In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff


We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.







Try Advanced Search


  1. Seattle Squeeze: New Urban Living
  2. Checking In
  3. Ben Aronson's Representational Abstractions
  4. Rock is ... Forever?
  5. We Need the Arts: A Sob Story
  6. Form Following (Commercial) Function
  7. Two Humorous Items from the Financial Crisis
  8. Ken Auster of the Kute Kaptions
  9. What Might Representational Painters Paint?
  10. In The Times ...


CultureBlogs
Sasha Castel
AC Douglas
Out of Lascaux
The Ambler
PhilosoBlog
Modern Art Notes
Cranky Professor
Mike Snider on Poetry
Silliman on Poetry
Felix Salmon
Gregdotorg
BookSlut
Polly Frost
Polly and Ray's Forum
Cronaca
Plep
Stumbling Tongue
Brian's Culture Blog
Banana Oil
Scourge of Modernism
Visible Darkness
Seablogger
Thomas Hobbs
Blog Lodge
Leibman Theory
Goliard Dream
Third Level Digression
Here Inside
My Stupid Dog
W.J. Duquette


Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
Andrew Sullivan
The Corner at National Review
Steve Sailer
Samizdata
Junius
Joanne Jacobs
CalPundit
Natalie Solent
A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
Rational Parenting
Public Interest.co.uk
Colby Cosh
View from the Right
Pejman Pundit
Spleenville
God of the Machine
One Good Turn
CinderellaBloggerfella
Liberty Log
Daily Pundit
InstaPundit
MindFloss
Catallaxy Files
Greatest Jeneration
Glenn Frazier
Jane Galt
Jim Miller
Limbic Nutrition
Innocents Abroad
Chicago Boyz
James Lileks
Cybrarian at Large
Hello Bloggy!
Setting the World to Rights
Travelling Shoes


Miscellaneous
Redwood Dragon
IMAO
The Invisible Hand
ScrappleFace
Daze Reader
Lynn Sislo
The Fat Guy
Jon Walz

Links


Our Last 50 Referrers







« Girls, Details, Yak | Main | A Question for our Presidential Candidates »

May 14, 2008

Gay Gay Gay

Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

Is Palm Springs the gayest city in the U.S.?

And did you know that the Dinah Shore Golf Tournament (officially the LPGA Nabisco Golf Tournament) is one of the country's premier lesbian gatherings? It's such a party that it's sometimes known as "Spring Break for lesbians." Buy an all-expenses-included ticket to what has become known as "The Dinah" here. A little late for 2008, but 2009 is just around the corner ...

Semi-related: Don't miss this Steve Sailer classic. I wrote an appreciation of the gay Canadian pornographer Bruce LaBruce. Is Apple an especially gay-friendly company?

Best,

Michael

posted by Michael at May 14, 2008




Comments

Here's my report on the Nabisco / Dinah Shore golf tournament that's the biggest lesbian party in America:

http://www.isteve.com/Golf_Lesbians_Nabisco.htm

Posted by: Steve Sailer on May 15, 2008 2:02 AM



Geez, Michael, you need to get out more. The newsmagazine shows covered the Dinah as a lesbian spring break years ago.

I bet you're also surprised that Suburu actively markets to lesbians (Lezburu).

Posted by: Brutus on May 15, 2008 12:51 PM



Steve -- Another classic, tks.

Brutus -- TV has been on it already? Damn. I hate it when mainstream media get a jump on me ...

Posted by: MIchael Blowhard on May 15, 2008 1:06 PM



Steve's article on why lesbians aren't gay is indeed one of his classics. I especially remember how hard I laughed when he described how lesbians claim to speak for all women in a way that gays don't for men. (I laughed when he pointed to the example of Patricia Ireland, the lesbian then-head of NOW entitling her autobiography "What Women Want".)

Snerk. Funny. I wonder however if that claiming to speak for women isn't just something lesbians do. Feminists are notorious for doing it too (and no cracks about how they're all lesbians!). But my experience is that women in general tend to do that, het, lez, bi, feminist, non-f, etc. I wonder if it's related to women's need to chatter about their day (referred to in the post below). Something about embedding every statement in some kind of social context.

Posted by: PatrickH on May 15, 2008 1:20 PM



Why is it that women are far, far more likely to have gay men friends than guys are to have lesbian woman friends?

Posted by: BIOH on May 15, 2008 1:32 PM



Is there any male alive who would even think of engaging a bull dyke in conversation, let alone befriending one of them? The vibes those creatures give off toward men are forbidding.

Posted by: ricpic on May 15, 2008 3:10 PM



Fun question. My hunch: because many gay men like women, where many lesbians don't like men.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on May 15, 2008 3:19 PM



Okay, I guess I get to be the asshole here: the serious lesbeterians are unfriendly to the mens b/c we are all living in a patriarchy, folks.

Pa. Tri. Ar. Chy.

Het women, any kind of man--even low man on the totem pole*--buy in, for the most part. Why not? They can assimilate. (I guess I should say *we* can assimilate, since I self-identify as a straight female.)

Radical lesbian feminists are opting out. Makes everyone a little uncomfortable, which is exactly as it should be. Yay for them, I say, even though (truth be told) they scare me a little. Level the playing field and we'll see what happens.

Me? I'm grateful I don't have to fight quite so hard, and for strides that have been made on my behalf by hard-working ladies who flew in the face of convention.

And yeah, I said "pole". Feminists can be pro-comedy, even the lowest-common-denominator kind.

Posted by: communicatrix on May 16, 2008 2:50 AM



the serious lesbeterians are unfriendly to the mens b/c we are all living in a patriarchy, folks.

Interesting. I've always thought that the anger of lesbians towards men was the result of a frustrated urge to social dominance. Lesbians, in this view, would have something like the male drive for status, influence, authority, a place in the upper reaches of hierarchies, but being women would find that urge to dominance stymied at every turn. Het women would, perhaps, not so much "buy into" the patriarchy as simply lack the motivation to seek status on the patriarchy's terms with the same monomaniacal energy as men. Lesbians, again perhaps, might have more masculine brains and therefore experience drives often thought of as "masculine" more intensely than most women.

Which raises the possibility that lesbians (not the campus kind, the real ones), have masculinized brains. Has anybody tested lesbians (real ones!) for testosterone levels?

Posted by: PatrickH on May 16, 2008 12:57 PM






Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:



Remember your info?