Thursday, February 22, 2007

From the "homophobes with issues" department...

...comes a column that makes no sense. The columnist in question is Michael Medved, who used to write funny books about bad movies but is now just a garden-variety right-wing fruitcake. Back when the wingnuts were getting huffy about "Happy Feet," Medved suggested that the film had a "gay subtext." So if you notice your little boy acting kinda swishy after buying the "Happy Feet" DVD, you'll know why.

Well, now Medved has topped himself. Not only has he come to the defense of a dumbass homophobic athlete, but he has managed to do so while making absolutely no sense in the process. I'm linking to Jill at Brilliant at Breakfast, where I first read this thing. I'm afraid of losing too many brain cells if I spend too much time at

Here goes:

There is no rational basis for discomfort at playing with athletes of another race since science and experience show that human racial differences remain insignificant. The much better analogy for discomfort at gay teammates involves the widespread (and generally accepted) idea that women and men shouldn’t share locker rooms. Making gay males unwelcome in the intimate circumstances of an NBA team makes just as much sense as making straight males unwelcome in the showers for a women’s team at the WNBA. Most female athletes would prefer not to shower together with men not because they hate males (though some of them no doubt do), but because they hope to avoid the tension, distraction and complication that prove inevitable when issues of sexual attraction (and even arousal) intrude into the arena of competitive sports.

And the point is what? Gay men are women and shouldn't shower with straight men because it creates tension when women are in the men's locker? Could someone make sense of this?

Wait. There's more:

Tim Hardaway (and most of his former NBA teammates) wouldn’t welcome openly gay players into the locker room any more than they’d welcome profoundly unattractive, morbidly obese women. I specify unattractive females because if a young lady is attractive (or, even better, downright “hot”) most guys, very much including the notorious love machines of the National Basketball Association, would probably welcome her joining their showers. The ill-favored, grossly overweight female is the right counterpart to a gay male because, like the homosexual, she causes discomfort due to the fact that attraction can only operate in one direction. She might well feel drawn to the straight guys with whom she’s grouped, while they feel downright repulsed at the very idea of sex with her.

So...not only are gay men women, but gay men are unattractive, fat women. As someone who's wandered into the gay sections of public beaches, I have to say that this is an incorrect assumption. Mr. Medved might be interested to know that homosexual men are often quite--for lack of a better word--buff.

But maybe Medved could explain something else. He says women wouldn't feel comfortable showering men in their locker rooms but then goes on to add that NBA players would welcome a hot chick in their showers. This has what to do with gays in the NBA?

This is getting confusing. Does anyone have a wingnut-to-English dictionary so I could interpret what Mr. Medved is saying?