to hear them, just like little kids like to hear about cowboys. But they have nothing to do with the real world, just like stories about cowboys have nothing to do with the real world. That classroom, full of kids from diverse backgrounds and complicated families, that is the real world.
I agree that the satire was obviously way too subtle considering the uproar, but I find it impossible to read literally in light of the last paragraph.
I feel compelled to mention this – the incomplete advent of no-fault divorce. New York still lags behind the nation on this one.
Check out Dan Savage’s reply to this piece:
http://www.thestranger.com/blog/2007/03/fuck_garrison_keillor
Not only has Keillor been married multiple times and had children by different women, at least one of his marriages ended when he had an affair. He’s a classic example of why straights shouldn’t marry. At least not once they’ve demonstrated that they are incapable of taking marriage seriously.
Garrison Keillor is a slippery, tricky guy. I thought he was a conservative folksy idiot until I moved to Northern Minnesota (from a long way away). It wasn’t very long until I came to learn that he is nothing of the sort. He’s a smart contrarian with populist leanings and a mean streak a mile wide who has turned ‘Minnesota Nice’ into a vehicle for calling most people assholes most of the time without them realizing it – while he giggles all the way to the bank.
His signature move is to damn with faint praise — and this is a classic example – if, as with much of his stuff, too obscure (and I think intentionally so – see: bank) for most casual readers to pick up on.
Read in the context of his work – I saw the subtext of this piece as essentially, “conservatives who cut arts funding for schools while mourning an imaginary past where they were the center of their parent’s universes and who fear gay marriage and immigrants are stupid dolts. Pay me a lot of money and I’ll tell you so again.”
[...] ing to kid’s self esteem and hyphenated names are just too fancy and self-righteous. Jill hit this one, too. *Embarrassingly, [...]
I think this is supposed to be satire, but whatever it is it’s not done well. I’m afraid there will be more anti-ssm people out there who think that Garrison Keillor agrees with them than feel chastened by his “mockery” of their attitudes.
Also:
There is real research which shows this. Two economists found large decreases in female suicide and incidence of domestic violence in states which instituted no-fault divorce. There’s a story about their research here with a link to early version of the papers at the bottom.
(I think this link is publicly accessible – if not, the researchers are Wolfers and Stevenson.)
If anyone wants to read my defense of this column as gay-friendly, hop on over to Bilerico. I think his column is a little more complicated than plain homophobic, and another side of the argument should be heard before jumping to conclusions.
This is one reason I don’t like reading his stuff as much as I like hearing him read it. His sense of humor comes across much clearer when you can hear his voice and the reactions of the audience.
I do think this was meant as satire, but it just isn’t very clear when you read it out of the context of his other work.
That said, I don’t know what he actually thinks of this issue. I kind of get the impression he doesn’t really take it seriously one way or the other. The only thing he’s said about “same sex” issues on his radio show is “I’ve been the ‘same sex’ since I was born and I intend to stay that way.” (Which gets into transexuality, and I don’t know if he meant it that way or not.)
Keillor has stated elsewhere that he supports marriage equality, although he has taken flack for saying that he thinks Dems should put it on the back burner. He’s one of those people, myself included, who thinks that other issues, the war for me, the war and economic justice for him, are more important.
The article was a satire. End of discussion.
Wow pat f., that’s a compelling argument.
Well, I’ve never found Garrison Keillor funny and he has always irritated me, but I also think this is satire. I think hydropsyche (at #15) is correct about what GK meant, and also correct that the satire is too subtle. Certainly if someone is completely unfamiliar with GK, there’s really no indication that he’s not being serious, since sadly, there are people who actually say those kinds of things and mean it. Satire’s a tough racket these days. The only hint might be that it’s in Salon, but that’s definitely not a guarantee either (see Paglia, Camille).
But I also agree that there is some underlying anti-gay sentiment in his piece. He does think that gay marriage should be put on the back burner as an issue for Democrats. That’s a terrible position to take, not only because it demonstrates that apparently equality isn’t all that important, but also because when Republicans all over the country are passing/trying to pass Constitutional amendments prohibiting gay marriage, are Democrats really just supposed to sit back and let it happen? If the issue isn’t important enough right now, when will it ever be?