GOProud at CPAC: A Broken Zipper Leads to Deep Thoughts on Stereotyping

on February 11, 2011 at 10:43 PM

Jenny EriksonI’m in Washington D.C. this week for CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference), an annual conferences for conservatives to gather and revel in camaraderie while listening to speakers like Texas Governor Rick Perry, Representative Michele Bachmann, and Mitt Romney tell us how awesome we are.

It’s really fun.

Once the panels and sessions end for the day, everyone heads out to various parties for food and drink. Conservatives like to have fun, after all. One of the social events was a party sponsored by Andrew Breitbart and GOProud featuring Sophie B. Hawkins.

You may remember some of the controversy surrounding GOProud’s involvement with CPAC.

After an unfortunate incident with my zipper, I went on the prowl for a safety pin. I asked a girlfriend who happened to be talking to two gay friends if she had one. She jokingly asked if I was asking the gay guys for clothing repairs because they’re supposed to know about these things. I told her I was asking her, and then ribbed her back about having stereotypes about me having stereotypes.

Which got me thinking about stereotypes in general, and how often we employ them. Are they detrimental? Are they useful? I think they can be useful in the sense of one should ‘observe and proceed with caution.’ I stereotype 2 year olds as messy … is that bad?

The tricky part is to understand that a stereotype is not a fact. According to some people (whoever they are) gays should be liberals. According to those same people, females should be liberals too. And black people. Basically anyone that’s not old and white and a dude should vote Democrat.

That’s not the case anymore. I’m a chick and a Californian, yet I’m a conservative. GOProud believes in limited government and greater liberty (aka personal responsibility). Herman Cain puts to bed any nonsense that people should align themselves with a party based on their skin color.

Bottom line: Go ahead and stereotype people. But keep an open mind and prepare (hope?) to have your preconceived notions blown out of the water. I’ll blow one away for you right now … not all gay men can fix clothes. Thank goodness I brought a jacket to the party.

Filed Under: in the news, media, politics, tea party

Like What You Just Read?

Click the "Like" button below to get Jenny Erikson's stories on Facebook.

Comments (31)

Nonmember comment from Karol

on Feb 12, 2011 at 12:09 AM

Wow, kind of cool to sign on to CafeMom and see a reference to CPAC. I was supposed to go but got sick. Love that you loved Herman Cain, he's my all-time favorite.

Report this comment

AngiDas

on Feb 12, 2011 at 4:26 AM

Well, if we are going to expand on not sterotyping then not all gay men are flaming,not all pro-lifers want to change the laws to only benefit the unborn,no pro-choice folks hate the unborn,not all Christians want to shove God down your throat and atheists do not lank in a moral code .

Most people just want to work hard,be paid fairly for their work,be able to take care of their health without going broke and choose what is best for them and their family.

starrsitter

on Feb 12, 2011 at 8:37 AM

It's not about stereotyping or "old, white dudes." Republicans and conservatives have, especially of late, supported measures and made claims that hurt women, minorities, homosexuals, and people of any other faith than Christianity. The same people who say that they are for smaller government and personal liberty are also trying to control women's reproductive rights (not just abortion, but contraceptives and reproductive health care in general) and trying to deny marriage equality. There's also a significant tendency to try and legislate Christian morality, which is offensive to those of us who are not Christians and even those Christians who believe that there should be a separation of church and state. A lot of the cuts that they are willing to make in the name of supposedly cutting costs often have the greatest impact on the poor and minorities.

In short, it's hard for many people to understand why any member of the above groups would support a party/movement that has shown by their actions that they do not reciprocate.

momof3inTN

on Feb 12, 2011 at 8:50 AM

You took the words right out of my mouth starsitter! Excellent comment.

Nonmember comment from jody

on Feb 12, 2011 at 9:32 AM

LOL! Reminds me of the time a male friend asked me to gift wrap a present for his God-child. When I was done he told me he could have done a better job himself (true). Hey, just because I'm a conservative white chick doesn't mean I do gift wrap (at least not well).

Nonmember comment from Anon

on Feb 12, 2011 at 9:46 AM

Starrsitter, it depends on what you believe is good for people. I don't believe it's good for people when we say / legislate things like: minorities are less capable and hence need more subsidies; women's ability to reproduce harms them / makes them inferior; accountability only applies if you've decided to pull your own weight; indiscriminate sex is healthier or more realistic than abstinence; etc. As for gay marriage, I really don't care, as long as gays don't get financial benefits for calling themselves spouses (because I, a single mom, ultimately pay for that). No conservative agrees with all of the conservative "platform," just like no liberal agrees with all of the lib platform. But if I agree with more of the conservative platform than the lib platform, my gender and race should be beside the point.

on Feb 12, 2011 at 10:14 AM

"...it depends on what you believe is good for people..."

That's my point. Removing (or even restricting) a woman's access to contraceptives, basic reproductive health care, and (if she needs one) abortions is NOT good for women. Pretending that people aren't going to have sex is unrealistic and inevitably harmful to people. Removing social safety nets from the people who need them most (regardless of their race or gender) doesn't help people. 'Not caring" about what homosexuals do as long as they don't receive any of the same benefits that other people do isn't good for people.

Gender and race (and whatever else) become important when the platform you support is acting against the interests of those groups to which you belong. You obviously have the right to support whoever you want, but don't be shocked when people don't understand why you support a group that consistently demonstrates its disregard for women and their rights and health (for example).

The actions of conservatives and their words very rarely line up and legislating conservative Christian viewpoints for everyone is wrong.

Anastazia975

on Feb 12, 2011 at 10:25 AM

I wish I had the patience starsitter has when explaining these things. lol. I ultimately wind up blowing my top! lol. But then again, it could be the hormones! Well said starsitter!

on Feb 12, 2011 at 10:39 AM

Starrsitter, you and I disagree on many things, and that is fine. However, the underlying assumption of your argument is that I should/do care more about what's good for my specific demographic than for other demographics. If I'm black/female, I should want what's good for blacks/women at whites'/men's expense, and if I'm white/male, I care only about myself. That's not how I (for one) think. As for the gay thing - I understand why married people were given special financial benefits back in the day when children were generally raised by heterosexual couples and married parents were generally considered best for kids. Maybe that is outdated given how many things have changed. I'd be OK with taking away all financial benefits (and costs, e.g., social security penalty for wives) of being married. Other than that, I'm for gay couples having the same rights as straight couples. I just don't believe calling yourself "married" should get you a transfer of wealth from single people, especially if you aren't likely to bring up children in your "married" household (recognizing that some gay couples do nowadays, but most don't). Does that mean I want to hurt or take stuff away from gays? No. I just don't want them taking my kids' food money so they can make choices I can't make (e.g., stay-at-home "spouse").

on Feb 12, 2011 at 11:26 AM

I don't honestly believe that the support/acceptance/good of/etc. of one group needs to be at the expense of any other group. How does the use of birth control, even if it were assisted by Title X (for instance), detract from someone else' well-being? Honestly, reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies (or detecting cancer through early screenings or any number of other things funded through Title X) has, if nothing else, the benefit of reducing costs down the road for our entire society.

I guess if you believe that no one should ever get any kind of tax incentive for being married (which you would have to extend to couples with children to be totally fair) then I suppose, at the very least, you're consistent...which is more than I can say for, quite literally, any other conservative I've ever met.

The problem I have is that many of these issues are coming from a religious place (opposition to reproductive care, marriage equality, and religious freedom issues particularly) and that isn't acceptable or appropriate for the government. You either want all people to have personal liberties or you don't. You either want the government to be small or you want them to micromanage people's sex lives. You either want to support people who need it (regardless, again, of their race, gender, etc.) or you don't. Many conservatives often say one of those things and then support actions that do the opposite.