Exodus International executive director Alan Chambers and spokesman Randy Thomas frequently publish broad accusations against “radical” and “elite” gays without identifying specific individuals or citing specific statements or events. This tactic sometimes raises questions over whether the activists, statements or events really exist.
While this tactic has proven unprofitable for Exodus, lesbian author Tammy Bruce appears to make a successful living doing the same thing. Perhaps not surprisingly, Messrs. Chambers and Thomas use Ms. Bruce’s arguments to justify their own.
According to The Providence Journal, Ms. Bruce — author of “The New Thought Police” and “The Death of Right and Wrong” — was invited to Roger Williams University by the campus College Republicans.
She accused gay leaders of silencing opponents; romanticizing AIDS; sanctioning unsafe sex, pedophilia, and sadomasochism; and promoting a culture of victimization.
Nowhere — not in the news article, anyway — does she identify specific leaders or provide specific examples (date, location, and quotation) of their offenses.
From the news article:
This is a world, she said, based on alcohol, drugs and sex. And it’s a group who uses Gestapo-like tactics to impose its agenda on the larger liberal community.
The Gestapo used anonymous, unsubstantiated, and inflammatory accusations to demonize Jews. Ms. Bruce would be wise — but perhaps less profitable on stage — to re-examine her own public-speaking tactics.
I might have liked the previous color scheme and lay out better and was disappointed when you changed the color scheme and lay out to this but wow! With the photos, this is a real improvement over anything you had previously. Don’t change the color scheme back to the previous one, I doubt that those colors work as well with photos.
Honestly, I wish that both the article and this blog had given more quotes and longer quotes as to what she said or at least that someone would read some of her works. I hate roasting someone without better evidence of offense and that article was a little too skewed towards the reaction and feelings of the reporter than it was to what happened. Although, honestly I suspect that she might have said it. I do remember getting a chuckle when I saw that book on the shelf in the bookstore a few months ago. Read the cover and the inside page and figured that if you were going to do is bemoan the “loss” of right and wrong as if people in the past were somehow more moral than they are today then I didn’t think it would make good reading.
However if an ex-gay organization likes using a lesbian’s arguments then politics truly makes strange bedfellows.
Question just how profitable this is for Ms Bruce. Seems like she is a paid performer for the religious right, not someone who went out and sought an audience. Before the rr began promoting her, I had never heard of her. She strikes me as a paid performer who appears when summoned, does what is paid for, collects the money and leaves the stage.
As for the charges, I agree she should name names. And give specifics. I have never seen any gay leader endorse unsafe sex etc. except her fellow conservatie activist Andrew Sullivan. And his enablers at the IGF. Beyond this right wing cabal, I see no evidence of any such movement. And certainly none among those whom she and Exodus call ‘liberal’ and ‘leftists’.
The blog colors are easy to change; if someone would like to suggest a different scheme for the banner and link colors, just let me know.
I agree with Jason, it’s time for me to read Tammy Bruce’s books. I’ll order copies.
I can think of isolated activists — not movement leaders — who fit some of her characterizations. But even if she names names in her books, I’m familiar with too many activists to be convinced she’s not overgeneralizing — and glossing over identical moral failings on the political right.
Where Ms. Bruce is an anti-left contrarian, I try to be an equal-opportunity contrarian.
And IGF enable Andrew Sullivan? I had no idea IGF was so powerful. I consider that a compliment. Thanks, Dale.
You are most welcome Mike. Anytime.
Buying Ms Bruce’s books might not be the most ethical way to proceed. Try getting them from a library and make a donation to a glbt friendly org instead.
I did read her ridiculous shreed on the death of right and wrong. Alan had posted at BA urging people to read it. The book relies on information from World Net Daily and other hyper right wing authors. Interestingly, after urging people to read, Alan did not participate in the discussion.
The Bridges Across review is at:
https://www.bridges-across.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=10&t=000110
I wouldn’t order them new. I’ll order them used.
Um, Bruce is a useful tool for the religious right, and has been since the publication of her first book a couple of years ago. It was reviewed in Boston’s BayWindows. She struck me then as being simple-minded, and this also strikes me as being simple-minded.
BTW, Bridges-Across is a waste of time
You really wouldn’t expect the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women to elect someone so “simple-minded” as thier president, now would you? I’ve read both books and can assure you — she is neither simple-minded nor “lock-step” with her political and sexual peers. A free-thinker if there ever was.
Sometimes self-crticism is the most painful kind. Which must be why feminists and queers can only scream OUCH! at the mere mention of here name…
A truly open minded person has nothing to fear from Tammy. She’s certainly not “anti-gay” by any means…
As one who considers herself a free-thinker and an anti-lockstep person, I don’t fear Tammy Bruce. Some of the things she says makes sense. But I don’t agree with other things. However, I don’t categorize her opinions as “self-criticism.” I don’t see her as part of my team.
Part of my BA review of Tammy Bruce’s book;
Chapter 4 deals with gay issues. Looking over her sources, I note that 3 articles in World Net Daily are quoted. Along with right wingers Brent Bozell, David Horowitz, Rod Dreher. The rest are either demographic information or quotes from newspapers or the Advocate.com, not the print version. This seems a bit peculiar since she has consistently told us that [i]the Left[/i] dominates the intellectual and academic environment. So, it would seem to be reasonable [b]to quote from them directly not through newspapers and WorldNetDaily[/b].
First up, the wonderful title: [b]First the Culture, Then the Children: The Agenda of the Radical Gay Elite[/b]. She names groups that make up this part of [i]the Left[/i]: GLAAD, GLSEN, HRC, NGLTF. She however names no names, which again is strange when she refers to these people as ‘All have termendous cultural and political influence.’ OK, [b]who[/b] are they?
Her opening example is that of lesbian s&m. She assumes that this is about pain and suffering. No evidence for that view is provided. Tammy is found of doing things by fiat. Then 5 pages on the horror of the transgendered. How there is a plot afoot to lure little children into having sexual reassingment surgery.
Next comes her section on gay men whose culture:’…is largely one of promiscuity and unprotected intercourse.’ Not one piece of evidence is offered. Edmund White, a prominent gay author, is quoted sort of. His quote is filtered through David Horowitz’s paraphase. Then on to what she characterizes as [i]the bareback movement[/i]. Her sources on this, are actually only one sensationalized article in [i]Newsweek[/i]. She continues on condemning the rise in HIV infection among 16 to 25 year olds. Which is quirky since she also condemns teaching these same people safe sex.
The idea that a few gay men continue to give blood upsets her. Tammy thinks that if gay men do not give blood, there would be no need to test each donation for STD’s. Dream on.
GLSEN and the well known Massachusett’s conference are the next topic. Subheadings run to:[b]GLSEN Wants Your Children, Every Parent’s Nightmare[/b]. Her sources for this are WorldNetDaily and Rod Dreher of National Review.
Boy Scouts hove into view. Tammy makes the case that gay men would only want to be involved for the purpose of seducing kids. She ignores, or is unaware of, the constant concern expressed by gay men for those scouts who realize they are gay and are then mistreated and abused by the organization before expulsion. Her sources here are from WorldNetDaily.
She then has a few words about Sesame Street. The chapter ends with a list of recommendations.
Since this book has been admiringly advocated by sideB, I would hope that those who have been promoting it would respond to what I have found here. Tammy Bruce has put together one of the sloppiest, most poorly researched hatchet jobs I have ever encountered. What is it that lead those who claim to be of good will to recommend this book? Could they please have the courtesy to explain their positions.
Question from someone and my response:
Currently, I am in the middle of reading her book titled “The NEW Thought Police.” It is a very interesting read– and she makes some *great* points. Points that need to be made.
The problem I find is she only makes points. She does not back up her points. In fact, she has fallen into the very persistent sideB trap of only using sideB sources. Which sources themselves only use sideB sources. Her treatment of subjects is short, snappy and makes a point in about 5 pages max. Apparently her intended audience is unable or unwilling to consider any topic at length. Sort of a book for those with attention deficit disorder.
Going over the text, on areas I am familiar with, I notice that she puts in a lot of derogatory language. Her claims about gay men border on blood libel.
Let me recapitulate my points here. WorldNetDaily is not a reputable source of information about gay men. It is a right wing religiously influenced propaganda rag. Brent Bozell, Rod Dreher, David Horowitz are not reliable sources for information on gay men. They are all right wing advocates with a definite agenda.
The reputable and respectable and even believable way to research the subject of gay men is to quote gay men directly. To quote from their published works. To go to a variety of gay male sources and quote from them. Even to quote a number of sources that take different positions on the issue at hand. David Horowitz’ paraphase of what Edmund White said is simply not acceptable. Kurt, Wes, do you think I am spinning here?
What would be acceptable would be for Tammy to directly quote Edmund White, state when he said this, and see if he had changed his mind. I think what they refer to is something about 25 years old. And as I recall he has signifigantly modified his position since then.
When one writes about people, serious thinkers tend to quote from those people directly. Tammy does not do so. This invalidates her thesis.
Tammy relies upon an unidentified the Left to explain everything. Generally, authors begin with defining and identifying their topic. Tammy’s the Left is known only through their actions. She has no proof they exist apart from what they do.
Tammy goes into the current scandal in the RC in several places. Here her sources are one newspaper article that did a small study of perpetrators and the usual right wing suspects. The study she references found that the majority of molestors were ordained between 1970 and 1975. From this she concludes that these men are part of the gay elite. Further horror: the sixties!.
OK, first off RC priests are almost never outgay men. They are closeted and usually deeply repressed. Frankly, they have no contact that can be documented with the leadership of gay organizations. No contact even with outgay men. How does she make this leap in logic? She uses Rose’ Goodbye Good Men. Which is a piece of utter dreck. Ignores all evidence that does not support his thesis. Compreses the few facts he is willing to look at into a narrow interpretive framework.
What Rose and Tammy ignore is this: clergy-youth sexual contact within the RC can be documented as far back as the 1920’s. This is seen in Canada, in Ireland, increasingly in Poland, in short throughout the world. Since this phenomena pre-dates the 1960’s, it can not be caused by either the Gay Movement or liberalization of sexual mores. Rather, it appears to be a feature of the RC hierarchy and its policies. Which broke down in the last 20 years. Which invalidates her whole system of analysis. Tammy can only argue things by ignoring, suppresing and pretending evidence and facts are not there. Her approach is to urge the audience: ignore the man behind the curtain.
Dale, there is also no proof that it was gay men who have been doing the sexual molestation in the RC church. Although most of the public cases have been of priests molesting boys, close to half of the adult members of SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests) are women. The very worst of the molesters (like Frs. Porter and Geoghan (sic?)) abused both boys and girls, and it is not clear that abuse=rape. Many molesters do not actually have sex with their victims or receive sexual gratification from their victims, it is more a crime of power.
Linking gay men to molestation (e.g., Ms. Bruce’s contention about the Boy Scouts) is also factually incorrect. Every single reputable (e.g., not work by Paul Cameron or his cronies) investigation of sexual orientation and child sexual abuse finds that out gay men are no more likely, and in most cases, are less likely than their straight male peers to molest children. In something like 75 – 80 percent of cases, the molester is in a sexual relationship with the child’s mother. That doesn’t even get into the number of abusers who are themselves juveniles and abuse victims, or the actual pedophiles, who are adults that cannot form a sexual attraction to another adult – they are only turned on by children. Pedophiles tend to molest boys because they are easier to get at, but will molest either gender – their attraction is to pre-pubescent children.
CPT, thanks for confirming my points. Tammy Bruce does no research beyond clipping articles from extreme right wing sources. She refuses to recognize the wide scope of gay thought on issues. She blames everything on ‘elites’ and ‘leftists’ while refusing to identify just who it is she is talking about. It is beyond her abilities to even look up quotes from gay authors. Instead she presents collages of right wing religious smears as her own opinion.
This has been brought up to Alan previously. At Bridges Across all the points I make above were posted. In response to Alan’s praise of The Death of Right and Wrong. Alan did not respond to the critiques made by many others beside myself. Instead he continues to praise Tammy Bruce. These are not evidences Alan has any plausible reason to be unaware of. Instead of either responding to them or denying them, he continues to push this book.
Who cares about Tammy Bruce? Tell me what colors to use on the blog! 🙂
I can’t really add anything new, except I do want to say that it upsets me to tears when ex-gay or anti-gay groups use gay and lesbian authors as sources when they criticize our community. Then they say queer authors are lying when we say anything positive.
Well Mike, don’t use red and green. I don’t see them, or at least rarely see the difference between the two. And do not do the black on red. Find it totally unreadable. How about blue and yellow? Almost no one is color blind to them.
Look, let’s get something–uh–straight.
Tammy Bruce is an Ann Coulter wannabe.
The best thing to do with someone like that is to ignore them. Quite frankly, her time never went, in large part because it never came.
I think you’re right about that, Raj.