Comments on: Tory’s December issue packed full of homophobic, anti-feminist articles

By: Zander

Zander — Thu, 06 Jan 2011 22:47:20 +0000

I went to high school with Mr. McGinley and saw his rise through the ranks of the most popular club by a landslide in the school: Young Republicans. The dominance of conservative thought at this school coddled the egos of these little George W. Bushes to the point where any liberal argument for common issues like gay rights or (god forbid) the Iraq War were laughed at and pounded into the soil. The club even created a mock- Young Democrats club just so they had someone to make fun of. Needless to say, there were a total of 3 girls in the club. Education in America has boiled down to sad public schools with a 50% dropout rate and conservative private schools that churn out Brandon McGinleys.

By: Skimpole

Skimpole — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 23:04:27 +0000

lol welcome to the echo chamber. protip: try leaving out their loaded adjectives when you read the article. you’d be surprised how little is left.

“defensive? we’re not defensive! we have nothing to be defensive about! you’re the one who’s defensive!”

By: princeton14

princeton14 — Sun, 24 Oct 2010 15:20:29 +0000

Beyond excoriating the Tory for disagreeing with the author’s beliefs, what exactly does this article accomplish? Speaking as someone who isn’t quite sure where he stands on these issues, I would appreciate less name-calling and more sophisticated reasoning from this side of the debate in particular.

By: Justin

Justin — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:45:26 +0000

I used to read – and be annoyed by – that McGinley fellow back when I was a senior and he was a freshman. It appears he has only gotten that much worse. Sigh.

By: Alexis

Alexis — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 00:51:32 +0000

I find it most disturbing that McGinley’s call for Princeton men to reclaim their masculinity ignores the effect that restoring this nostalgic concept of manliness would have on females. (Wait…that’s what I find second most disturbing after his blatant homophobia.)

When McGinley emphasizes that men must differentiate themselves from women and then lists “metrics of manliness” including courage, emotional fortitude, strength and toughness, he is in fact saying that women must not possess those traits. This is his argument: Men must be different from women. Men must be strong and courageous. Thus, women must not be those things. Unless women can be those things…but shit!; that would lead to androgyny. Better to judge women against the metrics of femininity he’s not spelling out: docility, cowardice, emotional weakness, physical frailty, etc.

By approving of the Docker’s advertisement, McGinley also shows his approval for the idea that the role of decision-maker is a man’s role. “Wearing the pants” doesn’t merely mean being a courageous, honorable human, or making tough decisions for the greater good—“wearing the pants” is a clearly gendered idiom that refers to who in a relationship or family makes the decisions. And if Dockers and McGinley are suggesting that men are to “wear the pants” again, it’s hard to imagine that they believe women should be doing anything other than wearing skirts and eating salads along with the homosexuals.

By: jm

jm — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 01:35:05 +0000

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophobia

Homophobia is defined as an “irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.”

McGinley can only reach the conclusion he reaches through irrational discrimination against homosexuals. He says that we should erase homosexuality to make close male friendships easier, but one could just as easily say that we should completely accept the possibility of homosexuality, which would also make close male friendships unproblematic.

By: poeta

poeta — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 16:44:10 +0000

mcginley’s article is not homophobic.
mcginley’s opposition to homosexual acts is not rooted in fear of homosexuality. mcginley knows homosexuality well. a person irrationally afraid of homosexuality would not invest the time mcginley has in researching the matter. this is clear from article.
what mcginley’s article is, however, is heteronormative. it expects that all men conform to heterosexual behaviour and it arbitrarily values the ‘manly’ culture of pittsburg to the ‘androgynous’ culture of princeton. ultimately, arbitrary aesthetic decisions are being made in the article by mcginlety. the first of the arbitrary aesthetic decision is regarding the value of distinguishing between the sexes — something obviously unnecessary in our society at large. though it be prevalent, it need not be necessary. though it be kind to those fassioned on average of smaller size, it need not be in place. society orgnanises us, even though it need not.
the second of the arbitrary aesthetic decisions is regarding the nature of sex. in naming homosexual sex as he does, relating it even to incest, he speaks to the arbitrary decisions that differing societies have made about sex. didn’t cain, the son of adam and eve take his sister?

By: Thúy-Lan

Thúy-Lan — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 21:36:58 +0000

not to mention how blatantly disrespectful the tory was to prof. harris-lacewell: “The Tory is deeply saddened and disturbed by her decision, not so much because we will miss her acute insight on American politics, such as calling the 2008 election a “referendum on white supremacy”, but because we are losing a wonderful source of inspiration for the Points & Punts. Thanks for making our job that much easier over the years, Melissa.”

By: Brenda

Brenda — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 21:06:21 +0000

It’s funny that the claims “feminists are very defensive about their ideology” and “[Feminists] do not feel at all threatened by long-term political trends, widespread disagreement with their radicalized message, or benign misconceptions about them and their beliefs” are ones that a lot of people would make about conservatives. It seems that they are re-assigning some of their own insecurities to feminism.

Instead of pointing out why they feel that feminism is dangerous, unreasonable, or whatever, the Tory chooses to attack feminism in a petty way. By avoiding a discussion of the issues at hand, they attempt to polarize groups on campus that have different, but not necessarily opposing, points of view. They also ignore the fact that both conservatives and feminists come from a variety of persuasions. While the feminist myths poster campaign did not attack conservatives but rather sought to include them, the Tory has rejected this inclusion in favor of depicting the relationship between conservatism and feminism as antithetical. Not surprisingly, it’s the same move they make against the LGBT community. Shall we call it the fetishization of binaries?