data=”http://www.youtube.com/v/giwUuOfUJwo?fs=1″>You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video
I had some commentary on her tacky sweatsuit. But, due to disagreements on whether it was relevant or appropriate I have elected to delete it.
Wayne Besen is the Founding Executive Director of Truth Wins Out and author of “Anything But Straight: Unmasking the Scandals and Lies Behind the Ex-Gay Myth” (Haworth, 2003). In 2010, Besen was awarded the “Visionary Award” at the Out Music Awards for organizing the American Prayer Hour, an event which shined a spotlight on the role American evangelicals played in the introduction of Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill.
It is very hard to find nice business clothing at the size Maggie and I wear. I don’t see where you get “unshowered” either.
I would repeat my request that we keep critiques of Maggie centered on the substance of her ideas and not her appearance. It’s the feminist thing to do, and the decent-human-being thing as well.
She just looks unshowered to me. Like she just rolled out of bed. Is she? Who knows.
I have known many big women who dress respectably and look nice. So, that is no excuse.
Look, I own sweat suits too. But, I don’t wear them on national TV, as comfortable as they may be.
It is a matter of class and self-respect, that’s all.
sorry Andrea. Why does Maggie deserve “decent” human being treatment? I think she deserves nothing more than what she doles out. She is a horrible, wicked, evil, nasty excuse of a human being. I think Wayne treats her better than she deserves.
Normally, I would agree with you. But in this case – screw her – the cow wore a cheap a*s sweat suit off the sale rack at Filen’s Basement. And she does look like she just LITERALLY rolled out of bed. Newsworthy? Not really. Snarkworthy? Without a doubt.
Well, rise above her level.
People on the right think Hilary Clinton is demonspawn and that’s why they feel justified to comment on her appearance and not her substance. It’s just as wrong coming from both sides.
Criticize with the most biting words possible any damn thing she writes, does or says. But being nasty about her appearance perpetuates a culture where all women are judged on appearance, much more than men are, which is unfair.
I don’t think this has to do with women. I think we have commented on the appearances of quite a few men, as well.
Maggie looks like crap in her sweatsuit. There are entire magazines and TV shows dedicated to commentary on fashion. There is a virtual industry that comments on the way people appear at the Oscars.
Thus, it is fair to comment on the way she appears on national TV. It is not like we are commenting on the way she looks while gardening or going grocery shopping.
She had a choice to look good on TV and chose the sweatsuit. When I choose the sweatsuit, she can comment on me too.
When we’re attacking Maggie Gallagher, there’s plenty of things to attack her on without going after her for her appearance. Can we please stop this trash talking and stick to substance please?
Hopefully we’re above the Queerty-style sexist rants.
Maybe Maggie is more fashion-savvy than we give her credit for. Everything about her appearance probably appeals to that CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network) audience.
Okay – I’m not going to debate this anymore. I have deleted the sweatsuit commentary and will keep my fashion opinions to myself.
Everyone happy?
Yes, I for one am happy. Thank you for taking the high road. I’m not a fan of her outfit either but it’s not her outfit I loathe about her.
I don’t think it is entirely out of bounds to talk about Maggie’s weight.
Here we have Maggie, a self-appointed authority on societal health with respect to marriage, campaigning for laws banning same-sex marriage because, in her view, the future health of society depends on it. While there is no credible evidence to support that view, there is a mountain of credible evidence to support the view that obesity is a condition that almost always results in the development of associated serious health problems. And those problems impact not only immediate families, but all of society.
The USA (after Mexico) leads the world in high rates of obesity. And we are all literally paying for it in higher health care costs, and in seeing loved ones develop more health problems. Statistics also show that parents are increasingly teaching their children to be obese.
But Maggie prefers to blame real and imagined social problems on gay-marriage, which harms no one, while ignoring how she is a role-model for promoting obesity, which harms everyone. For this and lots of other reasons, she has no credibility.
Wow, folks, I get really frustrated when those of us fighting for GLBT rights forget how much anti-fat rhetoric mirrors anti-gay rhetoric. From the correlation/causation conflation (“lots of gay men have AIDS, so gay must equal death, thus we must get rid of gay people” sounds a lot like “lots of fat people have health problems, so fat must equal death, so we must get rid of fat people”) to the development of treatment programs and camps to eradicate a characteristic to the extent to which folks with the characteristic internalize messages about their own kind and voluntarily enter these programs, even the way that the medical establishment chooses the labels for us to convince us we are sick and should be done away with, fat folks and queer folks have a lot in common! Heck, both fat and queer folks have their kids removed from them, insurance denied them, are assumed to be engaged in sinful behaviors, and more. And both fat folks and queer folks live long, healthy lives when they are given support instead of condemnation and can take care of themselves.
Richard, you are wrong, the US doesn’t lead the world in high rates of obesity at all. (Besides, “obesity” is a relatively meaningless word that has shifted definitions over time.) Also, fat folks who aren’t harassed to lose weight and who are supported in living healthfully without changing their size 1) don’t become thin people AND 2) show really good health markers, much healthier than those who are encouraged to lose weight. “OBESITY EPIDEMIC” rhetoric is just that, rhetoric. We don’t have to find another group to scapegoat in our pro-GLBT work.
I would encourage Richard and others to read the literature – start with “The epidemiology of overweight and obesity: public health crisis or moral panic?” (Campos et al in the International Journal of Epidemiology) and then try “Size acceptance and intuitive eating improve health for obese, female chronic dieters” (Bacon et al in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association). Then just google around to find the latest work done in the area of Health at Every Size. If you REALLY care about fat folks health, you’ll stop assuming things about them and start working for justice for them.
All of that said, Andrea is right. It’s hard to find good professional clothes for fat women’s bodies. And Wayne is right – it’s a matter of class. So stop being a sizist classist person here and work for justice for ALL. Model the behavior you expect of these anti-queer folks, or you’re basically saying it’s okay to be classist, sexist, and sizist, as long as you are pro-white-thin-rich-gay-men.
To be clear, in case anyone came to the party late, Wayne’s original comments didn’t have anything to do with Maggie’s weight.
And indeed, she’s been seen in professional attire many, many times on television. This time, though, she elected to show up in sweats.
With all the garbage she and her ilk spew, what angers people the most is whether someone said she was dressed poorly or called her fat???
Jesus people, where the f**k are your priorities?!!
She is fat, and she does dress poorly and that’s the truth. Do you ever hear ANY truth coming from their camp?
Typical queens. There’s an issue here people and it isn’t her weight or garb. Amazing how what should be a legitimate debate/commentary degrades so quickly to attacks on personal non-issues. Yes, typical queens.
I have wondered for a long time where her husband is. It is so important for her to keep us from marriage. Supposedly to save the institution in which she and her husband participate. But why does her husband never show up?
Gianni:
I would disagree. There is no “debate” to be had. There is one side serially lying about a minority to claim superiority and exclude them from American life and law. And another side that is persecuted, singled out and 100% right. I think the issue is too lopsided to call it a debate. It is more like a concerted effort for Maggie abd Brian to lie faster than we can bust myths.
In that sense, commentary on her sweatsuit is 1000 times more legitimate than groveling to prove we are worthy human beings who deserve equality.
At least there is substance to the sweatsuit argument, while Maggie’s anti-gay scare tactics are a pure fabrication.
Patrick said, “I have wondered for a long time where her husband is. It is so important for her to keep us from marriage. Supposedly to save the institution in which she and her husband participate. But why does her husband never show up?
She desperately wants people to forget that she is married . . . to her Hindu husband, Raman Srivastav. Because, for her church and the people who fund NOM, traditional marriage is definitely NOT between one Catholic and one Hindu. So, to create the illusion, she non-traditionally drops Srivastav from her name and keeps Raman well hidden.
If I could talk to Raman, I’d like to ask: Doesn’t that woman make you feel emasculated? Have you no pride? I’ll bet she’s pulling in some really big bucks from NOM to make it worth your while, isn’t she? Is that one of the reasons she wants to keep NOM’s finances hidden?
Most likely, Richard. Maybe he likes being a cuckhold…
I still think she looks like she should be sitting on a mushroom smoking a hookah.
I feel bitchy, oh so bitchy, I feel bitchy and witty and GAY!
Wayne, Point well taken concerning “debate”. Probably should have used “serious issue”. I used the word to try to highlight the fact that we are facing a foe with a following and we can’t ignore them. Liars? Yes, we know that, but unfortunately, Americans are given to falling for anything that smacks of being against what they have long considered “holy”, “sacred”, “normal” etc. Commenting on her sweatsuit? I never considered that as the opposite of groveling to prove our worth. Let’s get real, that’s just bitchy. Sure, it can be fun, but it is a non-starter, unless you just want to go off on a useless tangent.
G.
Perhaps you are right. But that sweatsuit just irritated me and set me off. Maybe I should have kept it to myself.
I’d guess the sweatsuit was a deliberate choice – it’s part of her public persona as “just an average person” defending marriage. It’s part of the whole right wing shtick – “We’re just folks and we had to step up when we realized our family was under attack.” It’s a deliberate strategic choice that allows the right to pretend it speaks for all Americans when in fact it is a network of well funded and well paid professional activists. Another part of the shtick is someone like George Rekers going by the term “doctor” or Paul Cameron. It’s all about creating legitimacy for their spokespersons. Maggie Gallagher gets that legitimacy by being “one of us” – one of the crowd, while other people get it by being “experts” and having grand sounding titles. But it’s all part of the same game.
Here is a good reason not to talk about her sweatsuit – it dominated this thread and very few talked about what she said.
Ugly is as ugly does. This woman still wants to make it impossible for me to define, defend and provide for my family, same as everyone else. She still thinks that my human rights are negotiable, she still believes that my existence and any family I choose to form must be punished with as much hardship as can be legally mustered.
It doesn’t matter what she wears – her public image has come to represent what I find truly reprehensible in the conservative religious bastions of this country. Even if she were to miraculously acquire super-model looks overnight I would still find her appearance off-putting; until or unless she changes her tune about MY worth and the value of MY family.
Why are we fighting so hard? Not because we are afraid we will lose, Maggie, but because we are SICK of being trampled under your arrogant and cold-hearted dismissal of anything that doesn’t meet with your fictitious God’s approval.
And because, Maggie, MY family is as holy to ME as yours is to you.
True about the super model thing. Just look at that dreadful Anita Bryant and Carrie Prejean.
Wayne, I’m chuckling because I must admit that everything about the woman is irritating and I do mean everything. Being human is a quality we all share. It just helps to get back into focus as quickly as possible. Thanks for your commentary.
I’ve met Maggie personally. She really isn’t a nice person. I can see why the homos don’t like her.
You’re not a nice person either, “again”.