News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
Posts 
Posts via daily email:
The FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.Tucker Carlson’s “Gay Bashing” Story
Timothy Kincaid
August 29th, 2007
Amidst discussion about Sen. Craig’s bathroom antics, MSNBC’s conservative commentator Tucker Carlson shared a story from his youth:
CARLSON: … Having sex in a public men’s room is outrageous. It’s also really common. I’ve been bothered in men’s rooms. I think people who do -
SCARBOROUGH: Really?
CARLSON: Yeah, I have. You know what, Let me just say.
SCARBOROUGH: Wait, hold on a second. Dan, hold on a second. I don’t mean to take over, but have you been bothered in public restrooms, Dan? Because I know I haven’t.
CARLSON: I have. I’ve been bothered in Georgetown Park. When I was in high school.
ABRAMS: Really?
CARLSON: Yes.
SCARBOROUGH: Wow.
CARLSON: And let me just say, I think –
SCARBOROUGH: That’s something.
CARLSON: — people should knock that off. I’m not anti-gay in the slightest, but that’s really common, and the gay rights groups ought to disavow that kind of crap because, you know, that actually does bother people who didn’t ask for being bothered. So yeah, I think it’s outrageous that he did that. And also, this specter of him getting up there and blaming other people is so Clintonian. You know, if he just said, “I’m not going to talk about it,” that’d be one thing.
[omitted]
ABRAMS: Tucker, what did you do, by the way? What did you do when he did that? We got to know.
CARLSON: I went back with someone I knew and grabbed the guy by the — you know, and grabbed him, and — and –
ABRAMS: And did what?
CARLSON: Hit him against the stall with his head, actually!
Although the talking heads thought this was hysterically funny, some in the blogosphere were shocked at what appeared to be a televised admission of gay bashing.
Carlson responded later in the day with a different version of the story:
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.
Personally, I don’t think Carlson improved his image much with the “clarification”. I’m not convinced that gay panic is all that much better of an excuse for violence than premeditated gay bashing. And I can’t help but notice that being “bothered” became “physically grabbed” while “hit him against the stall with his head” magically turned into “held him until a security guard came”.
I wasn’t in the stall and of course have no way of knowing which version of the story is true. And I don’t want to portray the creep in the bathroom in a sympathetic light.
But I do know that when Tucker Carlson told the story, he, Rick Scarborough and Dan Abrams all thought being “bothered” justified physical assault and that bashing the guy’s head against the stall wall was both fitting and funny.
Lusitanian
August 29th, 2007 | LINK
“I wasn’t in the stall and of course have no way of knowing which version of the story is true”
It really seems neither is.
Emproph
August 30th, 2007 | LINK
This is the line that galled me about the exchange:
Am I missing something here? Since when are gay rights groups actually “avowing that kind of crap?”
Or is he suggesting that it is the reponsibility of gay-rights groups to speak out against married ‘heterosexual’ men having public gay-sex?
Tom
August 30th, 2007 | LINK
The lady doth protest too much, me thinks.
Jason
August 30th, 2007 | LINK
Does Tucker not know that he was on TV saying he hit someone’s head against a stall for “bothering” him?
Alonzo
August 30th, 2007 | LINK
You’ve got to be kidding right?
]If Tucker Carlson did in fact defend himself against someone who was attempting to sexual harass him that is not the definition of gay bashing.
Jarred
August 30th, 2007 | LINK
There’s a bit of a problem with the self-defense argument, Alonzo. Carlson left the bathroom and returned between the time he was bothered/grabbed and he resorted to using force. At the time Carlson resorted to force, the harassment/assault had already passed and he was in no immediate danger. (Neither version of the story suggests the man bothered or grabbed him the second time Carlson entered the bathroom.)
If you believe the second account, the best you can say is that it wasn’t gay bashing. But claiming it was self defense just isn’t going to fly.
Alonzo
August 30th, 2007 | LINK
Regardless – I don’t think this is a case of gay bashing. If anything since Tucker Carlson was in high school at the time this happen and if he wasn’t 18 at the time – he beat up a pedophille – sorry he’s not getting any sympathy from me.
Plus I think it pretty harsh to label somebody a gay-basher based on something that happened years ago and it didn’t attack the creep because he was gay he attacked him because he was sexual harnessed.
Timothy Kincaid
August 30th, 2007 | LINK
Alonzo,
Please site your source that the man was a pedophile. We do not know if he was as young or younger than Carlson.
In fact we know nothing other than that Carlson returned after the fact with someone else and together they bashed his head against the stall.
Alonzo
August 30th, 2007 | LINK
My point is I don’t think it’s fair to label Carlson a gay basher – He may have been a jerk for physically assaulting a creep who sexually harassed him after the fact – but that doesn’t make him a gay basher.
Alonzo
August 30th, 2007 | LINK
One more thing you don’t even know if the guy Tucker Carlson was sexually harassed
by was even gay. He very well may have been a Heterosexual identifying male.
Timothy Kincaid
August 30th, 2007 | LINK
Alonzo,
Will you please go back and read again what I wrote. You will notice that the header has “gay bashing” in quotes and that I noted that others were accusing him of gay bashing. I did not.
I did, however, note that his clarification does not make him look any better than the original story.
He may not be a gay basher. However, he is someone who thinks that slamming a head against the wall is the appropriate response to whatever happened and he thinks that this is funny.
Clear?
Alonzo
August 30th, 2007 | LINK
My apologies I didn’t mean to suggest that you personally think Tucker was a gay basher – however I think it was an easy assumption on my part considering the way the story is framed and the very fact at the end of the piece it says:
For related information, see Hate Crime
Jason
August 31st, 2007 | LINK
Alonzo I have to disagree, the scenario he describes fits the profile of many hate crimes.
-Person A makes some sort of real or percieved sexual advance on person B. This can be innocent flirting, a look, a touch, or what some would consider sexual harassment.
-Person B flees the scene.
-Person B returns with one or more helpers and inflicts violence on Person A as retribution for the real or percieved sexual advance. This may happen minutes, hours, or days after the original incident.
Let’s say for the sake of argument that Tucker was assaulted. Let’s say the unidentified male attempted to rape Tucker.
Tucker had many defensive options at his disposal, he chose to escape the situation. This is what most experts would say is the smartest move in this situation.
Having left the scene, and with the alleged assailant NOT in pursuit, Tucker was no longer in any danger.
But for some curious reason he chose to return 20 some minutes later with a friend and by his own words : “Hit him against the stall with his head.”
Yes this is a jerky move, but it’s also gay bashing.
I find it curious that he initially described the incident as being “bothered” but had no problem mentioning the assault. He then later shifted his story to that of an assault and his actions as that of restraint.
In the first account, we have an undetermined presumed sexual advance that results in unsubstantiated violence almost half an hour after the incident ended.
In the second version we have an vaguely described assault that results in restraint almost half an hour after the incident ended.
Tucker’s attempt to save face doesn’t wash. He’s lying about something.
Alonzo
August 31st, 2007 | LINK
Revenge maybe.
Carlson being a jerk for sure.
Gay basher – I’m sorry I’m not buying it.
Jason
August 31st, 2007 | LINK
Alonzo, I only have one other point, and then I’m assuming we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
I’m inclined to believe Tucker’s original story simply because it was a casual conversation. His guard was down, and I believe he was being honest. I don’t buy that “bothered” is a metaphor for “sexual assault”. They were discussing Craig (who was not assaulting the police officer) when Tucker mentioned he had been “bothered” too. I assume this meant something along the lines of what the officer reported (foot tapping, hand motions under the stall divider, peering through the doorframe). While intrusive and “jerky” actions in their own right, I don’t believe they warrant the type of revenge Tucker returned 25 minutes later to exact. His incongruous reaction is perfectly in line with well-documented cases of gay-panic violence.
A person need not be killed in order for it to qualify as gay bashing. Intense emotional distress counts as well. Nor does one need to go outside with the premeditated intent to bash gays. Quite often it happens spur of the moment.
Another way to look at it, would Tucker have reacted the exact same way if it was a woman he did not find attractive “bothering” him? I think he would not have reacted the same, even if the woman was repulsive and physically intimidating. If I’m correct in that assertion, then his violent behavior would have to be based on sexual orientation, not retaliation against unwanted advances.
Alonzo
August 31st, 2007 | LINK
I agree to disagree.
Leave A Comment