Alex Blaze

The good ol' boys at the Concerned Women for America are too stupid to be described in one post

Filed By Alex Blaze | January 23, 2008 7:08 AM | comments

Filed in: Fundie Watch, Living, The Movement
Tags: Concerned Women for America, MSRA, sex education, STD prevention

So I won't even try.

They've put out a press release calling on HRC, the Task Force, GLAAD, and Lambda Legal to condemn (several types of) gay male sex.

Seriously.

I was thinking about writing a 70-some-odd-point ordered list of every inconsistency, inaccuracy, lie, and stupid statement in that nine paragraph press release, but there's really no point in doing that. You all wouldn't be entertained, I'd be bitter, no one would be educated, and the CWA wouldn't stop hating. (That can be a Hump Day activity for the comments.)

But I did want to focus on the idea of "condemn"ing a sex act as a solution to it.

Matt Barber says (ostensibly about MSRA):

Therefore, these groups should publicly condemn those specific 'high-risk behaviors' which this study has concluded are responsible for spreading MRSA among homosexuals.

Those high-risk activities, listed three paragraphs above, include all gay sex. Not surprising, I suppose, that the CWA is just fine with condemning it, but do they really expect anyone else to follow suit?

Just condemning a sex act has never stopped it from happening. Consider:

  1. There's no shortage of people willing to condemn premarital sex, but a Guttmacher Institute study from 2006 found that 95% of Americans had had premarital sex.
  2. Abstinence-only sex education is basically a fundie standing in front of a classroom, wagging their finger, saying "No, no, no" to non-marital sex. It's about as close to a condemnation of non-marital sex as one can find, and yet it's absolutely ineffective at even getting kids to wait to have sex.
  3. Gay sex has been vilified, demonized, stigmatized, and, until recently, illegal, and yet it still goes on. And on and on and on.
It's so ineffective to simply condemn sex and there's so much data to back up that claim that... it almost seems like there's another motivation at play here. (I'm shocked as well.)

I think that it'd be great if those gay orgs (which deal with STD prevention?) would just send back a letter saying that they'll consider it if CWA will back state and federal funding for comprehensive sex education.

I'm not going to be all that surprised, though, if there are queer people who start condemning gay sex (or at least the kinds that they don't like) over MSRA. It's that kind of bury-your-head-in-the-sand knee-jerk reaction that makes this country great.

And one word more thing - the only Concerned Woman quoted in their own press release is Matt Barber. Are there any women who work at that outfit?


Recent Entries Filed under Fundie Watch:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


I'm not going to be all that surprised, though, if there are queer people who start condemning gay sex (or at least the kinds that they don't like) over MSRA. It's that kind of bury-your-head-in-the-sand knee-jerk reaction that makes this country great.

I'd like to step forward to condemn fundie sex over MSRA. There's no clear connection here either, it just seems like fun. Maybe CWA will join me in asking all fundies not to have sex anymore since they could spread a disease - bigotry.

So wait, you never answered the question... is HRC going to take them up on it?

Zing!

The worst lies are those with just enough truth in them.

There are risky behaviours. They should be avoided, even if it's not PC to say so. Most are not just practiced by Gay Men. And to say that homosexuality itself is a risk factor is not just BS, it's malicious BS.

I suggest that the HRC agrees to most of what the CWA are saying, but suggest that such hotbeds of depravity as Catholic churches (which facilitate Paedophilia) and Baptist ones too (associated with Autoerotic asphyxiation) be closed for a while as well, on safety grounds. The same logic applies in both cases.

Look, if they really wanted to help, they'd make condoms available free in all high schools. Subsidise the provision of them in bars (not just gay ones) and bath-houses from the funds that flow into their coffers.

On the other hand, segments of the GLBT community are being less than responsible too, though whether less so than equivalents in the straight community is debateable. There is a kernel of truth in the midden-heap of bigotry, and we should proceed on what the best public health advice is, facts, not political agendas - not even our own.

Just for a point of clarification, the acronym "CWA" actually stands for a very supportive union, the Communications Workers of America. They have been very supportive of LBGT for decades, long before th Concern Women come into existance. The true CWA has been very angry with the Concern Women for using the acronym because of all the hate that comes from the Concern Women, but the courts cannot make the Concern Women stop using "CWA." I'm in the telecommunications industry and have worked with the true CWA before. I would never soil their good name by using CWA for those creeps. For them, I use CWofA. I hope you can understand. Thanks.

Monica~ I do know that a lot of people say CWfA, since they are the Concerned Women for America.

Nick~ HA HA!

I actually have coined another name for them, the "Concerned June Cleavers for America." This is not to put down the beloved character, but to emphasize the the time period their mindsets are stuck in.

Being in the South, I had to laugh at your "Good Ol' Boys" reference. Like you and many others, I always wonder why so many men are in leadership roles in that organization. Maybe the women are nothing more thn subservant window dressing for their men. I get a rather retro view of how their office looks. The women all in dresses, fetching the men's coffee, their pipes and making sure they have fresh baked goods on hand for snacks. I shiver at the image.

It's no wonder Concerned Windbags for America have used the MSRA event to trounce yet again on the gay community. They'll use every excuse they can find to vilify us.

And you're not the only one who has noticed the dearth of actual women in the organization. My theory is that because they're so RRRW that they need to have men speak for them and/or give them permission to speak. It's pretty backwards, IMO. But then I'm one of those uppity atheist lesbians.