I am writing to thank you. I remember reading your definition of “santorum”—”the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex”—when it first appeared. I remember thinking it was a cute way to make fun of a dickhead politician. I never thought it would go this far. But after Iowa, Rick Santorum is in the spotlight again. And so is that frothy mixture. And that’s fucking awesome.
Jeff In Wisconsin
Don’t thank me, JIW. Thank Rick Santorum for making his bigotry crystal clear in a 2003 interview with the Associated Press. Santorum equated consensual gay sex with child rape and dog fucking, he stated that birth control should be illegal, he argued that states should be able to arrest, prosecute, and imprison people—gay and straight—for private, consensual sex acts.
Thank the Savage Love reader who, after reading that interview, urged me to invite my readers to submit new definitions for Santorum’s last name. And thank the Savage Love readers who—in their wisdom—selected “the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex” from a crowded field of equally repulsive candidates.
I did my part: I counted the ballots, I created a website (www.spreadingsantorum.com) that eight years later remains the number one return when you google “Santorum.” But, again, if it weren’t for my creative, kinky, and hilarious readers, JIW, an otherwise distressing news cycle—a ranting, raving, washed-up religious bigot tied for first place in the Iowa caucuses?!?—would not have been leavened by such unintentionally hilarious headlines as “Santorum Surges from Behind,” “Santorum Runs Hard,” and “Romney Squeezes Out Santorum.”
Dan Savage is one sick, pathetic excuse for a human being. Truly a sad piece of sh*t. Especially trying to “insert himself”—pun intended—into the GOP presidential race.
Savage Isn’t Completely Kind
We redefined “santorum” back in 2003, SICK, long before Santorum was running for president. So it would be more accurate to say that the GOP presidential race has inserted itself into me, not the other way around. And, gosh, I hope there isn’t any santorum on the GOP presidential race when it pulls out of me—that would be so embarrassing!
Also embarrassing: Elise Foley’s gushing profile of Elizabeth Santorum, Rick’s adult daughter, that appeared on the Huffington Post before the Iowa caucuses.
“It is tough [being] a young surrogate for a candidate/father clinging to an older worldview,” Foley writes. “Her father’s stance on same-sex marriage and gay rights, in particular, has caused some friction from non-supporters. ‘It’s a policy thing,’ [Elizabeth Santorum] said of gay marriage… Opposed to same-sex marriage herself, Elizabeth said she has gay friends who support her father’s candidacy based on his economic and family platforms.”
Yeah, it’s tough out there for a ‘phobe—and it’s getting tougher all the time. Rick Santorum was nearly booed off a stage in New Hampshire last week after he insisted that legalizing gay marriage would lead to the legalization of polygamous marriage. (The same argument was made against legalizing interracial marriage—and here we are, 44 years after the Supreme Court declared laws against interracial marriage to be unconstitutional, and Tiger Woods can marry only one busted Olive Garden hostess at a time.)
You know what else is tough? Gay widowers losing their homes after the deaths of their spouses because they don’t qualify for the same Social Security benefits as all other married couples. Also tough: seeing your wife deported because the federal government doesn’t recognize your marriage.
But, hey, Elizabeth Santorum isn’t a bigot—she can’t be! She has gay friends! And her gay friends support her dad!
Who are these gay people who support Rick Santorum despite his having equated consensual gay sex to child rape and dog fucking? Who are these gay people who support Rick Santorum despite his opposition to gay marriage and any other legal framework—civil unions, domestic partnerships—that might provide legal protections for same-sex couples? Who are these gay people who support Rick Santorum despite his promises to write anti-gay bigotry into the US Constitution, forcibly divorce all legally married same-sex couples in the United States, reinstate DADT, and ban adoptions by same-sex couples?
Who are these faggots?
To Ms. Foley and all the other political reporters out there: When someone like Elizabeth Santorum tells you that she has gay friends and her gay friends support her dad based on his “family platforms”—gay people shouldn’t be allowed to have families—your subject is making an astonishing claim. Your immediate response should be a demand for the names and phone numbers of these gay friends. Offer to quote these gay friends anonymously, to protect their privacy/stupidity, but tell the homophobe that you will need to verify the existence of her gay friends because you’re a journalist, not a stenographer. You’ll either catch the homophobe in a very revealing lie—what does it tell us about this moment in the struggle for LBGT equality that even bigots like Rick and Elizabeth Santorum perceive a political risk in being perceived as homophobic?—or land a fascinating interview with a crazy-ass faggot.
I’ve been a loyal reader for half my life. Today, a friend and I got into a debate about you. My friend says your campaign to redefine “santorum” flies in the face of your anti-bullying “It Gets Better” campaign. Would you please address this issue?
Google Problems
First, GP, the campaign is over: Santorum has been redefined.
Second, taking the piss out of a middle-aged bigot who has repeatedly and viciously attacked a tiny minority for personal and political gain—a man surrounded by people who support him personally, politically, and financially—is not the moral equivalent of beating the shit out of a vulnerable and isolated 13-year-old queer kid in rural Texas who is a member of the tiny minority that this powerful bigot has repeatedly and viciously attacked.
Third, circling back to Elizabeth Santorum’s blowjob on HuffPo: “[Elizabeth] is aware of her father’s so-called ‘Google problem,’ part of a campaign by columnist Dan Savage… ‘That just makes me sad. It’s disappointing that people can be that mean,’ she said.”
I’m sorry for giving you a sad, Elizabeth. You know what gave me a sad? Reading about Janice Langbehn and Lisa Pond. The women, together 18 years, were vacationing in Florida in 2007 with three of their four children when Pond suffered an aneurysm. Langbehn and the children were barred from Pond’s room when they arrived at the hospital. A social worker informed Langbehn—who was distraught—that she wouldn’t be able to see her wife because they were in an “anti-gay city and state.”
Lisa Pond was not a “policy thing,” Elizabeth. She was a human being. And her wife and children were prevented from saying good-bye to her because people who agree with you and your father—people who doubtless felt empowered to act on their bigotry thanks to high-profile bigots like you and your father—persecuted them as Pond lay dying.
By being so mean as to oppose legal protections for gay and lesbian families, Elizabeth, you and your father are trying to make sure that other families headed by same-sex couples will suffer as Langbehn, Pond, and their children were made to suffer.
It is disappointing how mean some people can be, Elizabeth, it really is.
Time to follow through on your threat to redefine “rick,” Dan.
Matt Via Twitter
Already done: To “rick” is to remove something with your tongue—the “r” from “remove,” the “ick” from “lick”—which makes “rick santorum” the most disgusting two-word sentence in the English language after “vote Republican.”
Find the Savage Lovecast (my weekly podcast) every Tuesday at thestranger.com/savage.
@fakedansavage on Twitter
@203 Don’t thank me. Thank comedian Frank Conniff, formerly of “Mystery Science Theater 3000” and currently of “Cinematic Titanic.” You remember the character of “TV’s Frank”? That was him. He came up with the bon mot, and I’m just passing it along.
This “santorum” thing is a real shame. It’s an ad-hominem attack, illogical, ignorant and tragic. It is bullying to all those other people named “Santorum”. It’s not debate, it’s not rhetoric, it’s not a coherent criticism of ideas, it’s crude, and it’s sad.
Saying Rick Santorum is an asshole isn’t ad hominem, dumbass. Ad hominem is saying Rick Santorum is an asshole, that’s why he’s wrong about gay marriage.
When you don’t know what you’re talking about, sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up.
This “santorum” thing is a real shame. It’s an ad-hominem attack, illogical, ignorant and tragic. It is bullying to all those other people named “Santorum”. It’s not debate, it’s not rhetoric, it’s not a coherent criticism of ideas, it’s crude, and it’s sad.
You clearly don’t know what an ad hominem is, moron.
Ad hominem is saying Rick Santorum is a frothy mix of lube and fecal matter THUS that’s why he’s wrong about gay marriage. Calling him the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter alone is NOT ad hominem.
When you don’t know what you’re talking about, sit down and shut up.
202- Auntie G– What does everyone think? I think you’re spending too much time on your sister’s irrationalities and complaints when we all have plenty of our own. Her financial woes are a learning and growing experience for her, not final proof that you were right all along that she never deserved her favorable treatment.
Hey Dan, just wanted to share.
This week in Chile, Ñuñoa’s mayor Pedro Sabat accused the girls of and internship school of making the building a whorehouse during it’s occupation this year (in the context of the educational conflict here).
They organized a “slut parade” to protest against his bigotry because, you know, he didn’t have any proof of what he was talking about.
Wanna see some sexual disidence and pride for one’s own sexuality? This is the news report by El Mostrador in spanish. See the pictures. Some of these signs say:
“Nor silence, nor demureness, i’m a whore, so what?”
“Sluts, maybe. Dumbs, never!”
“I’d rather like a whorehouse than an intelectual jail”
Just sharing, hope you like it.
http://www.elmostrador.cl/noticias/pais/…
@209
Pot, meet kettle.
Auntie G-You just need some TLC and a big ol’ hug, followed by a mind blowing orgasm. Hope you keep open to the possibilities and let go when the time is right for you. Here on this forum sex and politics are so damned mixed up-the left hates the right and the right hates the left, but in bed, when you’re just feeling naked with another, none of that crap matters. Just two people gettin’ it on and enjoying each other.
May you find what you seek and if not, may it find you.
@202 Grizelda,
Perhaps the (anti-)heroine, reduced to cleaning santorum from toilets due to her finances being destroyed by the evil machinations of a robosigning Big Bank…
Peace.
207- I didn’t express myself well. What I meant to say is that your sister probably was favored, and you’re right that she never deserved favored treatment. My point is that that doesn’t matter. For years I walked around thinking that if I could only convince the evil doers in my family that they were wrong, everything would be better for me and I’d stop blaming myself. After all, once they understood that they were to blame, it would all be okay.
Now I realize that a thunderbolt could come down from the sky exclaiming that they weren’t special, that they were finally getting what they deserved, that they had no right to complain, etc. etc. Except it wouldn’t make any difference. I’d still be the somewhat anxious person I am with my ups and downs. They’d still be leading the lives they’re living. I’m still looking for the perfect relationship and the meaning of life. So are they. In the mean time, I recommend a massage and some chocolate.
Why would the Olive Garden need one-busted hostesses? I tend to eschew stereotype-breeding, katsup-flavored Italian-wannabe crud, but the two times I’ve been to OG, all the hostesses appeared anatomically typical.
Just about choked on my oatmeal this morning, as I heard this soundbite on NPR, by a spokesman for the Christian Evangelicals meeting in Texas, announcing that they have chosen to back Rick Santorum for the Repuglican presidential nomination:
“After vigorous and passionate discussion, Santorum emerged…”
Can’t make this stuff up!
@207 & 213 Crinoline: I never said I was any smarter or better than my older sister or anyone else. Actually, I consider my sister’s current financial woes a learning and growing lesson, too, and definitely not how I want to end up. But you’re right—it really doesn’t matter. I’ve happily gone onward without having my older sis, brother-in-law, or youngest nephew in my life, mainly because I prefer to focus on those in my life who are caring, positive, and supportive. Living in a different county helps a lot.
I was actually relating to anklosaur’s (see @161) post about his sibling relationship with his brother.
@215: LOL!!!! That’s great!!
@204 ejc: Consider Frank Coniff thanked! And thank you for passing it on.
@209: Hunt, I know I’m outspoken, but did I step on your toes again? You must have some pretty sensitive feet.
@210: mydriasis: LOL!! You go, girl!
@211 ironvic: God bless you!!! Thank you and likewise! A big hug back!
@212 Married in MA: OMG–you’ve met my sister, Marie Antoinette??
@213: A massage and some chocolate sounds good, too!! Thanks!
I’m going to be very relieved when I no longer have to be concerned about raging hormones anymore.
Well, seems like here’s another Santorum family values conundrum. Remember the Sen. Ensign sex scandal? Doug Hampton, who lost his job, his wife, and will likely be going to jail because of his ex-best friend and boss, stated frothyman wouldn’t ask Ensign to step down. Hampton has publicly stated frothyman doesn’t truly support family values because of the support he gave Ensign against Hampton.
Peace.
Why isn’t Santorum in a sanitarium? Or a sewage treatment plant?
@168: I’m a mom too, of a 15 year old girl and 10 year old boy. I am very pro-Dan Savage, and I spread his definition of santorum as often as I can. I do this because kids not much older than yours and mine are KILLING THEMSELVES because they are living in a world where the right, led by people like Santorum, demonize gays, which creates an environment in which kids feel justified in bullying gay kids. If it were not for Dan Savage’s “It Gets Better” campaign, and the attention he’s brought to this issue (and let’s face it, repurposing Santorum’s name in such a provocative way did bring lots of attention to the issue), more kids might die.
So I’m OK with explaining the story to my son, so that he can stick up for kids at school if they are bullied, even though no one actually likes to talk ass juice. But I’d rather have a gross conversation with him now than try to explain why a classmate of his might have chosen to kill himself because he couldn’t stand the bullying anymore.
@199, I suspect such an argument could be made along the same lines of the argument for virginity, or strict monogamy, also being Family Values, mutatis mutandis.
I’m not sure how to interpret your comment about my temperament. I hope I didn’t offend you with anything I said. It certainly wasn’t my intention.
@202, you’re welcome. An opera buffa? 🙂 A little comic relief might be better. When I think of it, such situations of rivalry between siblings are better for comedy than for tragedy. (My brother, when he was 18 and I was 12, would sometimes make me answer phone calls from one girlfriend — to tell her he was sick or something — while he was going out with another. I used to get angry at him for that, but now it strikes me that it would make a funny scene in an early Woody Allen movie.)
Mr Ank – Not offended at all. I meant that you’re much more of am purist than I am, and far more dedicated to being right regardless of collateral damage. You probably have a tenth of the problems of instituting unlimited-partner marriage solved already, whereas I would claim due to lack of time that there was no point even in deciding whether it ought to be instituted, let alone how to do so – unless the idea of divorce taking on proportions not seen since the days of Henry VIII struck me as an excellent addition to my long list of Unwritten Plots.
I see your point, but your argument is more neutral than mine. I meant that there are specific evils to Family Values – that nobody ever addresses or even seems open to addressing, given the way that the phrase is always trotted out to the accompaniment of twanging harps – and that homophobia is an attendant consequence. That was why I didn’t want to go into the matter deeply – far too many people here would approve of the conduct in such examples as I could provide of same-sex couples using homophobia against each other in the cause of pereceived advantages for their children. It was not a battle I thought worth fighting.
The sporting reference reminds me – is anyone in Australia and able to keep us filled in on Margaret Court and whatever controversy may surround her during the Australian Open.
For those who don’t follow tennis columnist Jon Wertheim (I’m a little surprised Mr Savage hasn’t had anything to say, but Australia might be off his radar), Mrs Court (the top player of Billie Jean King’s era and, counting the years before the Grand Slam tournaments admitted professionals, the all-time leader in major titles) became a pastor. She had been in the habit of issuing anti-gay statements every few years, often directed against Martina Navratilova, whom she’s called a bad role model.
With a same-sex marriage bill on the horizon in Parliament, Mrs Court has provided the opposition expected of her. Tennis Australia has released a statement that her personal views are her own and are defintely not shared by the organization. The Facebook page “Rainbow Flags Over Margaret Court Arena” has formed with the intent to display Pride colours during matches on the third show court, encouraged by recently-retired, several-years-out doubles champion Rennae Stubbs.
I am greatly looking forward to seeing how ESPN covers or ducks the issue, and particularly the response of Chris Evert. But I’d love inside information from anyone in Australia.
The whole “Family Values” thing really irritates me.
As if we were all one family with a shared set of values. Whose family? Whose values?
One of the biggest advantages the intolerant bigots of America have given themselves over the past several decades, lies in their ability to co-opt the rhetoric first and apply all the strongest and most positive descriptors to themselves: “Pro Life” (not really, not quality of life, maternal life, or the life of convicted murderers. Just pro-fetal-life); “Family Values.”
Years ago, when my kids were 11 and 6, we took a driving vacation from the San Francisco Bay Area to Seattle. How did we entertain such young kids? We played classic road trip license plate games, we sang along to songs (mostly show tunes), we listened to audio books (Charlotte’s Web,” and “Anne of Green Gables”), and we listened to lots of old “This American Life”s, which then became the topics of far-ranging and very interesting conversations the family had. The kids made friendship bracelets in the back seat with embroidery floss, or drew pictures, or read books. The one thing that was not allowed was for someone to close herself off via earbuds or headphones–to isolate herself from the family aurally. If someone wanted to hear “her” music, she asked, and we all listened to it–and I learned to appreciate something new.
When at Seattle, we met another family of tourists, who had three kids, and had driven a comparable distance in their huge, gas-guzzling Humvee. They were quick and proud to tell us how they’d managed the trip: their vehicle was equipped with individual DVD players, and each kid watched his or her own movies, ears plugged in so no one else “had” to hear, and, thus Disney-fortified in their consumer-cocoons, they made the trip. It became apparent during the course of our conversation, in which they made derogatory remarks about my home, and my presumed politics (though I made polite, non-committal noises, and said nothing negative about where they lived or what I assume the general political climate there to be), that they were good Christian conservatives. I was outraged that they and people like them had cornered the market on “family values.”
Dear Dan,
I’m aware it’s a little too late to put the toothpaste back in the tube but I urge you to reconsider your “Santorum” stance.
#1 I would like you to explain how what you’re doing is any better/different/more acceptable than what he’s doing. What makes his behavior bullying while yours is not? You want people to accept you and your fellow LGBTs yet when someone doesn’t this is what happens? Admittedly, there is a terrible mean-spritedness to his lack of tolerance but at this point your behavior has stooped to his level too. I think in some ways it’s even worse because he doesn’t put himself out there as a cheerleader for tolerance like you do.
#2 This man has a family including school-age children. Do you not think at some point they are going to pay the price for your “Santorum” definition? And probably, unfortunately, in the form of bullying? The very behavior you purport to be attempting to put an end to?
Mr. Santorum is a disgrace to humankind and for that he should be called on the carpet. But for the reasons above, I wish you had found a better way to do it. I used to hold you in such high regard and with deep admiration but unfortunately I’m finding it more difficult to do so and it pains me.
Many of your devoted fans such as I have written to you about this. It’s high time you addressed our concerns.
Thank you,
Donna
I heard a tv reporter describe Rick Santorum as a “devout Catholic”. Haven’t Catholics been maligned enough, what with the pedophile clergy scandal?! I don’t support his homophobic views, but what riles me as a hetero female is his using the wife as a baby-factory. Apparently he needs to prove his heterosexuality by producing nine spawn who are using more than their fair share of the planet’s resources.
@227
Thanks for sharing.
I always appreciate hearing from parents that do things right, and I couldn’t agree more.
@193 “But the fact that the only effective forms of political discourse are shouting and slander means that we may as well give up.”
——
Pish tosh. It was ever thus. Go read some history, not the stuff aimed at kids that has to pass classroom politeness standards. Shouting and slander are the least of it. And yet through the mud good stuff passed, things improved incrementally, and a generation later a polite, sanitized version of the disagreement could be presented in school books as though it was all a civil debate.
It’s not the end of days. It’s just politics as ever practiced.
@228:
#1 Bullying is defined by power. Larger against smaller, the many against the few, older against younger. So when a US Senator attacks a small minority, and a US sex columnist fires back, one does not claim that the sex columnist is bullying the poor powerless Senator. What his action has done, elaborate poop joke that it is, is keep Santorum tied firmly to that interview. A hundred polite columns would not have had nearly the effect.
#2 People named Gay, Hooker, Fuchs, and dozens of other things have had to cope with inconvenient last names. People who want to bully a kid will find something. I suspect a whole lot more kids are being bullied for being perceived as gay than for being named Santorum. And Dan has actually done something to help the former group.
#232 Thank you for answering without flaming me, seriously :). I happen to agree with much of what you wrote. That said, however, it still doesn’t answer my questions.
Yes, bullying is defined by power. But it is also defined by a lot of other things. Maybe “bullying” wasn’t the exact word I should have used. My point was more that why is what Santorum (the person LOL) does any worse than what Dan has done? At this point it smacks of revenge and an extraordinary attempt to humiliate him for his opinions, wrong as they may be, and again I ask you, how is that any different especially when his family is bound to be collateral damage?
And now, his children/innocent family members who have nothing to do with any of this can google their last name and this is what comes up?? – that is just CRUEL!!For sure, many people have grown up with inconvenient last names, myself included. In fact, I spent much of my childhood being teased for it. But does that mean it is okay to deliberately put a child in that position by giving internet ammunition for anyone in the universe with a computer as Dan has done?
I respect your opinion but I’m sorry, you can try to explain it anyway you want, but I think both Santorum and Dan are wrong in their own way and honestly I just don’t see how anyone can justify doing to someone else what was done to them because it helps a small minority group or in the name of social justice or whatever one calls it.
@223 anklosaur: Although it has been done many times already, I’m thinking of creating yet another modern take of Cinderella, this time combined with an Empress’s New Clothes theme, obviously using fictionally named characters. Wouldn’t that be a hoot, though, if I got offered film rights, or at least, got the opera buffa performed locally? I agree—I’d rather make this a comedy. The only tragedy is that it would still be based on a true-life situation.
By the way, again like your older brother, my older sister (such a “dainty, delicate flower”) routinely feigned illness to get out of housework—just in time to go out on her next date. Guess who always got stuck with the dishes?
@227 & @229: I agree. Well said!
@232 re @228: Thanks—you beat me to it.
@233 “My point was more that why is what Santorum (the person LOL) does any worse than what Dan has done?”
Steady now. These are the two things you are comparing.
“Your surname describes something disgusting.”
VS
“Who you are and how you love is disgusting, wrong and sinful.”
@227 nocutename,
It isn’t surprising that you find audiobooks and family travel so intrinsic. Reading aloud to your child can be one of the most intimate (family appropriate) acts possible, and a good audiobook can get close. I consider myself very lucky to have had a young family during the period J. K. Rowling released her work. To have created books that caused families to wait in line for midnight release parties in costume is a phenomenon I fear won’t happen again (in my lifetime). We had years of family travel sharing the same headspace, powered by her words brought to life by the mastery of Jim Dale with such vividness and intensity that I accidentally missed the turnoffs on the highway (without complaint that I had inadvertently extended the journey). Adding to my personal enjoyment was the opportunity to experience my children’s growth in logic and reasoning directly during the years of discourse we shared (and even wonder when my 7 year old blurted out “Harry is a horcrux” during the “Order of the Phoenix” (something I also had deduced, but wouldn’t have expected a child to be able to)).
In counterpoint, to have had her (Dame Rowling) work burned by the frightened little minds (I mean, ethical witchcraft?!) just points out how limited these people are. What is even worse is that the luxo-SUV family probably was in debt to their eyeballs. And that is the tragedy of the kind of people that desperately want to believe they are better than anybody, even if it means attacking people for reasons that have nothing to do with reality, needlessly going into debt, or even losing coherence with their stated goals (caring for the poor, the imprisoned, supporting civil rights under the Constitution???). Everyone knows terrified animals are dangerous, to themselves and everything and everyone around them. That population, and behavior, is exactly what frothyman, and the rest of the teabag terror machine, is counting on.
So next time you’re planning your family vacation, remember that logic, reason, and family values are available without additional cost at your public library for those of us that believe community is made of shared resources.
Peace.
@luvlife #233 I totally get what you’re saying. While the replies have raised valid points I’ve yet to see anyone directly answer your questions. Love, love, love Dan but we part ways on this issue & I too see him in a different light now.
What he & y’all are saying not in so many words is that bullying is ok if it’s to correct a social injustice & yes it is bullying since Dan is using ridicule esp. on the internet to mock someone’s views however misguided said views are.
As far as the affected kids, how can anyone say just because many people are teased about last names it’s ok for Santorum’s kids to suffer that same abuse? Because their father has archaic & ignorant views?
I mean, it’s great Dan has made it his life’s mission to educate people on the subject of gays rights & all like that, but at that price?
Seems to be it smacks of vengeance & humiliation more than education.
So not cool. Surely he could’ve found a better way.
@233 “I respect your opinion but I’m sorry, you can try to explain it anyway you want, but I think both Santorum and Dan are wrong in their own way and honestly I just don’t see how anyone can justify doing to someone else what was done to them because it helps a small minority group or in the name of social justice or whatever one calls it.”
Then don’t bother framing the sentiment as a question when you wanted to make a statement. Asking something implies you’re receptive to what someone else has to say. Yet I hear so many people recently use it as a means of implying they’re “openness” so that the closed minded filth that spews out of their mouth is just palatable enough that you can’t chew them out without losing face.
Oh, and that “whatever one calls it’ is equality.
@luvlife #233 I totally get what you’re saying. While the replies have raised valid points I’ve yet to see anyone directly answer your questions. Love, love, love Dan but we part ways on this issue & I too see him in a different light now.
What he & y’all are saying not in so many words is that bullying is ok if it’s to correct a social injustice & yes it is bullying since Dan is using ridicule esp. on the internet to mock someone’s views however misguided said views are.
As far as the affected kids, how can anyone say just because many people are teased about last names it’s ok for Santorum’s kids to suffer that same abuse? Because their father has archaic & ignorant views?
I mean, it’s great Dan has made it his life’s mission to educate people on the subject of gays rights & all like that, but at that price?
Seems to be it smacks of vengeance & humiliation more than education.
So not cool. Surely he could’ve found a better way.
Sorry, their. Forgot to change it when I rewrote the sentence.
@233 and 239, #235 brought up the best point. None the less, it isn’t an “opinion” or a “misguided view” when people are able and willing to make your very existence a living nightmare. Comparing the act of making up a funny definition using their last name with that is like comparing egging someone’s house with a drive by shooting.
@233, 239:
I was bullied using mockery of my last name, which is in fact a perfectly innocuous name. But as a geek-before-it-was-cool, they were going to go after me for something, so my last name, physical appearance, and anything else they could grab was up. So now kids named Santorum make it easy for their persecutors, just like kids named Gay or Fuchs or Hooker. Or anyone unfortunately sharing a name with an embarrassing quasi-celebrity, ruining it for everyone named Sheen or Kardashian. A popular kid named Santorum will find they experience far less mockery than a nerd named Smith.
“My point was more that why is what Santorum (the person LOL) does any worse than what Dan has done?”
—–
Santorum: Homosexuals in long-term committed relationships are just like dog-raping pedophiles.
Savage: That was vile, and I will be using an elaborate poop joke to draw attention to your vileness. (Whoa. It actually worked.)
Internet: Oh whoa, poor Santorum, innocent victim!
If someone types elaborate vile comments about the president, that person is not “bullying” Barack Obama. Because the president has more power. If a group of kids team up to type vile comments about one, many against one, popular against socially marginalized, that’s bullying. If the kid at some point types back, let’s say they find a way to figure out and publish the IP address, they are not ‘bullying’ by exposing the names of the people who thought they could dish out abuse with impunity. Blowback against a bully does not turn the bully into a poor little innocent who deserves only politely written editorials.
Do we know that Rick Santorum’s children are being taunted on the playground because their last name means frothy mix? Could be, but we don’t know.
It’s a funny thing about taunting and who gets chosen as the victim. There’s a supposed reason: a name, being fat, being skinny, being smart, being dumb, a limp, a lisp, etc. The kids at the bottom of the pecking order think that everything would be different, everyone would love them, that they’d have loads of friends if only they had a different name or weren’t sissy or if their parents didn’t have accents or smell of garlic. But if you look around, there’s someone else, possibly someone in the same class, who has the same name or is equally fat, skinny, smart, dumb, limpy, lispy, garlicky, or with greasy hair, and that person doesn’t get it or doesn’t get it as bad.
@233, 239: Rick Santorum made his last name disgusting by being a homophobe. It wasn’t Dan’s fault. If you want to blame someone for tarnishing the name Santorum, blame Rick.
@243
As someone who was bullied pretty viciously in middle school, I’d have to agree. I got made fun of for really obscure things since I was in a program for intellectually gifted kids (so being smart wasn’t ‘bad’). I wasn’t fat (quite skinny, but never made fun of for that), no glasses (contacts), no weird last name. I was just… well, unhappy and precocious. That was really the only unique thing about me. So people come up with things to make fun of. I even remember getting made fun of for having a “bubble butt” one day.
Who’s laughing now?
Post puberty we all made up, though. True story.
@245 mydriasis,
I was bullied during middle school, but it was limited to physical annoyance stuff (and then I got big). I wasn’t aware of it at the time, but it seems that middle school girls can be particularly vicious using psychological attacks. It’s good you can laugh about it now.
Peace.
Mr Married – Minor point of order: “Dame” and “Sir” don’t take surnames only, or at least they didn’t when I got dinged a third of a grade for the same thing some years ago. Also, I’m not entirely clear about this, but I gather that recipients of the OBE don’t acquire (or don’t use) the title Dame, which accompanies GBE or DBE. Agatha Christie, Iris Murdoch, Muriel Spark and Helen Mirren, who are all Dames, all were made DBE. Of course, JKR still has time; many have had their honours upgraded to a superiour rank, or at least had the offer extended. If memory serves, Dame Helen Mirren declined a CBE but later accepted a DBE, Vanessa Redgrave accepted a CBE and later declined a DBE, and Geraldine McEwan declined both.
@247 vennominion,
I stand corrected: Madam Joanne. Of course I can’t forget Dame Judi either.
Peace.
@244 BlackRose: Thank you!! I couldn’t have said it any better.
@245 & @246: Thank you both for sharing your stories of school age angst!
My 30 year high school reunion is this June. It’s so true! Amazing, isn’t it, how cruel kids can be to each other, or, sadly, single out anybody for whatever reason, just because they’re so afraid of differing from the accepted social “norm”, then years later, can laugh about it together?
10 years ago I had initially dreaded going to my 20 because it was right after my divorce (I have a real “Christy Masters” type in my class who brags constantly about how perfect her life is–marriage, kids, house, you name it). When I showed up, everyone was not only glad to see I’d left a bad situation, but—welcome to the club!—just about everybody was divorced and /or remarried. We had a blast!
I wouldn’t miss this one coming up, and am already wondering what the “40” will be like.
@224(Mr Ven), oh, I see. I like to think of myself as a theoretician: I like to imagine how non-existing situations could be posited and what would make them stable or unstable, not per se because they are attainable from our current situation (or even better or desirable), but just to understand how things could be changed without causing collapse. What is really important to society? Family values? Religion? A sense of purpose? Happiness, or the pursuit thereof? Structures with which the individual can identify?…
Unlimited-partner marriage (like unlimited-partner enterprises) will be instituted if sufficiently many people need it, i.e., if there are enough people who suffer because of its absence as to make it a cause not necessarily célèbre but at least visible. Just as in the case of same-sex marriage: once society came to a stage in which the idea was no longer conceptualized as inherently disgusting (a stage, by the way, which Eastern European countries are still far from…) , then equality activists started working on it and making people think about the issue. I don’t worry about how this will happen for unlimited-partner marriage: I merely observe and wait.
“Family Values” are always supposed to be so important, right? But what few people say is that “family values” depend on a definition of the family. They don’t need to — we also have a code of honor and ethics for economic behavior (be honest, don’t steal, treat your partners fairly, etc.), which does not depend on how many people can be or not be associates in any given enterprise. “Family values” could in principle be similarly independent of the form of the family — they could stress ideas like love, honesty, openness, commitment, cooperation, etc. Unfotunately, “family values” conservatives tend to see anything that isn’t exactly equal to their traditional vision of the family as being the same as pure anarchy, equivalent to an apology of ‘man-on-dog-cum-child-rape’ relationships. It’s this lack of any flexibility, this my-way-or-the-highway, my-family-values-or-no-values-whatsoever attitude that makes me feel desperate sometimes.
I say this because I actually do believe in values (= ethic/moral principles on which rational people of good will should be able to agree). It’s the axiological (‘axiology‘ is the philosophical study of values) fundamentalism that I really wished could change. But as long as people are afraid of the unknown, they’ll make stupid assumptions (‘could it be a tiger is hiding in that bush?’ ‘isn’t what you’re proposing the same as accepting child rape as normal?’) that simply stop any discussion.
@Mr Ven, who wrote:
That’s actually an interesting topic, Mr Ven. And since most people here aren’t really in battle mode — discussions often are not really ‘battles’ — I don’t think it would be bad to see examples of what you mean.
Many features of the current traditional vision of ‘family values’ would seem to at least be in synchrony with homophobia. Someone in another SLOG thread a while ago mentioned how one of the first questions certain people ask when confronted with a gay couple is, “but who is the wife?” — suggesting that, if one can’t see who “the wife is”, then there is something disturbing in the relationship, a vague threat against traditional heterosexual marriage (“if they don’t have wives, maybe our wives will stop being wives too, at some point?”).
@LuvLife (and others with similar opinions), here is what I think is the jist of the answers to your claim:
You’re saying that what Dan is doing (redefining Mr Santorum’s name) is equivalent to what Mr Santorum is doing (supporting the oppression of a group of people).
They are saying it is not. These are very different things.
What they have in common — and which you perhaps react to — is that both hurt.
So think of this. When people fight, both sides hurt each other. It doesn’t follow from this that the Nazis and the French Résistence are at the same moral/ethical level. Yes, the Résistence killed people, sometimes innocent ones. Yes, collaborationists were persecuted, hurt, killed. But if one compares them with what they were opposing — the collateral damage (innocent people killed by Résistence bombs, acts of sabotage, persecuted collaborationists, etc.) is much too small, compared to the people who were helped, and the final goal of liberating France from German occupation.
So: when you say that Mr Santorum’s children may suffer — you are talking about a few people, and you are mentioning potential, not actual suffering. Whereas when Mr Santorum supports anti-gay policies and maintains the idea that homosexuality is a sin and leads to hell, he contributes to a climate that victimizes many more people, and has led already to an increasing number of real, actual (not potential) crimes and suicides.
So I ask you: can you really in all honesty say that what Dan Savage is doing is the same as what Mr Santorum is doing? Is what Mr Savage is doing really the moral equivalent of what Mr Santorum is doing? Do the number of victims and the gravity of the crimes really make no difference?
I don’t think so. And I’m sure that, if you think more about it, you’ll come to the conclusion that they’re not the same thing.
It is good that you wish people wouldn’t hurt each other. I also would like society to be such that nobody ever attacked anybody else, and all discussions were kept at a high level, without any damage, direct or collateral, friendly or unfriendly fire. I’m sure the French Résistence also would have preferred that there never was any Occupation, that the French and the Germans actually never fought each other but had kept good relations that allowed for civil dialogue and well-measured arguments. Alas, that was not the case.
We don’t chose the world in which we live.
@LuvLife, I’ll even go as far as making the following prediction: if Mr Santorum disappears from the political landscape (as he probably will) in the next couple of decades, I am quite sure this redefinition thing will be forgotten. The word doesn’t look stable enough to survive; like so many other slang words from the past, it will quickly disappear once the battle that motivated it was fought to the end.
Homophobia, however… will continue for a while longer than that. At least I don’t see why it should disappear when other, older targets like racism and sexism are still around.
Again — is this really the same thing? Are we really talking about moral equivalents here?
Sometimes I think the analogies get pretty far-fetched here.
I’m a mom and I’ve been thinking about the discussion that has been going on about whether Dan’s keeping the redefinition of santorum is unfair to his kids or others with the same name, or whether finding the website that a search assigned by teacher led to would be traumatizing. And if so, what then?
Although I don’t think it is particularly useful to liken the spreading santorum movement with the French Résistence of WWII, I do think that the issue of collateral damage applies. Rick Santorum seeks to vilify gay people and denigrate them in the most vile possible way. He also would like to regulate every single sex act that takes place between married, heterosexual couples. He spews hate maliciously and intentionally. Children who may share the last name and be teased for it, even Mr. Santorum’s own, while they might be the intended target of a playground teasing (not the same thing as bullying, by the way), are not Dan’s intended target. In fact, Santorum *as* a person isn’t even the target. It’s Santorum the candidate, Santorum the political figure who wants to gain power so he can strip rights from people and deny rights from people, who seems to have a hard time understanding the constitutional right to privacy, and who wants to legislate sex and reproduction, who wants to write legislation and enact laws based on his belief that allowing two loving individuals of the same sex to marry is comparable to child rape or beastiality.
That is what the spreading santorum movement is about–a visceral reminder of the truly vile and hate-driven ideas of a man who wants to be the president of the United States.
So it is a shame that name-calling has gotten into this, and yes it will be too bad if some unfortunately-named children get teased. And it is unfortunate that the discourse is tinged with poop. But the stakes are high, and the point is to remind people–voters–that Santorum’s ideas by which he justifies controlling their private lives are pretty shitty.
As to the objections raised way back @168 by nllmom that her 12-year-old son was forced to see references to anal sex (which had to be explained to him), I would say that if my 12-year-old daughter had been given an assignment which resulted in her stumbling upon the spreading santorum site, I would take the opportunity to explain why such a site exists. I don’t know that all 12-year-olds do know about the existence of anal sex or its mechanics, but they certainly do know about hate and bigotry, and I would thank the teacher for giving me an opportunity to educate my child about the existence of anal sex (so I could make sure that no weird mis-information is being received) and more importantly, about how crucial it is to know a lot about a candidate’s views when considering voting for him or her. I would turn the homework assignment into an impromptu lesson on civil rights.
Mr Ank – I used to be more like you, but one too many days spent concluding that there was no solution to a theoretical problem for which a solution would have been of no practical use whatsoever cured me of the habit, especially given that I had any number of theoretical problems for which a practical solution would prove to have a definite use.
I think I’ll still pass on the examples, though – they would make Hamlet and Macbeth look like novels written by Angela Thirkell, and it’s too early in the week for such skulduggery.