No, your Trump-is-gay-for-Putin jokes aren't funny
Trump is ineffectual, and even dangerous, in his foreign policy. Gay romance metaphors do not convey this reality — they obscure it.
By Meredith Loken July 17
Meredith Loken is an incoming assistant professor in the department of political science at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst.
On Monday, as President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin met in Helsinki for their controversial summit, the New York Times Opinion section’s Twitter page circulated an animated video titled “Trump and Putin: A Love Story.” The newspaper described the video: “Donald Trump’s not-so-secret admiration for Vladimir Putin plays out in a teenager’s bedroom, where the fantasies of this forbidden romance come to life.” The shirtless men kiss passionately, ride unicorns through fields of rainbows and daydream about one another over pink and purple landscapes.
The video is deeply homophobic, using the possibility of gay sexuality to belittle both men. What’s more, it’s the product of a journalistic trend that uses gay romance as a metaphor for political weakness and inefficiency. As any feminist security-studies scholar will tell you, these lazy, dangerous narratives result from the entrenchment of masculinity and heterosexuality in U.S. foreign policy. They trickle down from the ways we talk about security in our military institutions, and they have profound implications for the safety and security of queer people around the world.
Gay romantic depictions of Trump’s relationships with foreign leaders often propagate when his diplomatic strategies are most ill conceived. After Trump initially canceled his summit with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, The Washington Post’s David Ignatius called Trump’s cancellation notice a “breakup letter” and concluded that he “writes in the tone of a wounded suitor.” After the summit, the Boston Globe printed a cartoon that featured Trump and Kim sharing a milkshake and writing love letters against a backdrop of hearts, a unicorn and a rainbow. The cartoon asks, “Will it be true love or just a … ‘Singapore fling?’ ” The New York Times’s Frank Bruni (who is gay and often writes about gay rights) described Trump’s conciliatory attitude toward Putin’s interference in the 2016 election as that of a “besotted lover.” He called it “a classic tale of affections strangled and at times set free.” Last year, Stephen Colbert faced a backlash after looking into the camera and telling Trump, “The only thing your mouth is good for is being Vladimir Putin’s c— holster.”
These depictions attack Trump’s desire to appear powerful and legitimate abroad by emasculating and reducing him to a purportedly “unmanly” act. The persistence of such narratives in a liberalizing climate of gay rights seems perplexing. However, they result in part from the ingrained expectations of a particular type of manhood in U.S. institutions. Specifically, we can trace them to hyper-masculinity in the military.
Military recruits and strategists undergo socializations that force them to reject femininity and adopt alpha, warrior mentalities. Men are expected to control emotions; take risks; display aggression, violence and physical toughness; and promote overt heterosexuality. These processes are often sexual. For example, in some military training, soldiers chant, “This is my rifle [holding up rifle], this is my gun [motioning to penis]; one’s for killing, the other’s for fun.” Carol Cohn recalls working with defense strategists at a university’s center on defense technology and arms control, where she observed “white men in ties discussing missile size.” They spoke of “vertical erector launchers … deep penetration, and the comparative advantages of protracted versus spasm attacks — or what one military adviser to the National Security Council has called ‘releasing 70 to 80 percent of our megatonnage in one orgasmic whump.’ ” In interactions with defense officials, she encountered discussion of “whether political leaders ‘had the stones for war.’ ”
more
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/07/17/no-your-trump-is-gay-for-putin-jokes-arent-funny/
= new reply since forum marked as read
I understand your point of view. I was thinking the same thing until I posted a picture with a homosexual caption. Following some reactions which, I specify it, were politely expressed, I explained that I did not aim at the LGBT community in any case but that it was a metaphor. I deleted the image leaving only the link and a warning about the sensitive content. One member replied that yes, it is easy to understand the metaphor, but it was still hurtful. I erased the post, but more importantly, it gave me something to think about.
I understood that it was not the LGBT community that had a disproportionate reaction, but we were wrong to use this metaphor.
Because, on the one hand, it has little relevance and, on the other hand, it is becoming dangerously commonplace to the detriment of a minority when, precisely, the rights of minorities, particularly with regard to sexual orientation, are very seriously threatened.
Even if, out of habit, we don't always think about it, we should really stop making this kind of harmful comparison for LGBTs but also for women. To say that Trump is Putin's whore and to imply that women are little more than objects is just as dangerous.
/file
Putin's Bitch on Twitter. I feel it's fitting. Is that wrong?
I've always thought making homosexual references was an insult to the LBGQT community. Same goes for referring to any republican woman as a c--t. Insulting! Let's improve our volcabularies and use words that mean something!
A large percentage of jokes will offend someone these days, and the internet gives the offended a megaphone. Seinfeld and Maher won't even do gigs on college campuses anymore for that reason.
[img]
[/img]
The deplorables are on message 100 percent of the time, 7 days a week, 365 a year, and are destroying our democracy forever.
But hey at least we will have this sorted. I don’t know about you but it sure brings me comfort
Have been long-time listeners to her show and they love it, and they laugh @ the Miss Lindsey clutches his pearl bits. 4 of my friends went to her Sexy Liberal Tour last year, and tell me that they weren't even offended @ the gay jokes told on the tour. And, they love Stephanie & Travis (Both of whom are lesbian/gay themselves) Just stating what my friends who are gay/lesbian tell me tht they think of Stephanie, Travis the "jokes" on her show et al.
