Radical lesbian activist @EllenPage decided that @TedCruz needed a lecture from her about equality and discrimination:
DES MOINES — Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and actress Ellen Page, of “Juno” fame, got into a testy and free-wheeling discussion Friday over gay rights here at the Iowa State Fair.
“I’m happy to answer your question but not to have a back-and-forth debate,” Cruz told Page, as she pressed him about discrimination against LGBT citizens, approaching him as he flipped pork chops over an open grill. . . .
“Imagine, hypothetically, you had a gay florist and imagine two evangelical Christians wanted to get married and the gay florist decided, ‘You know what, I disagree with your faith, I don’t want to provide flowers,’” Cruz said.
“I would say they should provide the flowers,” said Page, who earlier charged Cruz’s argument was the same used to justify segregation.
“And I would say the gay florist has every right to say, if I disagree with your faith and don’t want to participate…you know what? There are lots of other people to buy flowers from,” Cruz said. “…We are a country that respects pluralism and diversity and there is this liberal intolerance that says that anyone that dares follow a Biblical teaching of marriage, that is the union of one man and one woman must be persecuted, must be fined and must be driven out of business.” . . .
The senator went on to say that the much bigger challenge for gay people comes from the Middle East, where they are deeply persecuted by the Iranian government as well as the leadership of ISIS.
“On the left you hear complete silence” — “That’s not true!” Page interjected — “about Iran hanging homosexuals, and yet the Obama administration is sending over $100 billion to a regime that murders homosexuals,” Cruz continued. . . . .
“Why does the Obama administration not stand against this?” Cruz said.
“I don’t know, I’d love to talk to Obama about it,” Page replied
“Then we’re agreed!” Cruz shot back,
“No, no we’re not, don’t do that,” the actress said.
“We’re agreed! Ma’am, we’ve had a long discussion,” Cruz said.
“Yeah, I appreciate it, yeah,” she said sarcastically, and walked away.
Unsurprisingly, the liberal media tried to spin this attempted ambush as a courageous triumph for the celebrity lesbian, but Ian Tuttle at National Review isn’t buying the spin:
Alternative headline: “Actress from That One Movie about Roller Derby Confronts Princeton Debate Champ — Goes about as You Might Expect.”
Beyond highlighting Cruz’s expert-level debate skills, the exchange exposed Page’s “rejection of conscience protections altogether, and her endorsement of radical government intervention in all such matters,” as Tuttle says. Her arguments are based in the Equality Über Alles mentality that characterizes not only the militant gay movement, but also the radical feminist movement and the Left in general. Grant them what they demand today, and the radicals will return tomorrow with new demands, because “equality” can never be achieved, not even under the absolute tyranny of a totalitarian dictatorship. The Nobel Prize-winning economist Friedrich Hayek explained that “social justice” is a mirage — it seems to appear up ahead in the distance, but vanishes as soon as you approach it. There will always be someone claiming to be a victim of unfairness, so that to make “equality” (or “social justice” or, more vaguely, “progress”) your goal is to declare war on society itself, to inaugurate what Trotsky called “permanent revolution.”
No such thing as “equality” has ever existed in the history of human civilization, nor will any measure endorsed by the Left bring about “equality” in the future. The insistent demand for “equality” is nothing more than a pretext for political aggression that the Left uses to gain power by pandering to those who hope to gain some advantage from the enactment of radical egalitarian policies.
Despite her celebrity status, Ellen Page ultimately cannot escape the inevitable consequences of inequality, not even in gay-friendly Hollywood. Her high-profile “coming out” in 2014 has damaged her career prospects as an actress because, despite what anyone may imagine, the market demand for gay celebrities is much smaller than the available supply. Denounce the movie-going public as a bunch of bigoted haters, if you like, but the heterosexual majority (97.7% of Americans, according to federal research) expect their entertainment to be entertaining, and tiresome propaganda about The People’s Glorious Democratic Struggle for Gender Equality is not entertaining.
In reporting Ellen Page’s Iowa encounter with Ted Cruz, Politico noted, “Page attended as part of her new show with Vice, called ‘Gaycation,’ where she travels around the world and explores local attitudes about LGBT culture in each place.” What the heck? In August 2014, A&E Networks paid $250 million for a 20% share in Vice Media, rebranding A&E’s lame H2 channel as Vice TV, with Page’s gay travel show as one of the Genius Programming Ideas to justify this investment. Is this just more Hollywood politically correctness run amok? Not necessarily.
In a nation of more than 320 million people, of whom 240 million are 18 and older, if 2.3% of the adult population are LGBT, that’s a potential audience of nearly 6 million gay people in the U.S. alone. If you consider also Canada, Great Britain, Australia and other English-speaking countries in a worldwide digital media marketplace — where everything is online, just a click and a download away — you could easily envision a much larger LGBT audience, not to mention the even larger audience speaking other languages, watching with closed-caption translations.
The Global Gay-o-Sphere, as we might think of it, could be a valuable niche, and there are plenty of perverts in show business who would love nothing more than to get rich celebrating their own favorite fetishes. However, the mass market will always be heterosexual, and there is a limit to how much Happy Hollywood Homo programming the market will bear. Whether or not the LGBT Lobby has already “jumped the shark” Fonzie-style remains to be seen, but at some point people will get tired of seeing Gay! Gay! Gay! everywhere, and a backlash will become evident.
And what’s up with that Donald Trump thing, anyway?
Ellen Page’s militant protest act — “Hey, let’s attack this ignorant Republican bigot in Iowa!” — may please whatever number gay people watch her Vice TV show, but what about the many millions of Americans she implicitly insults? Make no mistake: Ellen Page hates Christians and despises heterosexuality, per se, with the same kind of vindictive sour-grapes resentment of normal people that inspired radical feminists like Charlotte Bunch, Adrienne Rich, Marilyn Frye and Sheila Jeffreys.
“The radical feminist argument is that men have forced women into heterosexuality in order to exploit them, and that lesbians, in rejecting male definitions of sexuality, are undermining the patriarchy. . . .
“Lesbianism is . . . fundamentally a challenge to patriarchal definitions of women.”
— Celia Kitzinger, The Social Construction of Lesbianism(1987)
“Feminist theorists . . . would probably all agree that the pressuring of women into heterosexuality serves the purposes of male supremacy. . . .
“Both heterosexuality as a political system and sexual violence as social control depend upon the construction of heterosexual desire. . . . A feminist analysis would suggest that the reconstruction of sexuality is necessary to undermine the sexual system of male supremacy.”
— Sheila Jeffreys, The Lesbian Heresy: A Feminist Perspective on the Lesbian Sexual Revolution (1993)
“Lesbianism was seen as central to feminism, both as a challenge to male supremacy . . . and as a redefining of the category of women, for women, and by women and outside the male hegemony. . . .
“The feminist point is that sex is central to women’s oppression. . . . Lesbianism within the feminist context was meant as a challenge to the exclusiveness and ‘naturalness’ of heterosexual desire as the only form of intimacy women are allowed.”
— Denise Thompson, Radical Feminism Today (2001)
“In the early 1970s both gay and feminist movements concurred in critiques of patriarchal, heterosexual institutions, such as the family, and there was a sense of common cause. . . . [A]ddressing the patriarchal structures that shaped family life, revealing women’s discontents with heterosexual relationships . . . feminists laid the foundation for a thoroughgoing critique of heterosexuality . . .”
— Stevi Jackson and Sue Scott, Theorizing Sexuality (2010)
Feminists have been trying to destroy the traditional family and eradicate Christian morality for more than 40 years. It is certainly no coincidence that in July 2013, more than six months before she announced her lesbianism, Ellen Page declared her allegiance to radical feminism in an interview with the Guardian:
“I don’t know why people are so reluctant to say they’re feminists. Maybe some women just don’t care. But how could it be any more obvious that we still live in a patriarchal world when feminism is a bad word? . . . Feminism always gets associated with being a radical movement — good. It should be. A lot of what the radical feminists [in the 1970s] were saying, I don’t disagree with it.”
Not content with her career as a Celebrity Lesbian, the radical feminist Ellen Page uses her influence to attack traditional morality and to ridicule Republicans like Ted Cruz for daring to argue that Christians have a right to live according to their religious beliefs.
Maybe the executives at A&E can justify their $250 million investment in this kind of hateful “entertainment” for the LGBT market, but nobody should be surprised if the dividends on that dubious investment in radicalism include an angry backlash from normal people who don’t enjoy being lectured about their alleged “homophobia.”
“The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples.”
— U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker,
Aug. 5, 2010, San Francisco v. Schwarzenegger
“Believe me, sir, those who attempt to level never equalise. In all societies, consisting of various descriptions of citizens, some description must be uppermost. The levellers therefore only change and pervert the natural order of things; they load the edifice of society, by setting up in the air what the solidity of the structure requires to be on the ground.”
— Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France
Do we want “equality” or do we want liberty? This is really the question, and Americans should not be compelled to apologize for our love of liberty. From the Reign of Terror in France to the “Killing Fields” of Cambodia, we have repeatedly seen atrocities radicals have justified in the name of “equality,” and the feminist movement has been forever stained with innocent blood by its advocacy of the abortion holocaust. Why is it that extraordinarily privileged people like Ellen Page believe the rest of us are ignorant bigots in need of their lectures? Do they suppose that we know nothing of history? Do they believe we are incapable of rational judgment? Do they imagine that we cannot justify our opposition to their radical agenda?
Or do they think that we simply lack courage to fight for truth?
Typically, the people agitating for equality (so-called) are the ones who are already “more equal” than the rest of us.
I quite enjoyed that exchange between Ms. Page and Ted Cruz. I want more of that from GOP candidates. Bring. It. On.
I liked that, too. And I like Ted Cruz quite a bit. I think he’s presidential material, unlike *cough*Barry*cough*.
Homosexuals might understand it better if they’d quit talking about homosexuality for five seconds.
Should a Christian baker be forced to make a cake that says “Hail Satan” on it? Should a Jewish baker be forced to make a swastika cake? No.
It’s not oppression. Here’s why:
If a black man comes into my bakery, I sell him some product. If he specifically wants a cake that says “Kill Whitey” on it, and I tell him to take his business elsewhere, I didn’t refuse to serve him because he was black.
No one – NO ONE – has been refused service for being gay.
As many have noted, being gay has gone from the love that dares not speak its name to the obnoxious bully that won’t shut up
BWAHAHAHA! Perhaps many have said it, but it’s funny because it’s true.
I’ve made that identical argument in other venues, RKae, but the Sycophant Believers™ aren’t buying. Then I get the “but it’s just a cake” argument. To that I say, if it were “just” a cake, then have Gramma whip one up for you.
No, it’s not “just” a cake, or it wouldn’t cost beaucoup $. Nor is it “just” flowers, “just” pictures, “just” invitations, “just” a venue, etc. It’s a matter of artistry. So by your argument (I tell them), then I (an artist) must now, at gunpoint, paint a nude wedding portrait of the gay couple, prominently featuring their penises? Because if I don’t, I’m “oppressing” them? How is that not flat out totalitarianism?
Anyway, it ultimately devolves into several people calling me curse words and various insults and threats. You know, just like a regular day for McCain. : )
OT: In a recent (but now dormant) thread, The Osprey suggested a song called “Why Do Drunk Sluts Get Drunk?” My response:
I think it would be a country song…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MM3KkF5urY
…a nude wedding portrait of the gay couple, prominently featuring their penises…
I don’t think your average Presbyterian soccer mom who thinks she’s so hip and morally superior for agreeing with gay marriage is quite ready for the sort of “ceremonies” homosexuals are going to demand when they really get this thing going!
People may think their churches are “cool” and “progressive,” but just wait until a couple of gay guys (or FIVE gay guys) say, “We’re doing the ceremony naked, and we’re going to give each other **** *** right here in front of everyone!”
Try to say “no” then!
“Equality” means bigger and bigger appeals to the state to remedy whatever situation, and in doing that more state control over your lives. No better exams of this than the feminist movement. Every problem they have always has a solution by the state, and now they’re coming after your guns again. I really believe that liberals don’t understand this, and if it was explained in very simple terms they might stop being liberals.
*example
She’s being promoted because she’s really a pretty heterosexual girl who has been worked over into believing she is gay. Real gay women are not typically that gorgeous. Exceptions of course are women like Portia DiRossi (Mrs. Ellen), but for the most part, lesbian women are not terribly feminine or attractive.
Page is being used to make the younger generation of women into “political lesbians” (even if it is against their real attractions), and she’s pretty enough to do it. If you had someone like Andrea Dworkin or even Ellen selling it, most girls would give it a miss.
Actually, I used to think Ellen DeGeneres was pretty hot, that is, before she came out as lesbian, heh.
Yeah, one day she probably will discover that her fish needs a bicycle after all.
We like to analogize Orwell’s 1984 with the left, but I think Animal Farm deserves credit too.
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others
Usually the pretty ones go back to the natural order of things, because they can attract a man because they are attractive. If she was a real feminist lesbian she would ugly herself up to make the point.
I don’t care if it’s “just” a hairdo or rental equipment or a limousine ride. If you drag religious people into a religious ceremony, you have no right to force them to violate their religious convictions.
“Or do they think that we simply lack courage to fight for truth?”
I think they’ve probably picked up on the fact that most conservatives in social positions of nominal aren’t really going to fight beyond a certain point that they’re uncomfortable with even discussing, let alone enforcing. Certainly not to the level that, say, Russian Orthodox people will.
Or as “Conservative Pundit” says:
I support traditional values like the masculine headship of the family. I just get a little nervous discussing it within earshot of a woman.
Actually, almost all of @DemsRRealRacist tweets are pure gold.
To be fair, you need an established patriarchy to enforce common sense uniformly and effectively, but obviously setting up social structures on relational and biologicallines is the very definition of racist. I’m pretty sure that liberals and their apparatchiks would be willing to argue along those lines. The question is whether conservatives will fold at that logic or stand firm.
Her movie career went to the dumpster once she ‘came out’. Hope she enjoys her activism as a consolation prize.
Cruz should’ve said if he’s elected he’ll sent her on a fact-finding tour of Gaza, Uganda, Syria, Jamaica and Hyderabad.
Ellen was a reasonably attractive female way back then. But she has become far less feminine over the years and has done her best to look more “mannish.” I don’t know if this is a cause or symptom of her lifestyle.
She is only a few years older than me but she frankly looks like she has aged a great deal in the last 5 to 10 years. I think she looks much older than I do. Again, not sure if this is a cause or symptom.
Contrary to their belief, being a lesbian is not the same as being perceptive. Has this ditzy women not connected the rise in anti-homosexual laws in sub-Saharan Africa and India with the rise of tumblr/Twitter feminism? I’ve got news for you gals, those folks can read. They know the difference between an equity movement and a hate movement that wants to burn normal institutions right to the ground, especially when you say you want to burn normal institutions right to the ground. I am personally aware of two NGO research projects overseas looking into people like Page as being the unwitting representatives of what amounts to hate speech infiltrating genuine equity movements. That’s right: Page is mainstreaming hate speech to hapless gay folks in the Third World who don’t have the protections she enjoys. Conclusion from the Third World: don’t do us any favors.
If she had been a truly gifted actress, she would be posing as a carpet muncher of color. It’s 2015, for God’s sake!
Austin Ruse of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute has remarked that one problem with self-disclosure in these cases is that a person’s development as a human being comes to be frozen in amber and their public identity is consumed with their sexual problems. Re Ellen Page, my gut wagers this is quite salient. I’m not looking at that woman and believing for a moment that sexual disorders of the sort she claims are an abiding problem for her or need to be. Recall for a moment Gloria Steinem, who never married until she was 66 years old in part because she’d made such a public point around age 36 of not being married, of never regarding the men who took her out as anything but occasional companions, and of critiquing social practice according to the criterion of the social standing of the unmarried. Steinem did not ruin her life, but that life was less than it could have been. Eleanor Smeal and Letty Cottin Pogrebin built the domestic life that Steinem denied herself.
I think even Andrew Sullivan has acknowledged that lesbianism is much more about being drawn to certain social networks and ideological affiliations than is male homosexuality. If my own acquaintanceship with soi-disant lesbians is any guide, there’s a large element of contrivance in it as a matter of course. The lesbian I’m best acquainted with right now is a lesbian faux de mieux. Her male contemporaries rejected her for some unfathomable reason and she was just getting better offers from women than from men. Of course, that presupposes a cultural constellation that did not exist in 1952.
Did anyone ask why a Canadian citizen is making a pest of herself at a political event in the United States? It’s not as if there’s a shortage of pols back in Nova Scotia.
Exactly. That’s why I say we should pay attention to the psychological research from the start of the 20th Century: because it was the perfect laboratory in which to study same-sex attraction. The only practicing homosexuals were those with an impossible-to-conquer compulsion.
These days, people are, as Frank Zappa put it in “Thing-Fish”: “Turning gay for business purposes.”
Same reason Bono and Roger Waters feel the need to shout their idiotic opinions on American politics from the stage.
An argument from liberty manifested in freedom of contract and freedom of association is entirely valid and they scarcely ever attempt to argue the point except by offering analogies that incorporated their potted historiography and self-concept. The argument falls on deaf ears because the opposition has no non-sectarian conception of what liberty means. ‘Liberty’ is for the Anointed, not the Benighted, liberty for our preferences and not their preferences.
We live in a political world where projection is the norm. Our opposition is fundamentally sociopathic if not criminal; the logic of their viewpoint is that WE merit being treated as if we were criminals.
Indeed, creating enemies and division seems to be their number one goal.
It’s almost like you’re hinting that their “Coexist” bumper stickers are sort of disingenuous.
Quentin Crisp during the period after he immigrated to the United States was fairly skeptical of the gay politics he encountered. He reportedly asked one man, ‘From what do you want to be liberated’? From the age of 24 to the end of his life, Crisp didn’t give a cr*p what anyone thought of him. I suspect that’s a very alien mentality to most homosexual men, especially those who get involved in political activism; narcissism is the order of the day.
‘Liberty’ is for the Anointed, not the Benighted, liberty for our preferences and not their preferences.
They’re doing what all godless revolutions do: “Now it’s OUR turn to oppress you!” And the Reign of Terror that follows is bloody and sadistic, because they’re going to make “their turn” as vengeful and hateful as possible. This is due to the fact that most of the oppression that had been put upon their side was 10% in the distant past, and 90% imagined.
Page is being used to make the younger generation of women into “political lesbians”
And this culture shift is being directed by some very powerful interests.
Just look at how every Disney kid goes from squeaky-clean to Whore of Babylon. It’s a pattern set up by a corporate culture-war-machine.
People like Page are undoing the slow acceptance of equity feminism and leaving gay folks alone that has seeped into the Third World via Western media these last 50 years. What gender feminists have unleashed is setting their own supposed cause back. That reveals gender feminists have no real cause, only irrational hatred of men and whites. People like Page are the equivalent of anti-Semites infiltrating anti-Zionism, or white supremacists infiltrating contemporary Confederate historical societies. I don’t think Page gets that, but she doesn’t have to live in the Middle East, does she?
Oh no, it’s coexist alright, but in their form of sexual lifestyle sharia — you can live as a Christian heterosexual in their world as long as you accept that you’re wrong and put up with the humiliations and belittling they force upon you and tithe (via services and preferential treatments) to the religion of their sexual lifestyle choice.
I posted on this last year. Page’s sexual orientation was one of the worst kept secrets in Hollywood. And she has suffered in her choice of lifestyle to the tune of a $15 million net worth. She is yet another in a long string of actors/actresses who spend their days speaking words others have written for them, wearing clothes others pick out for them and standing where they’re told to stand. And because they sound so thoughtful doing this, they think that their opinion is somehow more valid and enlightened than yours or mine.
Vice channel? Are they going to show people shooting heroin too?
I’d call this “pitbull on a poodle” but it’s more “pitbull on a bull dyke.”
I’ve always wondered why I should listen to the opinions of people who make a career out of feigned sincerity.
Another Ellen, another example of narcissistic prolongation of adolescence into adulthood that some never progress [heh] beyond.
Page did it for her tv show. Another feminist relying on a man to make a living.
[…] The Other McCain covers radical feminism and the equality trap […]
Page’s career was based on being cute but not so gorgeous she appeared unapproachable. Declaring herself queer caused every guy to lose interest in seeing her on screen. The female audience for gay agitprop apparently isn’t enough to keep a budding actress in film — so she’s gone to a niche cable channel.
Her audience has shrunk to smaller than that of the “American Pickers” or “Duck Dynasty” folks.
The worse part of it is that H2 is the History Channel’s “backup” network. H2 is worth keeping iaround rather than turn it into a channel devoted to deviants.
Page was in a really poignant and disturbing anti-pedophilia movie titled ‘Hard Candy’ in 2005, in a role playing a 14 year old girl baiting a pedophile.
Ironic.
Hmm. Ellen Page might be able to pass for Indian (dot, not feather) if she went all-out with the hair, costume and jewelry. #wrongskin
[…] Radical Feminism and the “Equality” Trap Radical lesbian activist @EllenPage decided that @TedCruz needed a lecture from her about equality and discrimination […]
All liberals, and all homosexuals are communists.
Other than the fact that he looks like a sob-sister eunuch, I like what I know about Cruz. Unfortunately, he is no more a natural born US citizen than is #OccupyResoluteDesk.