Ah, Christopher Hitchens. Our favorite unintentional offender. When he's not comparing American women to blow job machines, he makes it up to society by defending the honor of Jewish people everywhere. In yesterday's Slate he even went so far as to bash that despicable Mel Gibson into the ground.
Not only has Gibson made his fair share of anti-Semitic remarks in his day, but the actor/slash producer has also (according to Hitchens) lamented on and on about his hatred of gays. Hitchens speculates the common theory, that those who hate gay people so furiously often have a few homosexual tendencies of their own, may possibly apply to Gibson in this case. Well, we should really let Hitchens explain:
There's a lot to dislike about Gibson. He is given to furious tirades against homosexuals of the sort that make one wonder if he has some kind of subliminal or "unaddressed" problem.
Hold up. Did Christopher Hitchens just call being gay (in the context of theoretically and closeted) a "problem?" We think he did. That's the thing. Blatantly offending people is bad. Bad, bad, bad. But this deep rooted bigotry (in the media!) — which is so ingrained that it goes unnoticed — is what really makes us most nervous of all.
Mel Gibson's Meltdown [Christopher Hitchens, Slate]
Editorial Director
Jossip you are joking right? The "problem" is not being gay (duh) The "problem" is Gibson not acting on it - like most hets do…"on the downlow"
oh Jossip - you hate that guy don't you? He's saying that Mel Gibson is a closet case, and that's his problem. That's quite different than what you're proposing!
I thought about this for awhile (like a whole 15 minutes) before posting — and I'm not sure Hitchens is saying the problem is being in the closet. I interpreted the statement as saying Mel Gibson had an "unaddressed" (closeted) "problem" (homosexuality). You obviously don't have to agree.
Also, I don't "hate" Hitchens - I don't even know him. I just don't think he should refer to the possibly of being gay as a problem.
you know, the culprit, if anything, is lazy writing. a man married to a woman and who makes anti-gay slurs who might be gay does, in fact, have a problem (or several). my bet is that hitchens dashed this thing off without reflecting on exactly what the problem was and the copyeditor ran through it too quickly to pick up on the possible ambiguity. (case in point: the meaningless scare quotes around "unaddressed.")
hitchens very well may have some deep-seated dislike of gays, but i think a hastily written, and probably more hastily edited, piece is not where we will find the dark corners of his soul laid bare with any accuracy.
As written the implication is the "unadressed" problem is Gibson's possible denial of his own homosexual tendencies. I see no homophobia or "deep rooted bigotry" on the media's part or Christopher Hitchens. While Mr. Hitchens may have many opinions I do not agree with, I see no need to invent bigotry where none exists (at least in the context of these comments). Lazy writing? I think not. More like lazy interpretation
Either someone is kidding or lacks comprehension skills. While I used to be a fan of Hitchens until he drank the Kool-Aid given by the Bush Administration, he did not equate being gay as a problem, only that Mel Gibson has riled against gays that he likely has some problems of being a repressed homosexual.
English 101: Reading and Comprehension would help you out alot!
Either someone is kidding or lacks comprehension skills. While I used to be a fan of Hitchens until he drank the Kool-Aid given by the Bush Administration, he did not equate being gay as a problem, only that Mel Gibson has riled against gays that he likely has some problems of being a repressed homosexual.
English 101: Reading and Comprehension would help you out alot!
Since Sari recommended English 101, one can only assume she did not pass as she made two words in to one: a lot/alot
Wow, I thought Hitchens was gay all this time (an obsession with blow-jobs and big, big rockets going deep into Iraq).
Maybe his constant state of drunkeness obscured my gay-dar. Ah well, either way, he never struck me as a bigot. He is just a slob in life and in writing.
Being gay AND homophobic would be a problem, wouldn't it? I don't follow your logic here. Besides, Christopher Hitchens strikes me as the kind of guy who might make jokes about "buggering" but doesn't have a moral stance against homosexuality.
What else have you misinterpreted? I'm done with this website…
Gay, gay, gay…..why are you people so fucking preoccupied with gay stuff? Who cares?
I care about gay stuff, AI. And I'm sure plenty of other readers do, too.
why?