HeatherN wants us to use caution when thinking that O’Reilly’s support of transgendered woman Jenna Talachova’s right to participate in the Miss Universe pageant means he is an advocate for same-sex marriage.
I was browsing my usual range of news blogs when I came across this surprising story about Bill O’Reilly’s defense of Jenna Talachova, the transgendered woman who is seeking the right to participate in the Miss Universe pageant. This is only the second time I know of that O’Reilly has spoken out in support of an lgbt individual. The other instance of this was in his support of Ellen DeGeneres’ role as a spokesperson for JC Penny.
My initial thought was that perhaps it was simply an indicator that O’Reilly was feeling pressure to tone the anti-lgbt rhetoric down. I was even willing to believe that maybe O’Reilly had actually turned over a new leaf. Maybe he’s come to the realization that lgbt people are just people after all, not some great threat to the “American way of life.”
So I started looking around to see what else O’Reilly has been saying about the lgbt community recently, and I found this. Apparently O’Reilly’s support only goes so far and it doesn’t extend to same-sex marriage. This is not surprising; O’Reilly has long been considered someone who is anti-lgbt. I think it is interesting to see him opposing same-sex marriage in one breath, while supporting Ellen and Jenna in another. I’m left wondering what is going on.
Is this a case of O’Reilly trying to pander to too many different demographics?
Is O’Reilly arguing for more equality in the private sector (Miss Universe, JC Penny) but for some reason is still against government mandated equality (same-sex marriage)?
Could this be a case where, when faced with individuals who are experiencing inequality O’Reilly is sympathetic, but he just can’t transfer that sympathy onto an entire group of people?
Is the gender of the people involved what’s at issue here? Ellen and Jenna are women, whereas when discussing same-sex marriage the conversation often defaults to discussing men. Does O’Reilly have more sympathy for lgbt women than men?
Unfortunately I do not have the answers, but oh how I wish I did.
What do you think? Does O’Reilly have more sympathy for LGBT women than men?
AP Photo/Evan Agostini
About HeatherN
…If I had to guess (and I don’t pay much attention to what o’Reilly says so I have by no means qualified to accurately speculate on his mindset… but I’m gonna anyway.) It’s possible that he feels that “marriage” is sacred territory in the way that JC Penny spokespersonship and the miss universe pageant… aren’t.
i don’t agree with that mindset (so, you know, don’t ask me to defend it because I won’t
) but maybe that’s where his head is.
Ah that didn’t occur to me…but I suppose it’s like anti-same-sex marriage people who watch Ellen’s show. Or like people who are totally fine with gay people, so long as their kid/parent/sibling/whatever isn’t gay. Gotta keep it at a distance.
HeatherN,
I suspect you still don’t really understand.
It’s very easy for you to box up people as either pro-or-anti lgbt (indeed, you use this exact language in the above post). Yet the reality is that, for some people (I know my parents to be among them), being anti-same-sex-marriage really is about the marriage part, and has nothing to do with someone’s sexual identity.
When you say something like “Gotta keep it at a distance,” it’s pretty clear you either do not understand, or refuse to accept, this reality.
I suspect that broader public labels have a lot to do with this. As staunch Roman Catholics, my parents have expressed anti-abortion attitudes, but they have also expressed vehement anti-death-penalty attitudes. To them, both are really just forms of murder, and they oppose both.
Of course, because they come off as conservative, and because they are anti-abortion people often assume that they must be pro-death-penalty, when nothing could be further from the truth.
This also works in reverse. I’m often frustrated by people who claim that pro-life individuals really just want to “control women’s bodies” because I know that for at least some subset (i.e. my parents again) it really is just about stopping what they perceive to be murder. They have never really wanted to control contraceptive options, and they have always been against abstinence-only sex education, because it’s not actually about controlling women for them, it’s literally about stopping what they perceive to be murder.
But again, once someone finds out that they are anti-abortion, it’s often assumed they must be in favor of limiting contraception and abstinence-only education, when this isn’t true at all.
I cannot speak for Bill O’Reilly, but I have no reason to believe the situation to be very different. Indeed, a few seconds of research demonstrate that he supports Civil Unions (at least wikipedia claims he does). He likely doesn’t care about “distance” but actually about the some idealized institution of marriage.
We’re probably better off if we can learn to accept that when someone says “marriage is sacred” this might actually reflect a belief about marriage, rather than a hidden anti-lgbt agenda.
Actually this is a very good point. It is important to avoid assuming everyone who disagrees with you is the same, however tempting it may be. There is no antagonistic monolith.
However I still believe that saying “Marriage is between a man and a woman” is highly problematic, and probably indicates a prejudice against homosexuals. Due to the pure nature of marriage in most places it privileges hetero-couples. At a minimum the “marriage is sacred” mantra implies one is unwilling to turn a critical eye to this ubiquitous institution. Of course is they really looked into it, they might not like what they see. Even ignoring homosexuals, feminists have already identified a long list of things wrong with traditional marriage.
I appreciate the point you are trying to make, but I think you still fall short by clinging to the same “antagonistic monolith” that you want to avoid.
The idea of “traditional marriage” need not look like a prime-time nuclear family from the 1950s, and indeed often does not in a religious context (Orthodox Judaism comes to mind).
The idea that “marriage is between a man and a woman” indicates prejudice fails for this same reason. If someone is willing to support civil unions that provide the exact same benefits, the idea of “privilege” becomes questionable.
Additionally, the idea that “marriage is sacred” means someone is unwilling to turn a critical eye to the institution is simply a falsehood. The ideal of “free speech” includes loads of downsides (the proliferation of hate speech chief among them), yet “free speech” can remain a sacred ideal despite knowledge of common criticisms.
Instead, it seems like there is a desire to label a possibly deeply-held religious belief as “intolerant” in an attempt to badger spiritual people out of their personal beliefs. By recasting religious ideas as “prejudiced” and “uncritical” assumes both that the attacker has an intimate knowledge of the religious belief (which they often do not), and that the person who holds the belief does not acknowledge its shortcomings (which they often do, but feel that the good outweighs the bad).
It’s just more of the same problem: making pretend your opponent is “dishonest” about their “true beliefs” rather than actually listening to them when they are telling you what they believe.
Okay well first, you’ll note that most of my article was in the form of questions. I was looking for discussions, not trying to make a point, exactly.
As to the rest…okay here’s my problem with what you’re saying, it’s justifying or excusing discrimination because of religious beliefs. There were religious justifications for slavery, for crying out loud, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t prejudiced. (No, I’m not saying the issue of same-sex marriage is the same as slavery, but religious ideology is used as justification for many discriminatory practices).
And I’m not pretending that someone who is opposed to same-sex marriage for religious reasons is being dishonest. I’m suggesting they might not even be completely aware of how prejudiced they are. My parents, for example, were against same-sex marriage (but for civil unions) before I told them I was gay. At which point they ended up facing some very hard truths about their beliefs about homosexuality. They weren’t being dishonest before; they just weren’t fully aware of the prejudices they held.
So that’s what I meant by it being similar to someone who says “I’m okay with gay people so long as my kid isn’t gay.” It’s not about them behind dishonest, it’s about them being unable to recognize their own prejudices. Just because they are unaware of them, and just because they might be based in religion, doesn’t make them any less discriminatory.
I think you should defend it, actually.
If I may speculate without a shred of evidence getting in the way, I would guess that for O’Reilly there is no real contradiction, or that there are some divisions that he makes that others might not.
So, for example, I can see O’Reilly simply seeing Jenna Talachova as a woman, in sort of backhanded acceptance of her transition. She’s a woman now, pure and simple, not even a transgendered or transsexual person, maybe because she looks fairly attractive. Just a woman. Possibly one of those “well, since I can’t tell, it doesn’t matter” arguments. So, from the “marriage is one man and one woman” ideological viewpoint, it is perfectly acceptable now for her to marry a man, because she’s a woman, end of story. She can’t marry a woman, of course, because she’s a woman. She made a transition within the strict gender binary system and got it legally changed, so we can keep the binary going.
In a way, a transwoman competing in a traditional beauty pageant is a big step, but in other ways it’s not all that radical. This is hardly going to challenge all the weird, extremely narrow definitions of womanhood inherent in the Miss Universe pageant. Instead of a cis-female conforming herself into a very specific ideal, it’s a transwoman conforming herself into the same specific ideal. She had a longer way to go than the others, but it’s still the same sexist goal.
Ask him how he would feel if Talachova applied to be a kindergarten teacher or tried to adopt a child, and you may get a very different sort of answer.
P.S. And, would he be happy if she won?
Don’t forget it is very specifically the “Miss” Universe pageant. It is in some ways very distant from the question of marriage equality. It is literally not about marriage. Even if a transwoman competes, no one who is MARRIED is allowed to compete. It’s kind of funny that if a contestant was male at any point in her life she could still be eligible to compete, but if she was ever *married* she could not. Makes the “Miss” part of it seem even more arbitrary that it does already.
All your points are true, and I’d be inclined to possibly agree…except for his support of Ellen. Ellen’s a woman, yeah, but she’s definitely a woman who is married to another woman. And she’s a huge proponent of same-sex marriage.
Good point about Ellen. Perhaps O’Reilly doesn’t really group the two cases together under the same issue. Maybe from your point of view (and mine!) Ellen Degeneres for JC Penney and Jenna Palachova for Miss Universe are both LGBT issues, but he may not really see them that way.
Is Ellen actually legally married? If not, O’Reilly may be perfectly happy with her being a spokesperson for JC Penney, a store chain I doubt he frequents. Maybe in his mind Penney’s is a place “where dykes buy stuff” so he doesn’t feel all that threatened.
I would guess that he may be much more accepting of LGBT progressivism if it’s in the context of the private sector, especially if it’s driven by wealthy people (Donald Trump) or by big corporations (JC Penney, or more specifically whatever conglomerate owns it now). Let private companies do whatever the heck they want, but don’t make it public policy. Let the market system work its magic — if the market system wants a trans contestant, then let Trump make his money, just like God intended. If it’s a question of corporate profit versus “traditional family values,” a fiscal conservative may let profit win.
Perhaps it’s not so much inconsistency in LGBT issues as consistency in his view of political economy.
“Is Ellen actually legally married?”
Yeah, for the 10 seconds same-sex marriage was legal in California, she and Porche got hitched.
But yeah, perhaps he does view it more in terms of economy and politics as opposed to lgbt issues. Hmmm
HeatherN is exactly right, don’t surmise for a second that Papa Bear will come out for SSM. And don’t forget that Barack Obama has not come out in support for it either. As one of America’s top-rated anchormen for 12 years he doesn’t need to pander to anyone. I think he’s simply manifesting his capital “I” independent streak which makes him more tolerant of aspects of the gay lifestyle than many harder-line conservative anchors. He doesn’t think people should get fired or boycotted for being gay, not exactly Harvey Milk territory. And I agree with him.
Well first, don’t think for a second that political lgbt groups have forgotten that neither the democrats or the republicans are fully coming out in support of lgbt rights. But at the minute, democrats are at least no longer opposing same-sex marriage.
Anyway, I’m curious as to what you mean by this:
“He doesn’t think people should get fired or boycotted for being gay, not exactly Harvey Milk territory. And I agree with him.”
Perhaps he’s moving more toward the center since Romney is the presumptive GOP nominee. He was the governor of Mass, one of the most liberal states in the country. With either Obama or Romney, I think SSM is inevitable. Kind of a done deal, given time. But, perhaps with Romney in the mix, for the first time, true marriage equality/freedom in legalizing polygamy will be able to move forward at least in conversation.
“Perhaps he’s moving more toward the center since Romney is the presumptive GOP nominee. He was the governor of Mass, one of the most liberal states in the country.”
Well I’m wicked cynical of Romney’s politics. He’s hard right when he thinks it’ll get him votes, and he’s centre when he thinks it’ll get him votes. Romney’s not a proponent of same-sex marriage either.
It you want to understand:
Try to imagine what it is like to in a party that is constatnly trying to split into two. There is divide running through the middle of the Republican party. Holding the ship together is a very high priority.
If you don’t want to understand, convince yourself of whatever you want.
“If you don’t want to understand, convince yourself of whatever you want.”
Now, there was no need for that last bit there, Anthony. Obviously none of us can really totally know what O’Reilly is thinking except for O’Reilly. But yeah, I am truly interested in hearing about opinions about what seems, to me, to be such inconsistency. I’m not interested in people trying to justify it, exactly…but to explain it, certainly.
So onto the rest of what you said: by divide I take it you mean between the religious right and the rest of the party? O’Reilly has said things that are basically in support of the ideals of the religious right before. Do you think that perhaps this divide is becoming more pronounced, and thus O’Reilly’s opinions are reflecting this?
Do you really think the GOP is facng a split? I kind of hope so. I also hope for a split in the Democratic party too. I’m sick of the two party system, I want there to be many viable parties, maybe that will mean people will actually think about who they’re voting for rather than just marking a D or an R on their ballots.
Move to Europe.
From what I remember of my basic civics class years ago, the U.S. system is pretty much set up in such a way as to encourage two parties. If both the Republicans and Democrats split, it’s likely that pretty quickly we’ll still end up with two main parties.
Well yeah, that’s true. Doesn’t mean I have to like it
I’ve always said it would be interesting to see people’s reactions to what the politicians said on CSPAN if you took away the D’s and R’s on their nameplates.
True, that.
I’m saying that while Bill might be more tolerant of gays than other conservative pundits, as evidenced by his position on DeGeneres, which I agree with, he is still is a long way from embracing the level of acceptance that a man like Harvey Milk would advocate.
Ah gotcha.
Being pro-gay rights, except for gay marriage, isn’t all that unusual these days. There’s some people out there (seemingly like Bill) who genuinely don’t like the idea of gay people being beaten up or transwomen being forced to suffer in silence, but are still opposed to the idea of such people raising kids.
For some people its not quite as simple as pro/anti LGBT.
Yeah, which is kind of why I was interested in discussing Bill’s potential logic.
God I just reread that, I sound like fox: “some people say…”