crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters
Don't be fooled by the fact that we haven't heard anything new regarding the right's war on Obama appointee Kevin Jennings.
We probably haven't heard anything because those who oppose him are digging through the manure trying to find something that will stick when they throw it at him..
Such as this bit via the rightwing site Gateway Pundit:
Obama's Safe Schools Czar Wrote That Killing Someone Who Called You Names Was “Not Aberrant Behavior”
Verum Serum discovered this article by Obama's Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings in 1998:
We need to own up to the fact that our culture teaches boys that being “a man” is the most important thing in life, even if you have to kill someone to prove it. Killing someone who calls you a faggot is not aberrant behavior but merely the most extreme expression of a belief that is beaten (sometimes literally) into boys at an early age in this country: Be a man – don’t be a faggot.
As Suzanne Pharr so eloquently explained in her landmark work Homophobia: A Weapon of Sexism, antigay bigotry is inextricably intertwined with the maintenance of “proper” gender roles by which little girls are supposed to be “sugar and spice and everything nice” and boys are supposed to be, well, quite the opposite. When boys take up guns to kill those who torment them with words like “faggot,” we shouldn’t be surprised. They’re just doing what we have taught them to do.
And on Free Republic is this piece:
Safe Schools Czar Absolves Murder for Anti-gay Slurs
Here we go again. Expect Hannity and company to jump on this.
Of course the claim that Jennings advocates murder is a distortion of what he actually said – and a rather bad one.
The piece in question, Be A Man, was originally published in September 29, 1998 in The Advocate magazine.
Jennings never advocated anything even resembling murder. He was actually saying in his piece that society contributes to violence in schools by pushing gender stereotypes.
At the beginning of the piece, he says the following:
When I was 8, my dad died unexpectedly of a heart attack. As the youngest of five siblings (four of us, boys), I looked to my brothers for guidance on how to act in this unsettling and unfamiliar territory. At dad's funeral I got the message. When I started crying, my brother Mike looked down and barked, “Stop crying. Be a man.
Don't be a faggot.”
While astoundingly insensitive in his timing, my brother was simply passing down the code of masculinity he'd been taught. “Real men” don't show their feelings, and those men who do are faggots—which is the last thing any real man would want to be. It's a lesson I have spent nearly three decades trying to unlearn. Many important lessons—the kind that shape our lives—are learned long before college or grad school. Sadly, today's boys seem to be learning the same lesson—with far deadlier results. Consider these examples:
Then he proceeds to list examples of violent incidents that took place in America's high schools; incidents precipitated by someone being called a “faggot.
Then he says the following:
Why haven't you heard more about these incidents? Well, sadly, homophobic harassment in our schools is so commonplace that it is no longer news. But surely this seemingly novel phenomenon of youth taking up firearms in response should have made headlines. And here's the real kicker: None of the boys who perpetrated these attacks identifies as gay.
What's going on here? As we begin another school year close on the heels of one in which schoolyard shootings became a dreary staple of the nightly news, it's time to analyze why some young people are driven to kill. Obviously, we could prevent some killings if we restricted the ease with which anyone can get a firearm, but that would not get at the root cause of the problem. We need to own up to the fact that our culture teaches boys that being “a man” is the most important thing in life, even if you have to kill someone to prove it. Killing someone who calls you a faggot is not aberrant behavior but merely the most extreme expression of a belief that is beaten (sometimes literally) into boys at an early age in this country: Be a man—don't be a faggot.
From that perspective, it doesn't sound like Jennings is advocating violence, does it?
It's sad to watch how desperate people get when trying to destroy someone's reputation.



22 Comments





Be prepared for the Administration’s next sacrificeJennings is now toast.
Would any reasonable human being interpret that statement in context as being advocacy of murder?
No.
But, as too many of us are as yet unwilling to acknowledge, we’re not dealing with reasonable – or even sane – people. They are as impervious to facts as Superman is to bullets. The word “context” is not in their vocabulary – and they don’t want it to be.
Glenn Beck is sitting at home right now masturbating to a printout of that text – because he knows he’s going to win this one.
I disagreeI don’t think that Jennings is going to go just yet. Those who oppose him are entering into the desperation phase. They are counting on the news media to push it up but after the Brewster debacle, people are slowly pushing away from this story. Fox doesn’t count simply because they have no credibility.
Jennings is a target of opportunityJennings is perfect because dishonestly attacking him furthers the theme that gays are out to recruit and abuse school children. It’s the old (albeit thoroughly discredited) gay-pedophilia link.
Robby George is at it: http://www.tips-q.com/1456902-… (along with his Opus Dei friends).
Some idiot in the Naples Daily News today made the explicit connection: http://www.tips-q.com/1467025-…
Wayne Besen made a good point the other day after Obama’s speech. Wayne contends – correctly I think – that Obama has now distanced himself so far from the Christian right that he might as well just get his agenda done. He’s not going to piss off the fundamentalists any more than they are already pissed off no matter what he does.
For that reason, alone, Jennings isn’t going anywhere. At least I hope not.
I hate themI am so tired of them. I detest them. I would like for them to all go back to their rocks and crawl under them. Shame these people don’t know the first thing about values.
they’re very good at scissors-and-paste editing, no?Take this innocuous quote:
Scissor it up, and you get
Fox-y, yes?
BTW, I went to the trouble of reading his book and I find a rather profound story of growing up in very difficult circumstances. How someone can read through this book looking for stuff to misquote, and not have some of it rub off, is beyond me.
CzarsThey have a name for people in government who have won elections and who head different departments: Members of Parliament. Are these ass clowns now telling us that we should rewrite the Constitution to make our system a parliamentary one? The stupid, it does indeed burn. Why do they hate America?
see the humor in itThey talk about “communist czars,” which would be a revelation to the surviving members of the Romanov family.
They’re also talking about re-writing the Bible because it’s too liberal. So much for biblical inerrancy. See
http://www.conservapedia.com/C…
I’m not sure they’d last ten minutes in a real Parliament, not against the likes of George Galloway.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
“I’m not sure they’d last ten minutes in a real Parliament”In Parliament (well, the British one anyway), the Prime Minister has to open himself up to questions from other MPs.
Obama could probably handle it.
Dubya would have crawled away whimpering the second that the MPs began to laugh at him – which likely would come after the first syllable of his first non-answer ‘answer’.
yes, indeedyAnd I shiver to think what he would have faced in his weekly interview with Her Majesty. Especially in the runup to Operation Iraqi Fiasco.
“God’s Death! I’ll have thy head!”
PayPerView!We could have solved the budget crisis had they put such a thing on payperview. I’d have paid $50/wk to watch Dubya cry.
Stupid headlineThe headline on this diary looks like it came from Fox News. Posing slander in the form of a question is the way they skirt libel laws. By using it here, it appears to give credibility to the accusation by suggesting it is a serious question.
Now the wingnuts can point to Pams House Blend and say, “see, even other gay people are questioning his ethics”. Please stop and give some thought before you write inflammatory headlines that echo the false accusations of our enemies.
Give the content of this diary, a better headline might have been “Homophobic Wingnuts Falsely Accuse Jennings of Advocating Murder”.
In defense of the headlineI see your point. However on the other side of the fence, I’m not sure that I like the phrase “homophobic wingnuts.”
I don’t think anyone would accuse the headline of being anti-Jennings. If they tried to use the headline to bash him without paying attention to what the post actually says, they would be walking into another embarrassment.
Well,you don’t actually have to use that particular description of his accusers, but still, the thrust of the headline should be that he is being falsely accused, not asking if the accusation might possibly be true.
The headline you used for this post on your own blog is much better. Why didn’t you use it here as well?
AlsoPeople who search on “Kevin Jennings” in Google News or a blog search engine will only get a list of headlines and may not actually click through to the article. In that case, seeing only your headline would lead people to think that you are making the allegation instead of refuting it.
For myself, when I first read the headline before reading the story, I was shocked and thought it was a serious question, particularly since it was being posed on a gay blog, not WorldNetDaily.
No way!I was advocating that when discussing politics with my English friends. Little Georgie (aka Shrub, aka Texas’ state village idiot) wouldn’t have lasted two minutes in front of Congress (heaven forbid the British and Canadian Parliments!) if they instituted “President’s Time”.
Mainly because Dickie-poo wouldn’t be there holding his leash, nor would there be enough time to feed answers in his earpiece which had been exposed a number of times.
Boy, the RW is not going to let this goare they? They are so convinced gay=pedophile they are going to scream and scream until Obama takes his head.
I am honestly surprised Obama hasn’t cut him loose. Jennings must have some strong allies inside.
Alas Demcrats, which the sudden exceptionof Alan Grayson, seemed incapable of posing uncomfortable questions to the Bush Admin, in his presence or not.
It’s unfortunateJennings will have to lie in a bed that has been short-sheeted and soiled by cowards.
We’re going to have to agree to disagree on this oneHence the question mark after the headline. I’m trying to not to put the same headlines on both posts. It’s an experiment.
Sorry for the mulitpostingOn second thought, Stephanie, I changed the headline as a clarification. Thank you for your concern and your very good points ;p
He’s still there because…The RW has largely jumped the shark on this one. There is nothing there, and even members of the media have pointed that out.
The more Fox pushes this stuff the further they legitimize the attitued that the President has put out there than Fox is many things, but a news channel is not one of them. Thus the critics have been cut off at the knees as far as the WH is concerned.
TrueBut it would be really fun to watch!