For those of you who are fortunate enough not to know, every other Thursday the Cornell Daily Sun runs two sex columns, one written by a male and the other by a female. Written under pseudonyms, these articles are often borderline-pornographic, or go for as much shock and awe as possible.
One of last Thursday’s column, written by a guest writer under the guise of “Masc. Dom. Top” and entitled “Embracing Monogamish,” made a seemingly harmless jab at The Cornell Review in its first paragraph:
The day has finally cum. The “gays” have officially infiltrated The Sun’s weekly sex column. Quick! Someone call The Cornell Review before I tear down too many good ole “traditional” American family values! SPOILER ALERT: You’re too late.
Clearly, Masc. Dom. Top represents the zenith of maturity at Cornell.
When I first read the opening paragraph, I didn’t think much of it: “Just another poke in the ribs. He’s entitled to his own opinion about us, even if it’s false.” But after reading the terribly boring piece through, I re-read the first paragraph and realized his mentioning of the Review had nothing to do with his article. It was irrelevant, but nobody would care, because it’s just a joke to say that all conservatives are homophobic or anti-gay.
It was at this point it dawned on me just how bad things have become, at least on this campus. You see, jokes are fine. Anyone can joke about the Review or me personally, and I won’t care. I joke about the people I disagree with all the time. The distinction here, however, is that the joke has evolved into an untrue truth–a lie that for some reason everyone believes to be true, though they don’t have any evidence or argument to support it.
For too long, conservatives have let these little remarks go on unabashed and unchallenged, either because we have been too scared to challenge them or because we thought their pettiness didn’t warrant our attention.
I decided to submit a letter to the editor to the Sun, which, to my surprise, it decided to run. Here it is, published today:
In his Nov. 6 column “Embracing Monogamish,” guest writer Masc. Dom. Top laments on his love life and struggles with monogamy. More importantly, in the first paragraph he takes a direct jab at The Cornell Review, the campus’ conservative and libertarian publication, by implying Review members are anti-gay because we stand for “good ole ‘traditional’ American family values.”
While The Cornell Review does occasionally criticize the campus LGBTQ community — as it criticizes many other campus groups — this does not mean Review writers are inherently prejudiced against those who identify as LGBTQ. Additionally, no published article under recent editorial leadership has ever concerned or promoted “American family values.”
Mr. Top thinks he can make these flippant remarks and slip on by unabashed. But for far too long conservatives on campus have been on the receiving end of this type of unwarranted chiding, with outright falsities passed on as fact simply because they fit the liberal-progressive political narrative: conservatives are all homophobes, sexists, racists, etc.
Never is there even a shroud of evidence to back up these asinine claims. The reason is because there is none. But for those cowering behind this rhetorical cloud there is nowhere to turn. Without the name-calling, the liberal-progressive political ideology is revealed as what it truly is: empty.
Cornell’s conservatives must no longer let this type of behavior go unchecked. It is our own fault to have let it come to this point, and, sadly, we have become just as spineless as most of our criticizers.
In close, Mr. Top, I hope you and those who share your views about the Review prepare evidence the next time you wish to call us out. In the mean time, I wish you the best of luck in maintaining a happily monogamous relationship.
Statistical evidence that, on the whole, nearly twice as many Republicans (conservatives) are negative towards members of the LGBTQ community than Democrats (liberals):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia#mediaviewer/File:Fig._148_-_How_do_you_feel_about_gays_and_lesbians.JPG
Unless a lot has changed since 2008 when this study of over 2,000 people was conducted, I think it’s still relatively accurate.
I do understand, however, how you might take offense to this individual’s jab. I think this was actually best explained to me by comedian W. Kamau Bell a little while back… he spoke on racism, and why white people feel bad in the presence of racism, and quite frankly, it’s because we’re white. To break that down, on the whole, white people tend to be more frequently racist than other races. Am I white? Yes. Am I racist? I don’t believe so (please tell me if I’m wrong). The same goes for sexual assault… most sexual assaults are committed by males… am I male? Yes. Have I ever committed/do I ever plan to commit sexual assault? No. But when I hear people go after men for their role in sexual assault, it makes me upset. Is it wrong for those people to address men on their role in sexual assault? No. But why do I feel bad? Association.
By calling the Review a conservative publication, it associates itself with other conservative things, like the Republican party, for instance, which on the whole has a decently strong stance against the LGBTQ community (again, reference link to chart above). Might the writing of the Review be aimed towards attacking the LGBTQ community? I hope not. Does the claim that you are make you feel bad? Yes. Why? Association. You might personally be supportive of the LGBTQ community, but conservatism as a whole is not supportive of it, and that’s why a jab at that fact would make you feel bad (or you personally are not supportive of the LGBTQ community as a whole, in which case Mr. Top’s jab was correctly guided and you are feeling bad because someone holds views opposing yours that hold more weight than your own argument).
Similarly, as a piece of literary advice; if you want people to believe your side of the argument, you don’t start by using childish laments on how this article in question is both “borderline pornographic” and “terribly boring.” It’s like saying “I’ve studied all of the speeches Obama has given and concluded that he is a moron, so you shouldn’t vote for him.” Whatever validity or reason you could’ve had in the rest of the article was lost for me when I read your first four or so paragraphs.