Five Feet of Misplaced Fury


Wow, what a weird web address, oh well, that’s what I know how to do – copy the address and give it to you as I get it.

Meanwhile, this is what is written, in it’s entirety:

“What gay agenda?!?

by Kathy Shaidle on Sunday, January 23rd, 2011 | No Comments (because comments weren’t allowed. I don’t know if that’s normal at this site.)

More K-Y for that slippery slope…

In a Government-backed drive to ‘celebrate the gay community’, lesson plans for pupils have been drawn-up to raise awareness about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual issues.

Geography students will be asked why homosexuals move from the countryside to cities, statistics students will use census data on the number of homosexuals in England (RED>)and maths students will be given problems involving gay characters.”


The last phrase of the last sentence is in RED color, to show perhaps the perniciousness of it all, maybe. I don’t know.

I emailed this response the fine lady who writes the blog, so that she might be educated.

The headline is a gratuitous smear referencing one element of gay sex that has no point put to stir passions against gay people – by implying that we’re “f….g” the people or something, and dragging society down to Lord knows where. Such a cockamamie idea. But, what agenda might this lady have? A “no gay” agenda? Yes, it seems so. Certainly a “no talk about gay folks” mantra, for the good of the people no doubt. Perhaps even for the gay folks, so save us from ourselves, as so many want to do. Ironically, KY was invented as a safer substitute for Vaseline, for babies, and I wonder if indeed this than gave rise to the gay agenda, given the fascination straight people have with this substance. We gay folks aren’t buying it all, that’s for sure.

The next line is “government-backed” — well, all educational schemes are government backed. Personally, I’d do away with state supported education, and certainly the department of education. However, the story is from England, so I don’t know about what they’re doing there. Yet, OMG! – like actually mentioning that gay folks in all our permutations actually exist? You mean to tell me that is the nefarious gay agenda? To get the government, and the people, and the schools, and our fellow children in those schools, and fine folks and religion too to actually say “Yes, Virginia, there are gay people”? And what would be the horrible, as implied, agenda outcome of this acknowledgment that gay folks actually do exist? Would it be to, um, admit reality? Such a terrible thing.

Perhaps the writer must think that by admitting the reality there will be non-gay folks made gay or something. Or that, heaven forfend, someone actually says something based in reality, like, oh I don’t know, “hey, did you know there are gay people and we should not be beating the hell out of them just because they walk the same streets that we do?” I don’t know. It’s a dangerous agenda this admitting that gay people exist, apparently. Promotion, perhaps; again I don’t know and can’t fathom. We’re born gay, we say, and we should know, but we’re told no. Our agenda of getting straights to recognize reality is the nefarious agenda we have, my dear lady. Even if it means occasionally mentioning that we’re the male hair salon owners. Someone’s got to count ’em, no? Just to sell enough scissors?

Geography students will be made to study demographics! Oh the horrors! One would think though that school planners in say San Francisco might want to know something a bit more than there are 100,000 households or some number. Why, when 1/3 of the city is gay, that would surely impact on the need and placement for schools for children which will not be had. And if a demographer, or a geographer, well on in his career, comes up with the intriguing demographics of some 250,000 single men in a city of 750,000, and yet never heard of gay people, well, then, that would make a difference on public policy of all kinds, no? Especially say schools and pediatric clinics. Surely hospitals might want to cut back on pediatric nurses given the dearth of babies born. Surely some company selling men’s furnishings might want to have a bit of a geography lesson about the issue. But apparently the admission itself is suspect.

Given, too, that there is the “beastiality” canard thrown at gay folks – you know – if gay people were allowed to be mentioned in schools why, men would be dating horses forthwith – one would think, though, that a quick glance, a well trained demographer or geographer might want to know that there aren’t enough horses alive in all the Kingdom, and certainly not in all San Francisco, to provide a horse for every man allegedly desiring one. Then wouldn’t such geographic insight – gay men tend to gravitate to cities, and get off the farm – impact the canard? Or shall the canard stand because of the lack of thought on the matter? The Family Research Council, which does think along the fury of thought here, says gay men are just waiting for the chance to date horses. Beats me where they get the notion, and perhaps a good geography lesson might help – Gay men in Manhattan, horses in Kentucky. Perhaps it’s a long distance relationship? What with emotion and negativism of this very sort, playing an oh so much more important role, in keeping the gay menace at bay! And we can’t be having school kids learning the ridiculousness of it by looking at the geography of gay people.

OMG – the number of gay folks is to be known? Deduced? Used as an example? Oh the horrors of teaching. Wouldn’t it be nice to use gay numbers in math problems. Oh so illustrative. For instance, 106 boys born for every 100 girls, after the 100 marry the 100, how many males are left without a female mate? (extra credit – what are those men called?) Or, there are 100,000 hair dressing salons in America, 33,000 are owned by single men with pug dogs and colorful flags outside their houses, what percentage is that? Oh, to know the percentage of single male hairdressers will of course shake society to its rotten core I’m sure. Or maybe not, I could be mistaken.

Then too there’s “It takes 3 heterosexual men to beat up every sissy boy, there are 15,000,000 sissy boy Americans, how many heterosexuals does it take to beat them all up?” Now, surely this is the sort of mathematical logic we should be using to educate the kids no, hmm? How about, “Farmer Joe has 10 Rabbits, and they have 5 babies each, how many baby rabbits are there?” Is that OK because it talks about good wholesomeness and not that evil homosexual agenda to be recognized as actually existing? And if a man could not do some simple calculations on the numbers of gay folks, wouldn’t that imperil his business for baby jumpers in Key West? Would a lady opening a marriage counseling service have good truck in very gay, to the 60% rate, Wilton Manors, Florida? Whom would she counsel? Would a man do better knowing that Speedos are more popular for sale at Provincetown than bikinis? These are the very sorts of mathematical questions that must be asked by people creating jobs, which is dear to the lady’s heart I know from her previous posts. So why is dear Ms. Shaidle afraid of having them asked?

What good does it do society, or the straight or gay parts, to deny the existence of the gay part? Sure, it’s a tiny part. No need for more than a few questions that might be illustrative. But what gay people’s agenda is is merely to have society recognize that gay people exist, whether anyone wants them to or not, and that we’re not going anywhere, and that by every measure known to man we will be no more nor less than our percentage now, and we will be no more a threat to anything than a pet rock. Why, is this some nefarious “Agenda” item that is of concern?

Does Ms. Shaidle think that by recognizing that gay people exist – and mentioning it to kids, gay and straight, in school — there will all of a sudden be a rush by fine hetero boys to be gay? The gay boys already are, I know, I was there. Yet, is being gay all so that wonderful that the manhood of our nation will drop what it is doing to go be a gay boy in a gay bar as soon as he hears of it? Surely it can’t be so! Surely no one thinks like that, do they? Yet this is the entire import of the lady’s concern that the agenda is being taught, or something. And a “slippery slope” — which is downward? Not a step upwards because it’s getting better, precisely because Ms. Shaidle is getting a lesson in gay geography – – wow, there really are a lot of gay men in New Orleans – what does that do to the city’s plan to rebuild the schools? Ignore 20% of the population and you can really skewer your results. But, no, apparently, the very concept is perhaps a horror – gay men live and breath as taxpaying citizens who actually pay for the education a bit more than straights, for we don’t have the kids in schools, now do we? But we still pay the school taxes. And fine we do, for there are gay boys right now in schools in every nation of the world.

Well, from the sound of Ms. Shaidle’s post title, and her words, it surely seems she thinks it is a danger to admit this, indeed. And so I ask, how could anyone be so wrong? Ma’am, merely admitting that gay people exist, and actually discussing or mentioning us from time to time will have about as much impact on society as whether Ms. Twiddle or Ms. Tweeddle will win the “best rose” prize at a summer picnic. Indeed, right there at the summer picnic will be a few single men entering roses which they grew so lovingly. Well, the guy is probably 50 or older, and with a pug dog, and with a long time good male friend who often stays overnight – what is the worry?

Oh, it must be that someone else will be turned gay, because something nice was said about us, and we were included in society, and perhaps we’re an abomination of some sort that revolves around simply being gay and not much else. Such is the fear and horror! Oh, Ms. Shaidle, get a grip. But really, what else could be your fear? This I ask, oh, please do tell!


AND SHE DID! Here’s here immediate response by email:

“I don’t care what you think, you longwinded nancy boy.


Absolutely nothing says Christian, or Jewish, or even dare I say Muslim, Hindi & Shinto decency like that. And little adds so much to the debate about reality than an Olberman style nastiness. Thank you charming lady, I shall watch you all the  more.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: