Slog
News & ArtsThursday, May 26, 2011
Politics / Sex Scarlett Johansson Stands With Planned Parenthood—And So Should You
Posted by Dan Savage on Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:40 AM
Scarlett Johansson's ad for Planned Parenthood (via Atrios):
The religious right's batshit response. Planned Parenthood's founder may have had some issues—but, hey, you know who else did? The Founding Fathers. So obviously anyone who's proud to be an American should be portrayed in KKK robes, right?
Stand up to the nuts and sexphobes and ladyhaters by standing with Planned Parenthood. Go to www.istandwithplannedparenthood.com and sign the petition. And throw a few bucks their way while you're there Because every little bit helps:
Planned Parenthood of Indiana says it will continue serving Medicaid patients through at least June 15 after receiving more than $100,000 in donations from 46 states and several countries. The organization says donors are responding to a new Indiana law cutting off much of its public funding.
Donate to Planned Parenthood of Indiana here. And remember to take J.C.Y.'s advice and make a donation in Mitch Daniels' name.
1
I started to watch the right wing response video, but decided to stop before it reached the vomit point.
2
Dan, your "I Stand With Planned Parenthood" link appears to be to the page that comes after you sign the petition.
3
Wow. I am right when I say religion causes brain damage. Now I hope Johansson sues the living crap out of this group for defamation!
6
Not to mention, Vince, that that would probably give that group even more publicity than this stunt is likely to generate.
8
@3
I agree completely. Political disagreement should remain political and vicious smear campaigns against those with whom we disagree have no part in the process for mature adults.
So, when will you be castigating Savage for his hate campaign against Rick Santorum?
Sorry, I forgot that this would require intellectual honesty and integrity, almost completely absent from the left wing world-view.
I agree completely. Political disagreement should remain political and vicious smear campaigns against those with whom we disagree have no part in the process for mature adults.
So, when will you be castigating Savage for his hate campaign against Rick Santorum?
Sorry, I forgot that this would require intellectual honesty and integrity, almost completely absent from the left wing world-view.
11
You're forgetting again- Conservatives believe in things like appropriate public behavior or conversation. They believe in societal rules we agree to abide by for the sake of the larger society. It's liberals who don't understand concepts like 'polite company.'
12
@8: The birth of "santorum" as a neologism was retaliation in kind; Rick Santorum had made, and repeatedly stood by, vicious, inflammatory, and inaccurate statements comparing homosexuality to bestiality and pedophilia. Ms. Johansson, in this advertisement, was level-headed and non-accusatory. She's not making those opposed to Planned Parenthood out to be inhuman monsters, but rather explaining why Planned Parenthood is ultimately good for society.
The KKK robe would have been understandable if she had, say, burned in effigy those attempting to defund Planned Parenthood. But as the ad stands, it's really just ignoring her points and attacking her character via a bizarre sort of guilt-by-association.
TL;DR: Dan said mean things about Rick Santorum after Rick Santorum said mean things about gays. "defundpp" said mean things about Scarlett Johansson after she said nice things about Planned Parenthood. See the difference?
The KKK robe would have been understandable if she had, say, burned in effigy those attempting to defund Planned Parenthood. But as the ad stands, it's really just ignoring her points and attacking her character via a bizarre sort of guilt-by-association.
TL;DR: Dan said mean things about Rick Santorum after Rick Santorum said mean things about gays. "defundpp" said mean things about Scarlett Johansson after she said nice things about Planned Parenthood. See the difference?
13
Climb down off your high horse before you get a nose bleed, Seattleblues. Please.
Neither side is innocent of slander. Nor are you. Since you can only change yourself, perhaps it would be best if you apply your standards of "intellectual honesty and integrity" to your own comments. Or does your slandering others get a free pass, because of your sense of moral superiority? I don't agree, you must start by applying "intellectual honesty and integrity" to every comment you make. Without doing so your comments reveal you to be nothing but an actor wearing a mask, or maybe you prefer the Greek word "hypocrite"?
Your human, Seattleblues. Sometimes wonderful and sometimes highly bigoted, rude, slandering, judgemental, and prideful. Many of us can acknowledge these failings in ourselves, but most of us lack the courage and conviction to change. Be the change you wish to see.
Enjoy your day.
Neither side is innocent of slander. Nor are you. Since you can only change yourself, perhaps it would be best if you apply your standards of "intellectual honesty and integrity" to your own comments. Or does your slandering others get a free pass, because of your sense of moral superiority? I don't agree, you must start by applying "intellectual honesty and integrity" to every comment you make. Without doing so your comments reveal you to be nothing but an actor wearing a mask, or maybe you prefer the Greek word "hypocrite"?
Your human, Seattleblues. Sometimes wonderful and sometimes highly bigoted, rude, slandering, judgemental, and prideful. Many of us can acknowledge these failings in ourselves, but most of us lack the courage and conviction to change. Be the change you wish to see.
Enjoy your day.
14
@11: "Conservatives believe in things like appropriate public behavior or conversation"
>photoshop Scarlett Johansson into a KKK robe to try and make a fallacious argument
Also, SB, I'm still waiting on your response in this thread. So, homosexuals have always been equal under the law in this country?
>photoshop Scarlett Johansson into a KKK robe to try and make a fallacious argument
Also, SB, I'm still waiting on your response in this thread. So, homosexuals have always been equal under the law in this country?
15
Apparently seattleblues has never been to a town hall meeting in which members of the tea party were present. If he had, he'd know that "appropriate public behavior" is not something conservatives understand.
16
@8 I think you are confused. Santorum was the one issuing the slander and insults. He earned his appellation.
17
VL
@14
You may be a student, and you seem one genuinely interested in learning about the world around you. Congratulations.
I have a business and a family and a life to run. Unfortunately responding to every post someone places on this blog doesn't always get put high on the priority list. Given a choice between checking a thread I wrote a comment on or making my living, having a cup of coffee with my wife, playing with my kids or walking my dogs I'm afraid you'll come out losing. No hard feelings I hope.
Sodomy laws applied to everyone, gay or straight. No discrimination in that, though there may have been in prosecution. If so, this was because gays chose a lifestyle at odds with the larger culture and bore the consequences of those choices. Don't have the courage to face the those consequences? Easy, make other life choices.
Fundamentally, we grant gays protection under the law on the same terms we do everyone else. Or we grant them special status, higher value to their citizenship than that of others. That is, we say that the choice to embrace a gay lifestyle bears consequences which the chooser must accept. Or we apply to that one choice protection from those consequences. The former is the rule of law. The latter is bad precedent.
@12
Which innacurate statements would those be? Please remember that an opinion Mr. Santorum may have stated may be poorly supported or just obnoxious, but it can't be innacurate since it isn't presented as objective fact.
So one of a few things is true. Savage responded to bile directed at a group of people among whom he numbers with direct personal bile. Or Savage responded to Santorum's lack of facts with his own lack of facts. Or Savage responded to poorly stated opinions with vulgar personal smears.
Even granting that Santorum was wrong (which I don't) the response Savage made was that of a depraved adolescent, not a mature adult secure in his position.
More...
@14
You may be a student, and you seem one genuinely interested in learning about the world around you. Congratulations.
I have a business and a family and a life to run. Unfortunately responding to every post someone places on this blog doesn't always get put high on the priority list. Given a choice between checking a thread I wrote a comment on or making my living, having a cup of coffee with my wife, playing with my kids or walking my dogs I'm afraid you'll come out losing. No hard feelings I hope.
Sodomy laws applied to everyone, gay or straight. No discrimination in that, though there may have been in prosecution. If so, this was because gays chose a lifestyle at odds with the larger culture and bore the consequences of those choices. Don't have the courage to face the those consequences? Easy, make other life choices.
Fundamentally, we grant gays protection under the law on the same terms we do everyone else. Or we grant them special status, higher value to their citizenship than that of others. That is, we say that the choice to embrace a gay lifestyle bears consequences which the chooser must accept. Or we apply to that one choice protection from those consequences. The former is the rule of law. The latter is bad precedent.
@12
Which innacurate statements would those be? Please remember that an opinion Mr. Santorum may have stated may be poorly supported or just obnoxious, but it can't be innacurate since it isn't presented as objective fact.
So one of a few things is true. Savage responded to bile directed at a group of people among whom he numbers with direct personal bile. Or Savage responded to Santorum's lack of facts with his own lack of facts. Or Savage responded to poorly stated opinions with vulgar personal smears.
Even granting that Santorum was wrong (which I don't) the response Savage made was that of a depraved adolescent, not a mature adult secure in his position.
18
@13
Actually, you're right. Most liberals are well meaning and sincerely want what's best for this country, or their state, or their town.
Then there are those like Savage or Goldy or Mudede who want to destroy what they can't win at. Savage is wealthy, but will always be a self imposed outsider in his culture given his sexual choices. (Not, btw just his choice of homosexuality. I refer more to the rejection of the constructive channeling of the potent sexual drive through monogamy and marriage and basic mores, which since he can't practice or have he wants to destroy.) Goldy can't make money, so he attacks those who can and demands the product of their labor. Mudede just smoked too much of whatever his preference was and lost his sanity. Whatever the driver, all these men share the childs petulant point of view. 'If I can't have it no-one else will either!'
However, for painting with too broad a brush I do apologize.
Actually, you're right. Most liberals are well meaning and sincerely want what's best for this country, or their state, or their town.
Then there are those like Savage or Goldy or Mudede who want to destroy what they can't win at. Savage is wealthy, but will always be a self imposed outsider in his culture given his sexual choices. (Not, btw just his choice of homosexuality. I refer more to the rejection of the constructive channeling of the potent sexual drive through monogamy and marriage and basic mores, which since he can't practice or have he wants to destroy.) Goldy can't make money, so he attacks those who can and demands the product of their labor. Mudede just smoked too much of whatever his preference was and lost his sanity. Whatever the driver, all these men share the childs petulant point of view. 'If I can't have it no-one else will either!'
However, for painting with too broad a brush I do apologize.
19
@ 11, you are NOT the person to be making such claims. Here's an example of your idea of "appropriate public behavior or conversa…
Seattleblues - just another hypocrite. Just another liar.
Now, why don't you, Goldy and Savage get the hell out of my country and go somewhere your pathetic liberal beliefs are valued?
Seattleblues - just another hypocrite. Just another liar.
20
Now, with all due respect, the hounds need a run, after which I have to make a living this afternoon. Have a pleasant day.
21
Scarlett Johansson is, IMO, the sexiest woman alive. Her sexiness goes beyond her perfect body and is enhanced in some unexplainable way by how she talks, moves, and looks at the camera.... This is what I found myself thinking about. But I did throw out a donation to PP.
22
Also, Seattleblues, you probably read Dan's challenge to the Canadian PM who shares your belief that gay is merely a choice. Since you're closer to where Dan lives, would you step up in the PM's place?
24
@17: Okay, you can make an excuse on sodomy laws.
Now tell me about Alan Turing. Tell me about how homosexuals were barred from being served alcohol in New York, amongst many other laws.
Tell me about how in Colorado, an amendment was made to the state constitution EXPLICITLY BANNING homosexuals and bisexuals (but not heterosexuals) from being protected by laws against sexual-orientation-related harassment and discrimination, laws which protected people of all orientations. (This amendment was approved by voters, but later struck down by the Supreme Court.) Tell me how homosexuals had equal rights under the law there.
Tell me about how it's not discriminatory that homosexuals (whether or not they actually HAD gay sex) were barred from entering the armed forces until the passage of DADT.
Even if we accept the ridiculous premise that laws are somehow not discriminatory if they only target sexual acts, you are clearly wrong here. Even in this country, which conceals the stains of past discrimination under the mantle of "Land of the Free", there has been plenty of explicit legal discrimination against homosexuals. For your own sake, do your research before you make your claims.
Now tell me about Alan Turing. Tell me about how homosexuals were barred from being served alcohol in New York, amongst many other laws.
Tell me about how in Colorado, an amendment was made to the state constitution EXPLICITLY BANNING homosexuals and bisexuals (but not heterosexuals) from being protected by laws against sexual-orientation-related harassment and discrimination, laws which protected people of all orientations. (This amendment was approved by voters, but later struck down by the Supreme Court.) Tell me how homosexuals had equal rights under the law there.
Tell me about how it's not discriminatory that homosexuals (whether or not they actually HAD gay sex) were barred from entering the armed forces until the passage of DADT.
Even if we accept the ridiculous premise that laws are somehow not discriminatory if they only target sexual acts, you are clearly wrong here. Even in this country, which conceals the stains of past discrimination under the mantle of "Land of the Free", there has been plenty of explicit legal discrimination against homosexuals. For your own sake, do your research before you make your claims.
26
@24, don't concede the sodomy law point so quickly.
It is incorrect to say that sodomy laws applied to everyone. The leading case on such a law, Lawrence v. Texas, struck down a law making it illegal to "engage[] in deviant sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex."
To argue that the law was facially neutral is to either ignore or tacitly admit that the purpose of the law was discriminatory. The Texas law targeted homosexuals not merely in application (i.e., prosecution), but by legislative design. And let's not forget that the law was called the "Homosexual Conduct" law.
From Justice O'Connor's Lawrence concurrence: "Sodomy between opposite-sex partners, however, is not a crime in Texas. That is, Texas treats the same conduct differently based solely on the participants. Those harmed by this law are people who have a same-sex sexual orientation and thus are more likely to engage in behavior prohibited by § 21.06."
It is incorrect to say that sodomy laws applied to everyone. The leading case on such a law, Lawrence v. Texas, struck down a law making it illegal to "engage[] in deviant sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex."
To argue that the law was facially neutral is to either ignore or tacitly admit that the purpose of the law was discriminatory. The Texas law targeted homosexuals not merely in application (i.e., prosecution), but by legislative design. And let's not forget that the law was called the "Homosexual Conduct" law.
From Justice O'Connor's Lawrence concurrence: "Sodomy between opposite-sex partners, however, is not a crime in Texas. That is, Texas treats the same conduct differently based solely on the participants. Those harmed by this law are people who have a same-sex sexual orientation and thus are more likely to engage in behavior prohibited by § 21.06."
27
@17 re: "Sodomy laws applied to everyone, gay or straight. No discrimination in that, though there may have been in prosecution. If so, this was because gays chose a lifestyle at odds with the larger culture and bore the consequences of those choices."
A culture that interferes in people's bedrooms is not a *free* culture. Trying to penalize and control harmless acts of choice is the sign of a government run amok.
A culture that interferes in people's bedrooms is not a *free* culture. Trying to penalize and control harmless acts of choice is the sign of a government run amok.
28
That was a sad excuse for an apology, Seattleblues. You used it as an excuse to slam others, others you claim you don't know, and therefore implied that your slander is justified. You let your pride do the talking.
You are not justified in slandering others, Seattleblues. Full stop. You may disagree to your heart's content, but you may not slander them. The example you set here is a rather poor one, but I doubt that your pride allows you to see that. You seem rather fond of worshiping your bank account and your inflated opinion of yourself. I feel sorry for you.
I've never met either Goldy or Mudede, but I presume that they are as human as any other person. I imagine that I would both agree and disagree with many of their opinions. But, that disagreement does not permit me to slander them. I have met Savage, on a few occasions, he is fully human and worthy of being treated as an equal under the laws of this country. He's not an outsider, he is my neighbor. His sexual orientation was not a choice, just as neither mine or yours was. I take offense at every slandering or derogatory statement you make towards both his character and his family. You claim to know nothing of him, but whatever thread you insert a snippy comment on. A foolish person is shown to be wise when he holds his tongue about subjects and individuals that he knows nothing of, in my opinion. I realize that your opinion keeps you for seeing any of my points. So, I'm not interested in a rebuttal.
Enjoy your day.
You are not justified in slandering others, Seattleblues. Full stop. You may disagree to your heart's content, but you may not slander them. The example you set here is a rather poor one, but I doubt that your pride allows you to see that. You seem rather fond of worshiping your bank account and your inflated opinion of yourself. I feel sorry for you.
I've never met either Goldy or Mudede, but I presume that they are as human as any other person. I imagine that I would both agree and disagree with many of their opinions. But, that disagreement does not permit me to slander them. I have met Savage, on a few occasions, he is fully human and worthy of being treated as an equal under the laws of this country. He's not an outsider, he is my neighbor. His sexual orientation was not a choice, just as neither mine or yours was. I take offense at every slandering or derogatory statement you make towards both his character and his family. You claim to know nothing of him, but whatever thread you insert a snippy comment on. A foolish person is shown to be wise when he holds his tongue about subjects and individuals that he knows nothing of, in my opinion. I realize that your opinion keeps you for seeing any of my points. So, I'm not interested in a rebuttal.
Enjoy your day.
30
@26: Nah, Seattleblues is playing the game that it doesn't discriminate against homosexual people, but rather against homosexual acts.
Rather than try to explain the error of this to him, which is a snipe hunt on the best of occasions, I'm explaining to him that there WERE indeed laws in this country that discriminated against Teh Ghey regardless of whether or not they were doing the nasty.
@29: You must be new here.
In which case, you may wish to know that Kim is, by any account, a good Christian, and according to some the patron saint of SLOG. Seriously, she's the nicest person on this website; everybody loves her. I sometimes wonder if she has "WWJD?" tattooed on the insides of her eyelids.
Rather than try to explain the error of this to him, which is a snipe hunt on the best of occasions, I'm explaining to him that there WERE indeed laws in this country that discriminated against Teh Ghey regardless of whether or not they were doing the nasty.
@29: You must be new here.
In which case, you may wish to know that Kim is, by any account, a good Christian, and according to some the patron saint of SLOG. Seriously, she's the nicest person on this website; everybody loves her. I sometimes wonder if she has "WWJD?" tattooed on the insides of her eyelids.
31
Planned Parenthood was founded in 1919. As horrible as it was, those were the beliefs of the time, and they're unlikely to find more than a handful of people who WEREN'T racist to some degree...
34
@30
Thanks for the tip, and yes, I am new here. Long-time Savage reader, but I recently took up the comments section as a way to whittle away the drudgery of office work. It's working nicely so far.
Thanks for the tip, and yes, I am new here. Long-time Savage reader, but I recently took up the comments section as a way to whittle away the drudgery of office work. It's working nicely so far.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
The Sunday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-WY) Says Members of His Party Have Rocks for Brains by Charles Mudede
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (35) RSS