From Ann Althouse, who makes an interesting point about the real victims of the insistence of society that men be heterosexual:
I’ve made fun of the Oscar ads for the movie, because of the way they emphasize the relationship between the men and their wives. This ad campaign is laughable for intentionally hiding the nature of the central love story. Nevertheless, the story of the wives interests me greatly. And the political argument inherent in this part of the story is, I think, especially strong. Those who would try to prevent or inhibit men from forming lifetime bonds with each other ought to give more thought to what happens to the women they marry. Those who think a man should struggle against his sexual orientation and find a way to form the classic marriage relationship with a woman ought to think about what they are advocating for the woman: a lifetime relationship with a man who has only feigned sexual attraction to her.
I heard on the radio that when the plane went down off Miami Beach this afternoon, a flotilla of private boats were on it almost immediately to try to find survivors. It’s similar to what happened in 911, when a large number of people spontaneously evacuated lower Manhattan across the rivers to New Jersey and Brooklyn.
Unfortunately, this time, even as rapid as the response was, it looks like the people were beyond saving.
Of course, as usual, they break it down by race. But what would interest me much more is how it breaks down by major. How do engineers compare to science majors compare to English majors? How about “Womens” or “Ethnic Studies”?
Especially sad, I suspect, might be the results for schools of education, and journalism. But they don’t show them.
Of course, as usual, they break it down by race. But what would interest me much more is how it breaks down by major. How do engineers compare to science majors compare to English majors? How about “Womens” or “Ethnic Studies”?
Especially sad, I suspect, might be the results for schools of education, and journalism. But they don’t show them.
Of course, as usual, they break it down by race. But what would interest me much more is how it breaks down by major. How do engineers compare to science majors compare to English majors? How about “Womens” or “Ethnic Studies”?
Especially sad, I suspect, might be the results for schools of education, and journalism. But they don’t show them.
I haven’t seen the movie (and have no intention to, based on anything I’ve read about it) but apparently it isn’t about gay cowboys, but rather, it’s about gay sheepboys. That actually makes more sense (and I’ll grant a lot of credibility to the take, given that it’s a lesbian source). They’ll put it in anything…
My wild hypothesis is that more people will go see a movie if it features an actor or actress they find attractive! If heterosexual men in heartland America don’t flock to see Brokeback Mountain it’s not because they’re bigoted. It’s because they’re heterosexual. “Heterosexuals Attracted to Members of the Opposite Sex“–for those cultural critics wondering what a commercial disappointment for this much-heralded movie will Tell Us About America Today, there’s your headline…
King Kong barely got a mention at the Golden Globes. If Peter Jackson had been smart, he would have remade it with Kong as a giant, gentle, misunderstood gay gorilla, and replaced Naomi Watts with Jake Gyllenhaal as the love interest.
No matter how much the media and the glitteratti want me to, I simply cannot muster up the will to even contemplate, let alone actually drag my weary carcass to a movie theatre, to watch a love story about gay cowboys.