-
Farewell to the Spectator
December 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
Tentative Praise for Ryan’s New Bipartisan Medicare Plan
December 15, 2011 | 3 comments
-
The Day Ahead: Thursday, December 15
December 15, 2011 | 0 comments
-
Examiner for Romney, National Review Against Gingrich
December 14, 2011 | 39 comments
-
Paul Ryan to Introduce New Medicare Plan with Democrat Ron Wyden
December 14, 2011 | 4 comments
The Spectacle Blog
University of Chicago philosopher Martha Nussbaum has a big problem with Mike Huckabee: he referenced an interview she gave with a gay publication.
According to Politico, on Tuesday Huckabee got in trouble with gay groups (which ones are not specified) for using the phrase “ick factor” to describe aversion to homosexual acts. He later put out a statement claiming that he was not using the phrase to demean homosexuals, but rather as “a reference to an established phrase used mostly from same-sex marriage advocates and militants - not one I created.” He also attributed the phrase to Nussbaum, a prominent same-sex marriage advocate: “Former colleague of then Professor Obama from the University of Chicago’s Law School, Dr. Martha Nussbaum, has often made reference to the ‘ick factor’ in her professional writings and is credited with applying the phrase to the GLBT community….”
Nussbaum then lashed out at Huckabee in an email to Politico:
…I have never used the phrase “ick factor” in any of my three books dealing with the emotion of disgust, or in any articles. I use the term “projective disgust” to characterize the disgust that many people feel when they imagine gay sex acts….
Thus the people to whom the term “projective disgust” applies are the insecure and emotionally stunted people who campaign against equal rights for gays and lesbians, not gays and lesbians themselves.
Mr. Huckabee has gotten bad information about my work and has completely turned its meaning upside down, imputing to me a position (that gays and lesbians are disgusting) that I criticize as childish and morally deficient.
He owes me a public apology.
Perhaps Nussbaum technically has never used that specific phrase in any of her “professional writings.” But she had no problem with Joseph Erbentraut, a writer for the gay news site Edge, crediting her with ownership of the phrase in the interview that Huckabee referenced in his statement. The highlights below are mine:
Dr. Martha Nussbaum…has termed Elliott’s aversion to man-on-man anal sex “the Ick Factor.”
According to Nussbaum’s theory, those opposed to same-sex marriage, for example, maintain their beliefs largely due to an underlying, subconscious feeling of disgust at the thought of what defines “gay” as, well, gay - as well as lesbian as lesbian: What is done in the bedroom.
Socially conservative, anti-gay political leaders capitalize on these feelings, transforming them, often, into victories in the voting booth. In many cases, they’ve been successful, providing ammo to activists who feel the attacks beg confrontation.
…
Dr. Nussbaum first arrived at her theory, further outlined in her recent book, From Disgust to Humanity: Sexual Orientation and Constitutional Law, through the work of philosophers William Miller and Paul Rozin. As Miller argues in the introduction to his seminal work, The Anatomy of Disgust, “Disgust and contempt play crucial political roles in creating and maintaining social hierarchy.”
…
“I think [disgust] plays a part in lots of arguments against same-sex marriage,” Nussbaum told EDGE, “those that use the idea that straight marriage will be ‘defiled’ or ‘tainted’ by the approval of gay marriage.”
Apparently in Nussbaum’s book it’s fine for her to tell a journalist that she coined a phrase — but God help Huckabee if he then quotes the journalist. He better be prepared with an apology.
View all comments (44) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Joseph Lawler
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/06/25/martha-nussbaums-selective-out
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Bill| 6.25.10 @ 1:57PM
Gays and Lesbians do not do anything 'in the bedroom' that heterosexuals do not do in much larger numbers and frequencies.
And with the CDC reporting that 38% of heterosexuals engage in anal sex, while only 36% of gay men do, it is quite clear that anal sex, like ALL sex acts, are heterosexual acts that some gay people engage in as well.
LiveFreeOrDie| 6.25.10 @ 2:57PM
How could you possibly know this? You don't. You pulled it out of your ass. Pardon the pun.
Flee| 6.25.10 @ 3:28PM
If gay men are not having as much anal sex as their hetero brethren what are they doing? Could be even more icky to the unsuspecting in the audience. Maybe their simply abstain from sex. That would be refreshing. I suspect someone that thinks ick from MTM anal would find ick with MTW anal too.
Bruce | 6.27.10 @ 1:42PM
Well - I guess that blows (no pun intended) the theory on the propagation of AIDs/HIV in the gay community all to hell, doesn't it? If we're going to allegedly quote CDC statistics, better we not forget THAT particular item!
Nate| 6.25.10 @ 2:24PM
Sure, Bill. Please provide a link for your "facts."
Ick.
Kevin T. Keith | 6.25.10 @ 2:27PM
Even the simplest reading of the story you cite - and your own quotes from it - make clear that the "Edge" article does not quote Nussbaum using the phrase "Ick Factor". It attributes it to her, but she herself denies that she uses it in her book. Evidently the "Edge" reporter made a mistake, but that is not Nussbaum's fault. As your own work shows, failure of reading comprehension is all too common among political commentators.
The same story you quote does cite Nussbaum explicitly comparing the emotions of people who experience the "ick factor" as comparable to racism, anti-Semitism, misogyny, caste prejudice, and other forms of bigotry. As with her comments to "Politico", noting the emotional degeneracy of people who rely on such feelings to justify their prejudices, she clearly regards that kind of thinking as reprehensible.
Nussbaum is certainly right in calling out Huckabee both for his error in citing her work and his implicit justification of his own bigotry by reference to the work of a scholar who has dedicated her career to exposing and combating exactly those prejudices. She does even better to note that it is Huckabee's emotional immaturity that speaks in his denigration and attempts at oppression of citizens whom he cannot emotionally accommodate himself to. He owes an apology not only to Nussbaum, but to the victims of his pathology, and to all decent people.
LiveFreeOrDie| 6.25.10 @ 3:02PM
So when I see two guys kissing and it makes me feel like I'm going to vomit that's because I'm prejudice and a bigot right?
barbara andic| 6.28.10 @ 7:53AM
Yes: it most assuredly IS because you're a bigot.
What did YOU attribute it to?
Richard Smith| 7.4.10 @ 6:23PM
Ick! I'm a bigot!
kay| 6.29.10 @ 12:20AM
Watch Luke and Reid on youtube (off ATWT) and you will change your mind. These two have the best chemistry and you can see that love is love.
Richard Smith| 7.4.10 @ 11:32PM
Hmmm and I thought all these years that Ned Beatty's reactionto sex in Deliverance was what love between two males was all about.
John Thacker| 6.25.10 @ 2:50PM
"It attributes it to her, but she herself denies that she uses it in her book. Evidently the "Edge" reporter made a mistake, but that is not Nussbaum's fault."
But it's not Huckabee's fault either.
barbara andic| 6.28.10 @ 8:06AM
Ha!
How in the world is this not Huckabee's fault? He bandies about the name of a responsible scholar, attributing to Professor Nussbaum a notion clearly not her own ... and that's NOT his fault? We all have a responsibility both to understand and to represent truthfully the positions of people we quote and/or discuss. Huckabee's an horrible rightwing hack [notwithstanding his "charm" in the eyes of those who don't understand the nasty positions he advances];
and yeah: he owes Dr. Nussbaum a public apology: some other functional illiterate might conceivably think that Huckabee's a credible voice, ... might imagine him to be a responsible person. That would besmirch Nussbaum's name and reputation, so of course Huckabee needs to set the record straight.
Shame! Shame, Huckabee. Sidle up to the mic and do the right thing. Instead of the far-right thing.
Apologize.
dsf| 6.28.10 @ 9:13AM
You miss the point of the article, namely: If Dr. Naussbaum is unhappy with Huckabee, why isn't she, and you, equally unhappy with the Edge article? Read the Edge article. I did. It clearly states that Dr. Nausbaum termed the phrase "ick-factor". The point of this article is to point out the hypocrisy of Dr. Naussbaum's anger with Huckabee. If Huckabee made a mistake, then the Edge article author made an even greater mistake.
Linda| 6.29.10 @ 12:22AM
I get so tired of media trashing Gov. Huckabee and trying to distort everything he says. He is the BEST politician out there, a role model for young people. It is really a shame he is treated this way.
Richard Smith| 7.4.10 @ 7:56PM
C'mon love, this thing has gotten all out of hand about nasty sex. The real question is about the original article isn't it??? Sooo, did Nussbaum tell a journalist she "coined a phrase" and did Huckabee just quote the journalist???? Settle that and we can get on to more important questions like Obama's golf attire. Great Scott...(a phrase used in the "Chronicles of Narnia" mind you as well as other great literary works), where, Mr. President, did those shorts come from???
Ryan| 6.25.10 @ 3:03PM
Huckabee makes note that she references the 'ick factor'.
It seems safe to say that "projective disgust" as she calls it - and then defines is, is the same thing as the 'ick factor'.
It's like calling a pair of dice a simple random number generator and then being offended when someone calls it as it is - a pair of dice...
barbara andic| 6.28.10 @ 8:19AM
O come on!: ' "projective disgust" as [Nussbaum] calls it - ... is the same thing as the 'ick factor' '.
Nope. The 'ick factor' simply works differently
linguistically
than does "projective disgust": the latter is rather diagnostic, clarifying; the former looks like a justification a la 19th century bigotry --
a justification for legislating public "morality" as against the equal protection rights of a class of citizens it pleases others to despise. Cf. blacks, women, browns, native Americans, Asians -- indeed, ANY persons it pleases the privileged to mess with, despise and disenfranchise at any point.
What's the problem with just according equal protection and a modicum of respect?: Christ and Dionysus!: we didn't say you have to have people you hate in for cocktails and dinner [free association is OK with most of us Lefties] ... just leave them ALONE; leave them in peace.
Richard Smith| 7.4.10 @ 9:17PM
Pu....leese! This discussion has gotten way off target. Focus on the facts: Did Dr. Martha Nussbaum tell a journalist she coined a phrase and then poor old Huckabee just repeated the journalist or is there another explanation? Besides dear, the last time I checked, free association was just fine with this old "rightie" and his friends.
We WANT to leave them ALONE and in peace. That crap hright wing bigot cra[ died many moons ago for the most part but it seems to be kept alive through the efforts of social progressives for the sake of argument.....and an antiquated cause "lefties" want to keep alive that passed on a 3 decades ago. There are more important issues today like who the hell does Al Gore think he is hogging all of the good masseurs??? I have "kneads" too!
Grant| 6.25.10 @ 3:13PM
FWIW, the term "yuck factor" was coined by Leon Kass.
Richard Smith| 7.4.10 @ 6:57PM
An interesting point. This is not so much about the "ick" factor as it is about the arrogance of eastern educated liberals. There seems to be a lot of snobbery among these "people" who seem to think that there education qualifies them to to determine "right & wrong."
No one can argue about Kass' educational credentials. It was him that made the following observation after he & his wife spent time in 1965 as civil rights volunteers in the state of MS:
"Why, I wondered then, was there more honor, decency, and dignity among the impoverished and ignorant but church-going black farmers with whom we had lived than among my privileged and educated fellow graduate students at Harvard, whose progressive opinions I shared but whose self-absorption and self-indulgence put me off. If poverty and superstition were the cause of bad character, how to explain this?"
"Whoa Nellie" as us dumb southerners sometimes say to them thar "educated."
Jean Genet| 6.25.10 @ 3:38PM
Anal sex between men is revolting, nauseating, and disgusting, and no amount of verbal contortions by gays and their supporters can change it into a sweet-smelling rose. Excretory orifices were designed for excretion and nothing else.
barbara andic| 6.28.10 @ 8:23AM
Don't like anal sex?
Don't do it.
BTW, you seem to have a fairly primitive idea of same-sex sexual expression .... why spend your time imaging such things as you hate?
Richard Smith| 7.4.10 @ 9:27PM
I say EVERYBODY take a dump and then revisit their answers! Holy mackeral Sapphire!.... shore nuff did clear the issue up for me!
QuoVadisAnima| 6.25.10 @ 4:30PM
What's more, the reasons for being opposed to govt. endorsement of homosexual relationships has nothing to do with the natural sense of revulsion at the unnatural & unhealthy acts between these people, nor with the imposition of my religious beliefs on others, but everything to do with the negative consequences that supporting & encouraging such relationships would have on public health, the economy, society & the culture.
Eric Cartman| 6.25.10 @ 4:54PM
Fin - the whole thing gives me the heebee jeebees! Ick!
Boomer| 6.25.10 @ 5:58PM
Can you all really not help but think of buttsex every time you come across the word "gay" or the topic of same-sex marriage? That's kind of weird. The mechanics of anal sex are pretty gross but I'm not sure that gay people, or the far greater numbers of straight people who engage in the practice, would disagree. It's just not very relevant to the larger debate about the place of GLBT people in society, most obviously among women in lesbian relationships.
Projective Ick| 6.25.10 @ 6:43PM
"It's just not very relevant to the larger debate about the place of GLBT people in society..."
You would like to classify gay as something outside of a behavior, which it is not. You would like to call some women, men and vice versa even though the only difference between them and anyone else is one thing, their sexual behavior. Sorry "Boomer" or should I say "Bill?" It's not only relevant, it's all there is.
"The mechanics of anal sex are pretty gross but I'm not sure that gay people, or the far greater numbers of straight people who engage in the practice..."
Straight men have more anal sex than gay men? Maybe in your family but as for the rest of the country it's the other way around.
Boomer| 6.25.10 @ 10:10PM
"Straight men have more anal sex than gay men? Maybe in your family but as for the rest of the country it's the other way around. "
In terms of absolute numbers, given the vast difference in population size of homosexuals and heterosexuals, it seems highly likely that more straight people have anal sex than gay people, especially given that lesbians rarely if ever have anal sex. Perhaps it's *especially* gross to some when two men are involved, but not only is it not the case that gay guys have a monopoly on sex that could potentially involve contact with fecal matter, it happens far more often in absolute terms when a man and a woman are involved. If you have any evidence to disprove that then I'd love to see it, but given the 20 to 1 advantage in those who identify as heterosexual over those who identify as homosexual I don't expect it to be forthcoming.
Then there's the issue of lesbian sex, which you ignored and which always seems to be ignored in these discussions about how the supposedly "dirty" nature of gay sexual conduct is justification for demonizing those who engage in it and using societal pressure to discourage the practice of homosexuality. Do you find lesbian sex equally "icky," is there some other public health-related reason women should not have sex with each other, or are lesbians just justified collateral damage of public policy aimed at reducing the amount of supposedly unhealthy male-male sex that takes place?
I repeat that it's kind of sad that you all can't help but think of buttsex when gay people are brought up. I guess it's part of the obsession with behavior that flows from refusing to accept that it's a neutral descriptor inherent in one's makeup. But I don't think I'll change anyone's mind on that larger point.
Steve| 6.25.10 @ 10:35PM
Martha Nussbaum is not the only one with a problem with Mike Huckabee. Every time I see his name or hear his voice the term Used Car Salesman comes to mind.
Linda| 6.29.10 @ 12:24AM
This comment tells me you know NOTHING about Gov. Huckabee, nor have you taken the time to try and check him out. If you had, you would realize his one of the few, if not only, politicians out there who is trustworthy and his word is something you can bank on.
Richard Smith| 7.4.10 @ 9:38PM
Hey dude...I've got a one owner low mileage CaddySTS traded in on a new Mustang by an 84 year old stripper!
jrshipley| 6.26.10 @ 10:09PM
So.... just to be clear. Huckabee and the social authoritarians who agree that personal affective responses are a moral foundation for discrimination must subscribe to some form of individual relativism, like a crude sentimentalism that doesn't even distinguish moral from aesthetic sentiment. Is that right? The mis-attribution of the term "ick factor" seems sort of besides the point. The question is whether something so individually and culturally relative as an "ick" response to same sex relations could have anything to do with justification for something as directly harmful to people as systematic discrimination. Huckabee and his cheerleaders just seems to have some very confused ideas about ethics. I don't think he should apologize to her, I think he should have a public discussion about ethics to clarify whether or not he's a relativist.
Thomas Aquinas| 6.27.10 @ 8:49AM
Nussbaum writes:
"Thus the people to whom the term `projective disgust' applies are the insecure and emotionally stunted people who campaign against equal rights for gays and lesbians, not gays and lesbians themselves."
And, of course, as a philosopher, she realizes that this is nothing more than the ad hominem fallacy. By fomenting animus against those morally critical of homosexual conduct by making claims about their inner lives that she cannot possibly know, Nussbaum is "projecting" her own immaturity and philosophical laziness on them. (Two can play this game).
Oh, when a 63 year old woman, who wears an all-leather S&M-lite outfit for a NY Times photo-shoot, refers to others as "emotionally stunted," we should take her personal attacks with a grain of salt.
For the the leather, see here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12.....-Q4-t.html
jrshipley| 6.27.10 @ 10:31AM
You're evidently confused about the ad hominem fallacy. Huckabee cited his disgust as a moral reason. So the psychology is directly relevant. That is, she wasn't just attacking him in some entirely irrelevant. He's essentially confirming her theory that proponents of discrimination have psychological quirks as their reason. If Huckabee were to offer another argument or try to offer specifically moral reasons, it would be different. But it's just not in any sense an ad hominem until there are some other reasons or arguments on the table.
On the other hand, your attack on Prof. Nussbaum's credibility on the basis of her poor fashion sense is a clear example of an ad hominem.
Thomas Aquinas| 6.27.10 @ 11:54AM
I was not talking about Huckabee. I was quoting Nussbaum's outrageously ridiculous claim about people's inner life that she could not possibly know.
But aside from that, she's assuming that people who find homosexual acts disgusting do not have properly formed beliefs. How does she know that? She doesn't. She assumes the incorrectness of their position and then tries to find a subrational account of it. It's question-begging at its worst, and unbecoming of a philosopher.
Consider this counterexample. Imagine someone is brought up to have sympathy for homosexual persons, to show love and care for them. This person is nurtured in a church environment in which he or she is taught that people with homosexual inclinations are made in the image of God and ought to be respected for that reason. However, because they are either men or women, and men and women possess sexual powers that may only be consummated within the confines of man/woman marriage, homosexual acts, like all extramarital sexual acts, are immoral. As a consequence of that nurturing, the person develops a healthy disgust for not only homosexual acts but all extramarital acts including adultery, group sex, wife swapping, etc.
That person may offer "reasons" to Nussbaum and other doubters, but they will not find those reasons compelling. So what. If someone's beliefs about human sexuality were properly formed in a loving environment, and those beliefs result in certain visceral reactions, why is that sign of being "emotionally stunted"?
Imagine another person who grew up in a liberal Episcopal household and has developed an opposite understanding of homosexual acts. For that reason, this person finds people like Huckabee disgusting and irrational. They, like Nussbaum, may have arguments, but their opponents, like Huckabee, don't find them convincing. So what.
As for her leather outfit, I was not suggesting that she is a bad philosopher because of wardrobe. God knows that philosophers, from Anscombe to Wittgenstein, have not been the best dressers. What I was doing was a good ol' reductio ad absurdum: if you want to issue the charge of immaturity based on superficial judgments, then both can play that game.
Also, on the issue homosexuality and the law, Nussbaum has a checkered past, one that undermines her credibility: http://www.leaderu.com/ftissue.....inion.html
tonypal| 6.27.10 @ 9:47PM
Apart from any discussion involving the policies of Obama, this is surely the most disgusting subject ever covered in TAS. As for those who think an individual repulsed by gay sex is bigoted, my response is pretty simple. I simply don't give a damn what you think and I'm not sure why you think I or anyone else does. Your free to express your comments, but by this point in time usage of the term bigot (or homophobe, racist, sexist, etc.) by a liberal is so overwrought that the word has no true value anymore.
In addition, in order for your words to have impact, you must be respected by others. Given the backward looking views of the modern day liberal, its impossible to see liberals as nothing more than misguided souls running on pure emotion.
TooManyJens| 6.27.10 @ 10:17PM
"As for those who think an individual repulsed by gay sex is bigoted"
You misunderstand. The problem is not that people might find gay sex personally distasteful or even repulsive. The problem is that they think their personal feelings of disgust justify depriving other people of their civil rights.
tonypal| 6.28.10 @ 9:31AM
I don't misunderstand at all. I'm also not sure of what you mean by "depriving other people of their civil rights." I'm unaware of any gay man being denied his constitutional rights. If you're talking about marriage, perhaps you can show us where the US Constitution provides anyone a fundamental right to be married.
Marriage is controlled by individual states and we straight people do not possess an unalienable right to be married. Each state has its own requirements, such as a license, etc. Now it is true that almost every state denies homosexuals the "right" to be married, but those same states have civil union laws, which I support. Gay and lesbian couples ought to be able to partake in domestic partnership benefits, such as inheritance rights when someone dies intestate.
We do not deny people the "right" to get married because of personal feelings of disgust. Since the dawn of civilization, mankind has quite correctly discerned the difference between heterosexual and homosexual couplings. Never in human history has homosexuality been considered the equal of heterosexuality. It's not just bigoted Americans, it's every society in the history of civilization that has come to this conclusion. Can they all be wrong?
You can point to a few countries around the world or a few individual states that give homosexuals a "right" to be married, but those instances are about as rare as homosexuality itself. What people like you will never get is that sometimes we must make decisions that are for the greater good. History shows that civilizations that veer off the path crumble. The Roman Empire is a good example.
Richard Smith| 7.4.10 @ 9:47PM
Far be it from me to deny others their civil rights and "enjoyment" of experiences I find disgusting....I delight in the thought that they wake up the next morning!
Donald| 6.28.10 @ 11:54AM
When something is morally wrong, it has always been morally wrong. The gay community wants to tell us that to deny same sex marriage is morally wrong.
From the beginning of history all the great philisophers have condemed slavery. Where are all the great philosophers throughout time who have same sex marriage?
Marriage has had a specific definintion throughout human history. Now some want to come along and tell us that we had it wrong all this time?