We were pretty giddy about the Larry Craig scandal yesterday. Then we started watching the coverage, which has rapidly degenerated into a smug homophobia-fest. The worst so far: on MSNBC, Tucker Carlson bragged that when a man hit on him in a bathroom in Georgetown, he went back with a friend and "grabbed him . . . and hit him against the stall with his head."
Then Dan Abrams and Joe Scarborough laughed.
The gleeful back-slapping over Tucker's attack starts at 2:47. The relevant part of the above YouTube clip is also excerpted here on Gawker.
Last time we checked, beating up a gay man for propositioning you was a crime -- a hate crime, even.
Don Imus got in trouble for letting his disdain for black women slip out. Shouldn't Carlson get in at least as much trouble for revealing (with glee!) his past violence against a gay man?
UPDATE: Carlson has released the following statement:
"Let me be clear about an incident I referred to on MSNBC last night: In the mid-1980s, while I was a high school student, a man physically grabbed me in a men's room in Washington, DC. I yelled, pulled away from him and ran out of the room. Twenty-five minutes later, a friend of mine and I returned to the men's room. The man was still there, presumably waiting to do to someone else what he had done to me. My friend and I seized the man and held him until a security guard arrived.
"Several bloggers have characterized this is a sort of gay bashing. That's absurd, and an insult to anybody who has fought back against an unsolicited sexual attack. I wasn't angry with the man because he was gay. I was angry because he assaulted me."
UPDATE UPDATE: GLADD is asking for an apology from Carlson and MSNBC
Reader Comments ( Page 7 of 7)
91. Two questions for all you guys (Boz, David, et. al.) who think it's perfectly ok to assault another man who verbally propositions you in a men's bathroom:
1) What if an unbelievably attractive woman snuck into the men's bathroom while you were in the stall, and then approached you once you emerged? Would you be flattered at the obvious great lengths she went to to get your attention? Or offended that someone looking for a hook up had violated your "alone time" in pursuit of their own sexual gratification?
2) Same question, but this time, she's not at all attractive.
My point is this: you guys justify your attack on someone looking for your physical services by your own attraction to them. I strongly doubt that any of you would knock out teeth from a sexy vixen who was prowling for action in the loo, and yet you feel violated to the point of physical reciprocation when a man does it?
Someone explain this to me in a way that makes sense, and doesn't reek of homophobia.
lin at 2:23AM on Sep 4th 2007
92. lin,
I can't answer your question but you raise several interesting points. Maybe because men know other men are capable of rape, they feel threatened, as a women would if the same thing happened to her. I know women are capable of rape as well, but enough about the statistics of violent rape. So, the violent reaction to a sexual proposition might be a fear response. There are several fear responses in a situation like the one proposed, including fear of physical harm and emotional reactivity. Let's say homophobia does play a role. What if the man propositioned is attracted to the proposition, but is consciously unaware, and the attraction is so repulsive, that his ego defense mechanism is to react, or declare that he would react, in a violent manner. Other people should respond...I'm just guessing.
rivercelt at 3:43AM on Sep 4th 2007
93. rivercelt (#90):
Thank you for your response - I was beginning to think no one read my posts on this blog.
I think its pretty safe to assume that in general, when one thinks of a rapist, the image is of a man - I'm fully aware that women can and do rape as well, but, well, that's a whole other can of worms, isn't it?
My point in my post (#89) was not to bring up a threatening, violent situation. I like to believe that any human being who was physically threatened would have a similar response, regardless of the gender of the assailant. Of course, again, this brings up the issue of an *actual* threatening situation versus a *perceived* threatening situation - entirely subjective, and tainted by too many factors too list.
But my questions wasn't about someone with violent intentions: I was inquiring about a person, of either gender, who verbally offered or requested a sexual favor in a bathroom. If women were allowed to assault a man whose advances were unwanted, just on the premise of their being unwanted, there'd be a lot of men with handprints on their cheeks (or black eyes).
Point is it's illegal to assault someone. And it's a very suspicious over-reaction for an otherwise unprovoked man to assault another man simply for suggesting a sexual activity.
lin at 4:00AM on Sep 4th 2007
94. lin,
I agree and I do not mean to miss your point. I think that some of the men who are responding that they would react violently to a verbal proposition feel threatened in some way. Again, they may not know why they feel threatened. I'm not condoning it, it seems like a fear response to perceived threat. Why else react violently? I don't think most men would perceive a verbal solicitation as a threat, but some of the posts, the ones who say they would react violently, seem to think of the proposition as a threat of some kind.
I don't know what you mean by "if women were allowed..." and I suppose you mean if women were socialized to fight an advance? I wonder if women, generalizing here, are more adept at being able to determine a verbal solicitations degree of threat level, and men aren't yet so skilled? I doubt it. Still don't have the answer. I guess I'm thinking of the solicitation as a threat, rather than an attraction issue. But, I guess if you're into that kind of thing, it is an attraction or paraphilia of some kind. I'm stumped.
rivercelt at 4:20AM on Sep 4th 2007
95. first I am gay and I hate this type of thing.It makes no difference if you are straight gay or anywhere inbetween you don't have sex in public places.You also don't force yourself on anyone ever.Having said that most people who engage in public sex are HETERO'S they even have clubs,contests,websites and more .Wrong is wrong it does'nt matter who you are or if you are straight or gay.What Tucker did was wrong because he took the law into his own wimpy hands.Call the cops let them do their job.Only a so called man does what he did and he had to take a friend he wasnt man enough or strong enough to get the guy on his own.To Iris,Mary,Kara,Suzanne,Twann[if it's not agirls name it sure sounds like one]and Connie you can't have been hit on by a gay man and you are this angry it can only mean you are so ugly it makes you pissed to think a man can have man and you can't.Think about some plastic surgery,and Keith you have to be an ugly fag so maybe you should join the girls for some snip snip and fake tits.
edward moore at 7:21PM on Sep 4th 2007
96. I find it quite bemusing that so many bloggers supportive of Mr. Carlson's behavior would likely consider themselves to be law-abiding, upstanding, red-blooded Americans. They could not relate to the "pervert" who alledgedly "assaulted" Mr. Carlson, and felt that his actions were quite apt, understandable, and justified. Those who objected to Mr. Carlson's actions, words, and the laughter that resulted are urged to "let it go" et al. What is ironic, of course, is that Mr. Carlson - minor or not (after all Columbine, amongst others was the direct result of actions by minors) - broke the law!! If one is to believe Tucker's version of the story (and Sen. Craig certainly expects us to believe his - even the part where he sticks his hand under the partition to..signal for toilet paper???), then why did he not immediately contact the Police and/or Security forces to apprehend the assaulter? If his concern was for others, then he allowed the perp at least 25 minutes to maybe more successfully molest another minor. Hmmmm. When is it okay to ignore the law aka "let it go"?? I have been molested by so-called Heterosexuals, married, with kids, and Church-going as well. Pamela Sweet and our dear Ms. Letourneau both molested minors under the law. How many of you who support Mr. Carlson's actions would support ME or any other young male minor if we first sought out and then assaulted our perps - male OR female?? What if we accidentally caused them irreperable physical damage in the process (or NOT so accidental? The law is the law, and when we break it, there should be serious consequence - whether in challenging the validity of it, overturning it on merit, or in upholding its tenets. Finally, how many of you would support the idea of women being allowed to attack a male who pinches them, cops a feel, or rubs against them in an unwanted, suggestive manner? Would you applaud if they returned with perhaps a couple of friends, and beat the tar out of the offender? I don't think so. Tucker Carlson broke the law! He "perverted" justice. What does it say about those of you who applaud it!?!?
Oscar O'Flaherty at 12:27AM on Sep 5th 2007