- The Washington Times - Monday, March 14, 2005

PC ‘rage’

“The Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender and Supporters Alliance of Harvard University is fighting mad. [On Feb. 26], actress Jada Pinkett Smith won an award from the Harvard Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations.

“During her acceptance speech, she told women in the audience, ‘you can have it all — a loving man, devoted husband, loving children, a fabulous career. … To my men, open your mind, open your eyes to new ideas.’

“Rather sweet, no? Not to the BGLTSA, which called for an apology from the organizers of the Cultural Rhythms show, explaining that Smith’s statements were ‘extremely heteronormative.’ ‘Heteronormative,’ for those who don’t speak the radical homosexual lingo, may be defined as the viewpoint that heterosexual relationships are normal, and others are not. …

“Straight men and women may no longer consider themselves normal, unless they also consider homosexuality normal. The rage against ‘heteronormalism’ is rage against traditional societal standards as a whole. Exclusive morality has always offended the immoral. The only difference is that now offensiveness receives a stiffer societal sentence than blatant immorality. This is what political correctness … has wrought.”

Benjamin Shapiro, writing on “The radical homosexual agenda and the destruction of standards,” Thursday in WorldNetDaily at www.worldnetdaily.com

‘Useless’ news

“The cliche is that journalism is the first draft of history. Yet a historian searching for clues about the origins of many of the great stories of recent decades — the collapse of the Soviet empire; the rise of Osama bin Laden; the declining American crime rate; the economic eclipse of Japan and Germany — would find most contemporary journalism useless.

“Perhaps a story here or there might, in retrospect, seem illuminating. But chances are it would have been nearly invisible at the time of publication: eight column inches, page A12.

“The problem is not that journalists can’t get their facts straight: They can and usually do. Nor is it that the facts are obscure: Often, the most essential facts are also the most obvious ones. The problem is that journalists have a difficult time distinguishing significant facts — facts with consequences — from insignificant ones.

“That, in turn, comes from not thinking very hard about just which stories are most worth telling.”

Bret Stephens, writing on “A First Draft of History?” March 7 in the Wall Street Journal

Radical reality

“A radical reproductive-health agenda has created a situation in which women ultimately get the short end of the stick.

“Books like ‘Bridget Jones’ and ‘He’s Just Not That Into You’ underscore the point with a bit of humor. But the reality … reveals that women who cohabit not only choose a more direct path to divorce and unhappiness but also end up paying about 70 percent of the household costs, increasing their chances of being a victim of domestic abuse. …

“When we isolate a woman’s fertility as we would try to contain a disease, we arrive at a situation in which women are more objectified than ever. True, we can’t deny the fact that there are women who are faced with unplanned or inconvenient pregnancies. But at the end of the day, the poor, uneducated, jobless woman who is the recipient of this Band-Aid solution will still be poor, uneducated, and jobless.”

Pia de Solenni, writing on “The New Radical Feminism,” Thursday in National Review Online

Sign up for Daily Newsletters

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide