You can purchase an autographed copy of Anything But Straight by sending a $35 check or money order to:
-------------------------
Wayne Besen
PO Box 25491
Brooklyn, NY 11202
To make a tax-deductible contribution to Truth Wins Out CLICK HERE.
Or send a check to:
Truth Wins Out P.O. Box 25491 Brooklyn, NY 11202
48 Comments:
I thought you did remarkably well against Bill O'Reilly. It must have been a frustrating interview since he was not letting you make your point but you held your own.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/30/2008 10:34 AM
Besen your a pro and I would love to produce and direct a TV show that features you as the host. Call me! U know who! :)
posted by Anonymous, at
7/30/2008 11:44 AM
A bit rich coming from O'Reilly, he doesn't like bulllies. He's one himself! No matter what you say to him, he'll NEVER see our point of view. He's a straight man and things like that don't affect him and others like him directly. He's a bigot anyway what can you expect?
posted by Anonymous, at
7/30/2008 11:50 AM
I see both sides. Personally, I would not want anyone making reference to my (strange appearances or habits) by throwing tennis balls at me. Have you ever been hit by a tennis ball? It hurts!!
This is not just about gays but about the violence directed at anyone who is different. I did not see that guy as gay - just a speed walker. In any case, the ad should be pulled for the violence it perpetuates against those who are different than the norm.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/30/2008 12:47 PM
I think the ad gave license to people who want to mock any man who doesn't fit the culture's definition of how a "real man" acts... and that includes but isn't limited to gay people. I think O'Reilly is benign enough, but no, he has never had to go through these kinds of things so of course, he doesn't get it, and we probably wouldn't get it either except for the fact that we have had to deal with this stuff firsthand.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/30/2008 1:21 PM
I thought Wayne did well representing his point of view in a very articulate way (a view I obviously find ridiculous and mock at every opportunity). I also thought O’Reilly (a blowhard but not a bigot) was, well, fair and balanced.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/30/2008 1:47 PM
Wayne, our culture has well established traditions of comedy which are self deprecatory. Bob Hope always played the bumbling object of humor. Jack Benny's humor was always directed at himself. Jerry Lewis again created funny characters and didn't rely on targeting others for his humor. Steve Martin, etc. I could go on here. The ethnic, sexual, disability (whatever) joke is the crudest form of humor and doesn't need to be promoted. We could appeal to people's better side by pointing out that there are ways to have fun and be funny that doesn't require targeting some group. And, Wayne, you look so good on television, I wish I had had role models like you when I was growing up in the 60s. Thanks for this outstanding work.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/30/2008 3:13 PM
Quotable Quote:
"Gays should not expect any bipartisan attempt at progress for gay couples or people from the Human Rights Campaign...[A]nyone who has followed gay politics for a while knows it. HRC is a patronage wing of the Democratic Party, designed primarily to get its members jobs in future Democratic administrations or with Democrats on the Hill (even while Howard Dean treats them like the help)...
I've watched the military battle and the marriage battle for almost two decades now. HRC has been AWOL on both. For much of the 1990s, they were an active force OPPOSING the fight for marriage equality, because the Clintons gave them their marching orders...If you're for gay rights, do yourself a favor. Give your money to groups that actually care about gay rights. Off the top of my head: Freedom To Marry, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, Immigration Equality. If you want to give to HRC, just give it directly to Hillary [or Obama]. It's more efficient."
Andrew Sulivan is the gay Uncle Tom.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/30/2008 3:48 PM
Okay here is the thing about the snicker commercial that relates to gays--Mr. T. is saying the guy is not a "real man" which is exactly what people say about gay men and he is walking in a stereotypical way that gay men are often shown in to get a laugh. So it totally relates to homosexuality and putting gay men down for not being "real men".
As for Mr. T. being a cartoon character, so what? Showing bullying in any manner for a laugh is not funny.
Wayne: I think you did very well in your presentation. I think that presently this Oreilly character somewhat likes you even though he would never fully admit that to himself for a variety of reasons and for that specifically i say that you should be concerned because people like him will turn on you in a flash second. I admire that you do not get all your feathers riled up in his presence which he himself is so guilty of ad nauseum. Just be careful around him please. I am sure you know this already but i feel it is worth repeating that he is not trustworthy. He does not even get it. His own discription of effeminate straight men defines homosexuality is a blatent reminder of his stereotypical ignorance regarding this subject.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/30/2008 5:22 PM
I think the best thing you said was that advertising isn't selling a product, but an image. Clearly the man's swish was not a speedwalker. It was a veiled gay reference. Oreilly made a point or two, but given the nature of the gay battle, the ad should be pulled.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/30/2008 7:33 PM
Andrew Sullivan a "gay Uncle Tom"??? Talk about hate speech!!!
posted by Anonymous, at
7/30/2008 8:04 PM
Some people were surprised that O'Reilly was so "reasonable", but he's always more-or-less fair on gay issues. Most of the silly gays who hate him have never even watched him, they just read gay blogs that hate O'Reilly and never tell the whole story. The gay-positive statements he's made in the past are very helpful, too, as his massive audience knows he's not just being politically-correct. (Though part of the gay hatred for O'Reilly is not for his views, it's because he's Irish and a New Yorker, and not much he can do about that. And he's Catholic. Gays hate Catholics worse than....Southern Protestants do!)
posted by Joey, at
7/30/2008 8:49 PM
I don't like catholics 'cause i was raised anglican. we have history with the catholics, ever since you burnt our first archbishob, Cranmer at the stake. but make no mistake about it, southern baptists are hated far more. bill o did put stephen bennett in his place, calling him a fanatic
posted by Anonymous, at
7/30/2008 9:59 PM
Joey7777: Do you realize in one sentence you said "Gays hate catholics." Do you see what a rediculous blanket ignorant comment that was? That is like me saying "all blacks eat fried chicken" or "all chinese are bad drivers" or "all cops are murderers." Please tell me you can see my point.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/30/2008 11:09 PM
Ewe : Yes, I do see your point. I should have clarified that there are exceptions to every rule. I'm just talking about general tendencies, and specifically just another underlying reason why many gays hate O'Reilly. Of course that's not all gay guys, some of who are also practicing Catholics.////It's a complicated world, of course. There's still a lot of Protestant versus Catholic hositlity (not as much as years ago, but still..) and a lot of Northern versus Southern hositlity too. Everybody versus Jew hostility. Caucasian versus Black. Asian versus Black. Latino versus Black. Vegetarian versus meat-eater. lol. Etc. Gays are not beyond hating (or liking) others for reasons far beyond the homosexual issue.////Aside from all that, I do think Wayne Besen is a very good advocate for gay/lesbian equality (for a Protestant- agh! ) And I don't think he's needlessly overly-sensitive on these Snickers/Nike subjects.
posted by Joey, at
7/30/2008 11:30 PM
Joey7777: well i am glad you cleared that up but i myself have never liked watching Oreilly and i do not feel it is because i am being silly. He just reminds me of venom. His way or no way type of attitude is very insulting and abrasive. He really is not listening to his guests point of view. But as far as him sounding fair regarding gay issues... I have a theory that Bill Oreilly is fully aware that to attack gay or jewish people may risk the income he makes. And that says nothing about whether his character is one of a well adjusted person with an open mind.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/31/2008 1:01 AM
Oreilly is like a male judge judy except she is shredding the constitution right in front of the faces of millions. I find her to be dangerous more than i can calmly express. She should be stopped immediately. She should be disbarred. I have never viewed such a disgracful depiction of a judge in my life. It is so shocking to me that this woman be allowed to use the law to her profit as a judge by violating all courtroom decorum. Oh she is a disgrace.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/31/2008 1:05 AM
Okay, ewe, than we disagree on O'Reilly.////But Judge Judy?! I've always found her pretty accurately calling things. But, don't forget, guy, even if you despise her- it's only small-claims court we're talking about. Not like they're murder trials or nothing.
posted by Joey, at
7/31/2008 1:29 AM
Okay, ewe, than we disagree on O'Reilly.////But Judge Judy?! I've always found her pretty accurately calling things. But, don't forget, guy, even if you despise her- it's only small-claims court we're talking about. Not like they're murder trials or nothing.
posted by Joey, at
7/31/2008 1:30 AM
So, O'Reilly isn't a bigot, huh?
Aside from his anti marriage equality stand among others, I'll repeat what I'd posted previously. This is the same man who was accused of sexual harassment, settle out of court for a substantial sum of money to prevent further embarassment to himself. This is a "married" man. While he is against marriage equality, he himself was violating his marriage by chasing other women for sex and professing his belief in catholicism and defending religious bigots to denigrate us. This isn't a bigot?
posted by Anonymous, at
7/31/2008 8:35 AM
"But I've known heterosexual men who are... 'fopish'".
Exactly, Bill. That's why hate crime legislation usually mentions "perceived" sexual orientation - because most dumb Americans think being effeminate is the same thing as being gay, and anyone, even a straight guy, who acts like a "sissy" is considered a "faggot" and should get their ass kicked.
Aagh why did I watch that, I promised myself I would never watch O'Reilly again.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/31/2008 1:07 PM
That he said he knows straight men who act foppish....hmmmmmmmmmm. Seems to me O'Reilly has issues with sexual orientation, period. He believes that acting foppish is equated with gay? I would love to have asked him what he equates macho with, assuming HE is? That the young man in the ad walked in a manner that seemed overdone was intentional. It was nothing more than a cheap shot and veiled homophobia aimed at the "macho" audience. Why have the man walk in such a way if it wasn't to elicit homophobic comments? I can just imagine some of them..."he walks like a faggot, he's a sissy". So transparent what the intent was.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/31/2008 3:06 PM
yes joey7777: we definitely disagree about Judge disgraceful Judy. She should be disbarred for violtating court protocol. It is her job to conduct civility and instead she instigates controversy for ratings and starts the loud mouthed insults. People who use the small claims court for issues under 5000 or so deserve the same respect as anyone in any court in this country whether the show agrees to pay the plaintiff or defendants for their appearance.She is not defendable. Shame on her, shame on the producers of the show and shame on us for not objecting to her as some of the great legal minds such as Alan Dershowitz strongly has done so in the past for tearing down the fabric of our nation. I am not interested in her personal opinions of people. She is on the bench serving a position as judge to uphold the law. I do not expect corruption at the hands of those paid to administer justice. She is dangerous to everything i hold dear. She profits off the destruction of our laws. There just is no defense and no one is gonna convince me otherwise. It is unacceptable to behave like that when you are before a judge and definitely if you are the judge. I have screamed back at judges who try to intimidate me because they think they can act like that in courthouses across this country. It's disgraceful.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/31/2008 5:44 PM
Ewe : Well...if you've been yelled at yourself by judges I understand where you're coming from. And that's all cool.///The thing is, that might be rude or offensive or unwatchable to you, but I still don't see where she makes any decisions that contradict the law (the California law, or the law of the state the litigants are from, etc., however they're doing it now). She might be lowbrow and rude to some (especially those who hate the New York born, or those who hate Jews- no, not saying that's you) but I don't see what she does as dangerous.
posted by Joey, at
7/31/2008 6:17 PM
Ewe : You'e added to a point I was making before. There are many reasons to hate or love people aside from their position on gay issues. Judge Judy is as homo-friendly as they come, but you still don't like her for other reasons. Which I guess is as it should be.
posted by Joey, at
7/31/2008 6:25 PM
Joey7777: Judicial misconduct by way of bullying, threats and foul language is subject to remedy. Insults have no place coming from the bench and harassment is a criminal offence. Lawyers and judges often are reprimanded when the brave speak up and demand accoutability. She is inexcusable.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/31/2008 6:48 PM
Joey7777: you are right about me not liking judy or oreilly but oreilly we have no right to stop from expressing his opinion. We do have the right to demand judges display cordiatlity and even more importantly, impartiality. I do not like lots of judges but some i respect. She is inexcusable on legal aspects. He is inexcusable on moral ones. There is indeed a difference. I will not quietly tolerate judges making decision based on whether they personally like someone or if their behavior fits into a code of similar values. Even if one follows the law, it is structurally detrimental to berate people and abuse your position. The show is not JUDY. The show is JUDGE JUDY.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/31/2008 7:08 PM
ewe : Structurally detrimental? Well....maybe. I mean, I think I only partially agree with you in the long run on this, but I do think your point of view on how the law and courtrooms should be run is an important and legitimate one.
posted by Joey, at
8/01/2008 2:18 AM
I know Joey7777 and i understand people like you who say they find it funny and actually believe Judge Judy is right on a number of issues by calling these people on their stuff but "in the long run" you are wrong. She is dangerous and she gives the impression to those that never go to court that this is the way you are treated. We all should object. I also personally have a problem with small claims court becoming fodder for entertainment but that one is my own issue. It would be boring as hell to listen too if she acted appropriately.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/01/2008 1:30 PM
Actually, the court room belongs to the judge and it is to his or her own discretion as to what conduct will be permitted. They may yell, scream, hold people in contempt, tell others to be silent etc... so long as the rules of discovery etc... are followed. And get this - they may even say things off the record - including instructions to represenatatives for the plaintiff etc...
Also, a ruling can be appealled in another court after it has been through review.
So Ewe, do your homework when it comez to courtroom actions. You do not have the right to demand that a judge act a certain way - so long as they follow the law. If they are an elected judge - they can be voted out. If they are a appointed judge then the governor of that state can remove them.
Tsk tsk. You should know better.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/01/2008 5:22 PM
I do know better and no judge has the right to discredit a layman in a courtroom for not knowing the law. NO JUDGE is immune from prosecution if they kwowingly break that law and no courtroom solely belongs to that judge. They are merely keepers at the gate. That is my courtroom, your courtroom and all of our courtrooms with a judge employed and paid by the people to follow the law, not make it up as he/she goes along with decorum being of utmost importance. The problem with judges is that they do exactly what you allow them to which forces the need for appeals and everyone knows that those rarely are filed for those who are without money. Particulary civil cases in small claims court which get buried in some obscure file forever. Don't you spread that bullshit about conduct of judges being at their own discretion. You know as well as i do that an appeal can be won on that point alone if it can be proven or even alluded to that the judge was prejudicial. How dare you condone the behaviour of some lunatic judge screaming hateful rhetoric such as "you are dumb" or "you will never be as smart as me." These are the exact words out of that bitch we celebrate as Judge Judy. That is my opinion as a private citizen and i would be held in contempt if i said such things to a judge. It is a two way street and you are of no help by misleading people with intimidating remarks that are false. Judges that excercise discretion and intelligence when it comes to interpreting the law improves the further one pursues justice. Municipal judges are like 7-11 managers. It is not until you reach the appellate level that impartiality even shows its face.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/01/2008 8:31 PM
and if you think for one second that Judge Judy is a woman of professional character, ask another Judge. She is a reflection of pop culture not of due process.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/01/2008 8:45 PM
Your missing the point. It is her courtroom, she is following rules of court and if she were not doing so - then don't you think she would have been ousted by now???
You just don't like her. Okay. There are plenty of judges I don't like and they are not on TV and seem far worse to me.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/02/2008 12:11 AM
I don't think you are very familiar with what goes on in courtrooms everyday.
And somehow - you didn't respond to the facts just more of your opinions on what you THINK should happen in a courtroom.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/02/2008 12:14 AM
I know the crap that goes on in courtrooms and that judges are tending to assist in prosecution in municipalities because it is all about cash. I know they can be ruled improper very easily on appeal and i know Judge Judy and her ilk avoid all that by having the parties involved sign away all rights to appeal. Perhaps with your knowledge the way you are making it seem, you should fess up that corruption is rampant in the judicial system. I am not wasting my breath on this anymore. Read the papers. Check out the jails. You did not offer facts. Stop calling the kettle black.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/02/2008 3:40 AM
Wayne, the work you do is simply fantastic.
I'm glad the ad was pulled, but of course it should never have been made in the first place. The dialogue it provoked is the lemonade out of the lemon.
As someone with a behavioral health background, and familiar with some of Joe Kort's work, I'm delighted to see Mr. Kort's comment here.
PS: A wish: That there be less punditry in the world -- no Bill O'Reillys, or anyone with his style, regardless of a priori political persuasions. Instead: Dialogue, broad-based exploration of topics (see the work of Edward de Bono), and deep thinking.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/04/2008 12:12 AM
and do look up michael hewitt-gleeson too for thinking.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/04/2008 8:42 PM
Anon : If you don't want people like that, better ditch every gay activist in Manhattan, including Larry Kramer. THOSE people are 100 percent non-thinking reactionaries.
posted by Joey, at
8/04/2008 9:23 PM
Joey: I indeed don't care for "non-thinking reactionaries" of any stripe. And even while I regard Mr. Besen extremely highly, I don't always like certain phraseology he uses that sometimes that feels like political rhetoric, rather than simply honest, assertive expression. (Wayne, please consider that constructive feedback.)
The more "rhetoric"-y or propanganda-ish you are, as opposed to straightforward, the less people, in general, will trust you. If they don't trust you, they won't take what you have to say seriously.
But I must say that Wayne relatively speaking is very well behaved. He is also extremely articulate and does an absolutely fantastic job on TV. He's a gem for the community -- in great part because he's well behaved, while assertive -- and a hero to me personally.
I think people grossly underestimate the cred you build, and subsequent power you can have, by having scrupulously high character, being honest and straightforward, being assertive instead of nasty, and not descending into ridicule. So many pundit-types and blogger-pundits choose the thoughtless screaming route instead. It's disappointing and paradoxically far from the most effect approach to promoting a given cause. It's not emotionally or psychologically intelligent.
IMHO, our job in the LGBT community is ultimately simply education -- education about the truth of our lives and experiences. I think that's why the younger generation is so much less homophobic; many of them have gotten that education. Screaming at people and shaming people can actually be counterproductive. I think that applies even to people like Peter LaBarbera.
(You'll just have to trust that this "Anonymous" is the same "Anonymous." But you can call me "BCam.")
Anon: you may be right about education but we are not confronting the young so we have to be abrasive. They did not get the education.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/04/2008 10:59 PM
