NationStates Jolt Archive

And of course, it's a Nordic country. How predictable. :D


Iceland to appoint gay woman minister to PM post

REYKJAVIK, Iceland – Iceland's next leader will be an openly gay former flight attendant who parlayed her experience as a union organizer into a decades-long political career.

Both parties forming Iceland's new coalition government support the appointment of Johanna Sigurdardottir, the island nation's 66-year-old social affairs minister, as Iceland's interim prime minister.

"Now we need a strong government that works with the people," Sigurdardottir told reporters Wednesday, adding that a new administration will likely be installed Saturday.

Sigurdardottir will lead until new elections are held, likely in May. But analysts say she's unlikely to remain in office — chiefly because her center-left Social Democratic Alliance isn't expected to rank among the major parties after the election.

In opinion polls, it trails the Left-Green movement, a junior partner in the new coalition.

Iceland's previous conservative-led government failed Monday after the country's banks collapsed last fall under the weight of huge debts amassed during years of rapid economic growth. The country's currency has since plummeted, while inflation and unemployment are soaring.

Former Prime Minister Geir Haarde won't lead his Independence Party into the new elections because he needs treatment for throat cancer.

While Haarde endured angry protests for months and had his limousine pelted with eggs, polling company Capacent Gallup said Sigurdardottir was Iceland's most popular politician in November, with an approval rating of 73 percent.

She was the only minister to see her rating improve on the previous year's score, Capacent Gallup said Wednesday. The poll of 2,000 people had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percent.

"It's a question of trust, people believe that she actually cares about people," said Olafur Hardarson, a political scientist at the University of Iceland.

Sigurdardottir is seen by many as a salve to the bubbling tensions in Iceland. Thousands have joined anti-government protests recently. Last week, police used tear gas for the first time in about 50 years to disperse crowds.

"She is a senior parliamentarian, she is respected and loved by all of Iceland," said Environment Minister Thorunn Sveinbjarnardottir, a fellow Alliance party member.

The new leader is known for allocating generous amounts of public funding to help the disabled, the elderly and organizations tackling domestic violence.

But conservative critics say Sigurdardottir's leftist leanings and lack of business experience won't help her fix the economy. "Johanna is a very good woman — but she likes public spending, she is a tax raiser," Haarde said.

Iceland has negotiated about $10 billion in bailout loans from the International Monetary Fund and individual countries. The loans are currently being held as foreign currency reserves.

Banks that were nationalized last year are once again open and trading — but Iceland still owes millions of dollars to foreign depositors.

After acting as a labor organizer when she worked as a flight attendant for Loftleidir Airlines — now Icelandair — in the 1960s and 1970s, Sigurdardottir was elected to Iceland's parliament in 1978. She served as social affairs minister from 1987-1994 and from 2007.

"If there's anyone who can restore trust in the political system it's her," said Eyvindur Karlsson, a 27-year-old translator from Reykjavik. "People respect her because she's never been afraid of standing up to her own party. They see her as someone who isn't tainted by the economic crisis."

In 1995, Sigurdardottir quit the party and formed her own, which won four parliamentary seats in a national election. Several years later, she rejoined her old party when it merged with three other center-left groups.

While a woman has served in the largely symbolic role of president, Sigurdardottir will be Iceland's first female prime minister.

She lives with journalist Jonina Leosdottir, who became her civil partner in 2002, and has two sons from a previous marriage.

Sigurdardottir is best known for her reaction to a failed bid to lead her party in 1994. "My time will come," she predicted in her concession speech.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090128/ap_on_re_eu/eu_iceland_new_leader

Other article:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/world-gets-its-first-gay-head-of-state-1519068.html

They chose an air hostess because she knows all the emergency exits.

to be fair she is only interim PM.
and the head of state is technically Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson the president of Iceland.

to be fair she is only interim PM.
and the head of state is technically Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson the president of Iceland.

I know, eh? Should be head of the government.

Thats the most gay thing I ever heared!

*Feels gay now*

I know, eh? Should be head of the government.

This president is pushing things even there. He actually used his Veto. And last election no one ran against him. seems if the US can blame the mess on him we can justify a regime change.

The first openly gay head of government. There's speculation that James Buchanan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Buchanan#Personal_relationships) was gay, and I'm sure there have been numerous gay heads of state, they just didn't advertise the fact.

The first openly gay head of government. There's speculation that James Buchanan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Buchanan#Personal_relationships) was gay, and I'm sure there have been numerous gay heads of state, they just didn't advertise the fact.
dont forget the rumors about george bush

The Mayor of Paris is perhaps one of the most influential gay politicians in the world.

For some reason this conjures up Sherlock Holmes withdrawing his pipe and explaining a fundamental truth to Watson...

"Ah but you see Dr. Watson, the Mayor of Paris is perhaps one of the most influential gay politicians... in the WORLD??!! OMG111!"

Dunh dunh DUNH!

The first openly gay head of government. There's speculation that James Buchanan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Buchanan#Personal_relationships) was gay, and I'm sure there have been numerous gay heads of state, they just didn't advertise the fact.

I guess they arent counting Edward II of England either.

For some reason this conjures up Sherlock Holmes withdrawing his pipe and explaining a fundamental truth to Watson...

"Ah but you see Dr. Watson, the Mayor of Paris is perhaps one of the most influential gay politicians... in the WORLD??!! OMG111!"

Dunh dunh DUNH!

:confused:

What about Alexander the great?

dont forget the rumors about george bush

:confused:

So it isn't the first head of state she will be in fact the head of government. And it isn't the first one because there have been other governments that have had a gay person as their head.

As for being gay, why should we really give a crap?

What about Alexander the great?

Ok, he beats Edward 2. But I bet Johanna is the first lesbian leader.

Ok, he beats Edward 2. But I bet Johanna is the first lesbian leader.
England's first Lizzie?

:confused:
oh just google it. its too ugly to type out.

add the words "kitty kelly"

...That's nice.

Ok, he beats Edward 2. But I bet Johanna is the first lesbian leader.

Gay or Bi? Same goes for Edward II, also what is this business with Edward II

Theyre destroying the faberic of society.

Theyre destroying the faberic of society.Good. Society as is...kind of sucks. :p

Theyre destroying the faberic of society.

Why won't anyone think of the children?

Theyre destroying the faberic of society.

What? Icelands society of a few thousand? We hardly need to care about that Superpower.

And the first gay head of government to reach the position through a democratic process rather than dynastic inheritance.

She should make a Diplomatic Visit here....We have a Former VP candidate she might be interested in meeting......


Although, we could probably just get a random Canadian and get the same reaction from her, lol....

Theyre destroying the faberic of society.

"And when I take a hit at your social fabric, it tears apart at the seems."

Win.

And of course, it's a Nordic country. How predictable. :D


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090128/ap_on_re_eu/eu_iceland_new_leader

Other article:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/world-gets-its-first-gay-head-of-state-1519068.html
actually probably not the first Gay head of state I mean go back a ways . .. there are some pretty heavy speculations about people like alexander of macedonia and/or some of the roman heads of state. Some of the Athenians heads of state were openly gay i think . . .but I couldn't tell u why.

Ok, he beats Edward 2. But I bet Johanna is the first lesbian leader.

Cept for the leaders of Lesbos (the island. .. ancient greece . .heh. . .heh . .aw . . .

And the first gay head of government to reach the position through a democratic process rather than dynastic inheritance.

May I point you to President Arthur...He wasnt openly gay, but several signs point to him being so...He refused to see another woman when his Wife died, and was Widely regarded as a "Dandy" and had the entire White House redecorated, and went on a shopping spree after assuming the presidency, and was always acknowledged for his fashion...

Although that is all circumstantial and stereotypical, just pointing it out, lol...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chester_A._Arthur

May I point you to President Arthur...He wasnt openly gay, but several signs point to him being so...He refused to see another woman when his Wife died, and was Widely regarded as a "Dandy" and had the entire White House redecorated, and went on a shopping spree after assuming the presidency, and was always acknowledged for his fashion...

Although that is all circumstantial and stereotypical, just pointing it out, lol...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chester_A._Arthur

I also mentioned Buchanan earlier in the thread.

England's first Lizzie?

Nah, she fucked Robert Dudley all over the shop.

I would say Thatcher, but she fucked the north.

If you go back to the prehistoric times, I'm sure that at least SOME tribes had a gay or lesbian chief form time to time....

If you go back to the prehistoric times, I'm sure that at least SOME tribes had a gay or lesbian chief form time to time....

Probably not, seeing as reproduction was of such vital importance.

Probably not, seeing as reproduction was of such vital importance.

I'm sorry, were you under the impression that gay people are sterile? You poor poor child, how our public education system has failed you.

I'm sorry, were you under the impression that gay people are sterile? You poor poor child, how our public education system has failed you.

Well generally gay couples have a hard time reproducing on there own. I suppose they could have used surragate mothers or fathers, or something.

But honestly, I doubt it.

edit:

and here you again. Flaming away, as usual.

Well generally gay couples have a hard time reproducing on there own.

I'm sorry, did you confuse "being gay" with "being actively gay"? Man, those schools must SUCK.

I'm sorry, did you confuse "being gay" with "being actively gay"? Man, those schools must SUCK.

Just keep on flaming, Neo. Its what you do best.

All I said was that I doubted there were many gay tribal leaders in prehistory.

And then you come in and pull shit out of thin air and insult me. As usual.

All I said was that I doubted there were many gay tribal leaders in prehistory.

And then you come in and pull shit out of thin air and insult me. As usual.

If I find I insult your conclusions, perhaps you should put better effort into forming your conclusions.

You doubt there were gay tribal leaders in prehistory. Why? Because tribal cultures focused on reproduction? OK, what's that have to do with being gay? If you believe that one can't be gay and reproduce, the only logical conclusion for such a statement is that you believe gay people can't reproduce.

That is a false, and stupid, belief.

You then tried to argue that gay COUPLES can't reproduce, which again, is only relevant if you assume that all gay people are in gay relationships. Which is, again, a false and stupid belief.

If you don't like me calling your arguments false, and stupid, come up with better ones. In fact, let me help you. Let's try to do something radical and use some thinking here, shall we? If someone, who is gay, is in a tribal culture, that emphases families and having/raising offspring, then that individual might feel cultural and social pressure to produce offspring, and thus, as a result of social and cultural pressure to produce said offspring, will actually do so, despite being gay.

Did that particular thought happen to occur to you?

http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/uploads/ipbfree.com/generalitemafia/emo-popcorn.gif

If I find I insult your conclusions, perhaps you should put better effort into forming your conclusions.

You doubt there were gay tribal leaders in prehistory. Why? Because tribal cultures focused on reproduction? OK, what's that have to do with being gay? If you believe that one can't be gay and reproduce, the only logical conclusion for such a statement is that you believe gay people can't reproduce.

That is a false, and stupid, belief.

You then tried to argue that gay COUPLES can't reproduce, which again, is only relevant if you assume that all gay people are in gay relationships. Which is, again, a false and stupid belief.

If you don't like me calling your arguments false, and stupid, come up with better ones. In fact, let me help you. Let's try to do something radical and use some thinking here, shall we? If someone, who is gay, is in a tribal culture, that emphases families and having/raising offspring, then that individual might feel cultural and social pressure to produce offspring, and thus, as a result of social and cultural pressure to produce said offspring, will actually do so, despite being gay.

Did that particular thought happen to occur to you?

Gay couples/people whatever. Two people have the same sex aren't generally able to reproduce on their own. I said that. I left the possibility open for that.

And yes, that thought crossed my mind, I didn't find it that likely. As the a leader of the tribe would be an alpha personality, a dominant male. And dominant males are usually interested in women.

Pretty fucking easy to think of. All you are doing, and you know you are fucking doing it, is pulling shit out of thin to insult me, because you don't like me, and I don't like you. Pretty much everybody on this forum knows that. I'd like it if you stopped creating confrontations where all you do is insult others. You do it constantly to people you disagree with.

And you know it.

Some tribes had males as the dominant gender; others had females as the dominant gender.

I guess they arent counting Edward II of England either.

Or Richard the Lionheart, who reigned before Edward II.

Or lots and lots of people before.

And yes, that thought crossed my mind, I didn't find it that likely. As the a leader of the tribe would be an alpha personality, a dominant male. And dominant males are usually interested in women.

I would dearly love to see some evidence for this, as it's going to come as a fairly big surprise to the rather large community of kinky gay people.

Some tribes had males as the dominant gender; others had females as the dominant gender.

Very, very rarely. In fact, I only remember one tribe where females were dominant (I don't recall the name of the tribe).

I would dearly love to see some evidence for this, as it's going to come as a fairly big surprise to the rather large community of kinky gay people.

Look at the alpha males in society. Extrapolate from there.

Look at alpha male figures of the past. Extrapolate from there.

Now its possible that there were gay leaders in history (almost certain), but I highly doubt there were many gay tribal leaders in prehistory.

Though honestly I don't think we can over know, so the best we can do is guess and say why we think that.

Richard the Lionheart was an alpha male.

Your logic rules.

Question, Trollgaard: are all submissive males homosexual?

Look at the alpha males in society. Extrapolate from there.

Exactly, men don't make it to the top of the political world by being gay. I mean, like congressmen, you think there are any gay congressmen? I laugh at the idea. My proud state of massachusetts would never, ever, elect a limp wristed queer to the high echelons of political power.

Look at alpha male figures of the past. Extrapolate from there.

And you know who is the most alpha of them all? Alexander the Great. conquered the whole known world. Brought persia to its knees. A real manly man. Was so much a manly man, that he thoroughly enjoyed the company of other men. Far moreso than he did of women, actually.

And what about Richard the Lionheart? The great crusader. No way he was a homo, no sir! But, I don't mean "sir" in that way. I'm not a fucking queer.

Exactly, men don't make it to the top of the political world by being gay. I mean, like congressmen, you think there are any gay congressmen? I laugh at the idea. My proud state of massachusetts would never, ever, elect a limp wristed queer to the high echelons of political power.



And you know who is the most alpha of them all? Alexander the Great. conquered the whole known world. Brought persia to its knees. A real manly man. Was so much a manly man, that he thoroughly enjoyed the company of other men. Far moreso than he did of women, actually.

Okay, but, like, he wasn't a dominant type, obviously. Or, I mean, if it was, it was only because he also probably boinked chicks. Maybe bi guys are allowed to be "alpha males"?

And Barney Frank is obviously a closeted heterosexual. How else could he possibly be in a position of power? Duh!

Question, Trollgaard: are all submissive males homosexual?

I don't know if I want to touch that question with a 10ft pole.

Exactly, men don't make it to the top of the political world by being gay. I mean, like congressmen, you think there are any gay congressmen? I laugh at the idea. My proud state of massachusetts would never, ever, elect a limp wristed queer to the high echelons of political power.



And you know who is the most alpha of them all? Alexander the Great. conquered the whole known world. Brought persia to its knees. A real manly man. Was so much a manly man, that he thoroughly enjoyed the company of other men. Far moreso than he did of women, actually.

And what about Richard the Lionheart? The great crusader. No way he was a homo, no sir! But, I don't mean "sir" in that way. I'm not a fucking queer.

Notice the terms of 'history' and 'prehistory' I used.

Hell, when you think about it, Jesus Christ spent most of his time being followed around by a whore, but still preferred the company of 12 guys in sandals.

That...that ain't right.

Notice the terms of 'history' and 'prehistory' I used.

ahh, so gay people CAN be leaders of nations and societies, just as long as it was after 3,000 B.C.

Well, makes sense, given that gayness was transmitted on a rainbow comet of fabulousness which crash landed in the bay are in 2900 BC.

ahh, so gay people CAN be leaders of nations and societies, just as long as it was after 3,000 B.C.

Well, makes sense, given that gayness was transmitted on a rainbow comet of fabulousness which crash landed in the bay are in 2900 BC.

Very unlikely, anyway.

So that's why San Fran is so gay! I never knew! :eek: :p :rolleyes:

I don't know if I want to touch that question with a 10ft pole.

It seems like a pretty simple yes/no question. Why not go ahead and answer it?



Notice the terms of 'history' and 'prehistory' I used.

Look at the alpha males in society. Extrapolate from there.

Look at alpha male figures of the past. Extrapolate from there.

This quote would seem to suggest that we should look at alpha male figures of the present and past, and extrapolate from there, and this was your reply to my request for evidence that "dominant males" in prehistory were straight. Are you now arguing that we should actually ignore the present and all recorded history, and instead just declare that, okay, even if there are dominant gay men now, and even if there were dominant gay men thousands of years ago, there weren't dominant gay men before that, because Trollgaard says so?

And we are supposed to look to the past and "extrapolate from there", but when we do, it doesn't count.



Damn poofders.

I don't know if I want to touch that question with a 10ft pole.




Trollgaard, while Neo Art may be saying what he's saying in a way that could potentially cause offense, he's saying it that way because you're really demonstrating ignorance of homosexuality and homosexuals in general, ignorance you could easily dispel if you chose to listen.

Homosexuality and Dom/sub have nothing to do with each other. One does not equate the other. One can be homosexual and be quite forceful and dominant, just as one can be homosexual and rather submissive.

The problem with your assertions is that they are naive and based in mistaken beliefs about how people ought to act. I further submit they are also a product of your mistaken beliefs in gender roles, in assuming that the stereotypical "manliness" is something worthwhile.

I finally submit that I am beginning to ramble incoherently, so I will let Poli and Neo Art take over.

ahh, so gay people CAN be leaders of nations and societies, just as long as it was after 3,000 B.C.

Well, makes sense, given that gayness was transmitted on a rainbow comet of fabulousness which crash landed in the bay are in 2900 BC.

Did you know that a similar comet actually collided with the earth about 65 million years ago and turned all the dinosaurs gay? That's why they became extinct, see, because they couldn't reproduce anymore.

It seems like a pretty simple yes/no question. Why not go ahead and answer it?






This quote would seem to suggest that we should look at alpha male figures of the present and past, and extrapolate from there, and this was your reply to my request for evidence that "dominant males" in prehistory were straight. Are you now arguing that we should actually ignore the present and all recorded history, and instead just declare that, okay, even if there are dominant gay men now, and even if there were dominant gay men thousands of years ago, there weren't dominant gay men before that, because Trollgaard says so?


There are very few gay leaders throughout history.

During prehistory, when group survival depended on every member of the group pulling there weight and reproducing when able it is unlikely a homosexual would become a tribal leader.

It is even more on unlikely that a lesbian would, as very very few tribes were matriarchal, though there were some.

There are very few gay leaders throughout history.

Kinda seems like we've named several, and goodness only knows how many more weren't openly gay.

During prehistory, when group survival depended on every member of the group pulling there weight and reproducing when able it is unlikely a homosexual would become a tribal leader.

Yes, you already said this. You still haven't supported it with any actual evidence that homosexuals wouldn't reproduce, or that tribal leadership was always or even ever based on reproductive success, or that being an "alpha male" precludes wanting to screw men, OR that being an "alpha male" is a requirement for tribal leadership.

It is even more on unlikely that a lesbian would, as very very few tribes were matriarchal, though there were some.

Seeing as you were so adamant that we were discussing prehistory, i.e. the time before we have any actual written records, I would also kinda like to see evidence that there were "very few" tribes with female leaders.

Kinda seems like we've named several, and goodness only knows how many more weren't openly gay.



Yes, you already said this. You still haven't supported it with any actual evidence that homosexuals wouldn't reproduce, or that tribal leadership was always or even ever based on reproductive success, or that being an "alpha male" precludes wanting to screw men, OR that being an "alpha male" is a requirement for tribal leadership.



Seeing as you were so adamant that we were discussing prehistory, i.e. the time before we have any actual written records, I would also kinda like to see evidence that there were "very few" tribes with female leaders.

Ok. You named a handful.

During prehistory if a 'homosexual' reproduced, that really wouldn't make them homosexual, would it? Tribes have beliefs, taboos, and what not that are fairly strictly enforced. Deviations from accepted behaviors were generally viewed with suspicion at best. Homosexual behavior has only recently become more and more accepted. Even today it is still punishable by death in some countries. Go back in time and the nonacceptance of homosexuals would only increase.

Now I think there is consensus here that there are some gay leaders and alpha males out there, so there may have been a few gay tribal leaders. But not many.

How do people find evidence on anything in prehistory? Archeology and anthropology! :)

About matriarchy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy

From the opening paragraph: "There are no known societies that are unambiguously matriarchal"

Ok, he beats Edward 2. But I bet Johanna is the first lesbian leader.

Nope, there was an Egyptian Pharaoh. Daughter of the previous Pharaoh, had herself officially declared a man, and took a wife. Apparently a reasonably good ruler, too, I just can't think of her name.

Congratulations to her. Why is this news?

Congratulations to her. Why is this news?

'Cause it's an indication that the world is becoming a nicer and more liberal place.

More liberal? Sure. Nicer? Meh.

I'm all for people rising to high positions regardless of their age, race, economic status or sexual inclinations, but I have a hard time equating "more accepting of homosexuality" with "the world is holding hands and singing".

Just a personal failing of mine. I can't draw the conclusion. Hell, I can't even find the road.

There are very few gay leaders throughout history.

During prehistory, when group survival depended on every member of the group pulling there weight and reproducing when able it is unlikely a homosexual would become a tribal leader.

It is even more on unlikely that a lesbian would, as very very few tribes were matriarchal, though there were some.

You do, of course, realize that homosexual people sometimes have heterosexual sex to prodyuce offspring, right?

And you do of course, realize that some societies didn't realize "sex = babies!" until some time after written history, right? I remember that in high school I read a book that took place in british india (that'd be the 1800's!) where it took a doctor to teach the main character that sex was necessary for children. I don't recall the title, although I know that one of the main characters (who, I think, weas in his later teens) had deformed hands.

Ok, he beats Edward 2. But I bet Johanna is the first lesbian leader.

There was that rumour about Elizabeth I, but it was only a rumour.

Honestly, the only question anyone should ever ask of any head of government is NOT what colour/gender/sexual identity they favour, but whether they can actually DO THE JOB.

Apparently, the folks in Iceland say she can, and perhaps the fact that she's got some social issues of her own and still got the job indicates she actually CAN do the job.

Best of luck to her, in any case.

At least the folks in Iceland didn't choose a head-of-state using the criteria from "American Idol" the way the Americans have.

There was that rumour about Elizabeth I, but it was only a rumour.

Honestly, the only question anyone should ever ask of any head of government is NOT what colour/gender/sexual identity they favour, but whether they can actually DO THE JOB.

Apparently, the folks in Iceland say she can, and perhaps the fact that she's got some social issues of her own and still got the job indicates she actually CAN do the job.

Best of luck to her, in any case.

At least the folks in Iceland didn't choose a head-of-state using the criteria from "American Idol" the way the Americans have.

Unfortunately, some people would rather have a worthless psycho in office than someone competent but gay/lesbian/straight/white/black/atheist/muslim/pastafarian/whatever. :(

Unfortunately, some people would rather have a worthless psycho in office than someone competent but gay/lesbian/straight/white/black/atheist/muslim/pastafarian/whatever. :(

People are by definition stupid in large groups, and Politics makes them even stupider-especially when it's dragged down into the mire of "Identity" based or "Celebrity" based politics, and it's made worse by Falwellites (and their ilk) on the right, and "Special Interest Lib" types on the left.

All stoked by a manufactured "Pop Culture" that treats rockstars, athletes and actors as more credible than writers, thinkers, or philosophers.

Nope, there was an Egyptian Pharaoh. Daughter of the previous Pharaoh, had herself officially declared a man, and took a wife. Apparently a reasonably good ruler, too, I just can't think of her name.

I believe you may be thinking of Hatshepsut. She was shown as a man in official ceremonial portraits, but sculpture still often shows her wearing women's clothing.

She initially ruled as co-regent for her step-son, the also highly successful Thutmose III, before taking the full title of pharaoh in her own right. Apparent attempts to deface her monuments after her death may have more to do with Thutmose's resentment at being usurped than any resentment of being ruled by a woman.

She was previously one of the wives of Thutmose II, and I know of no document stating that she took a wife (persistant rumours that she ceremonially married her step son Thutmose III may be true, but this sort of ceremonial marriage lasted to the Ptolomaic period).

Contrary to popular perception, she wasn't the first female pharaoh; she was preceded by, at least, Khentkaues and Sobeknefru (the latter six dynasties before Hatshepsut).


A couple of other points that have come up in the thread...

1) I think the article might have been better described the new Icelandic PM as 'first openly gay head of government of a democracy', much like 1980s Icelandic President Vigdis Finnbogadottir had to be described as 'first elected female head of state' (they love their female firsts in Iceland).

2) Trying to ascribe modern conceptions of sexuality to figures of the past is problematic. Did Alexander the Great sleep with men? Very probably - but in that regard he was no different from a lot of cultures impacted by classical Greece. He also slept with women. A lot of very prominent classical Greek figures had sex with adolescent boys. That doesn't make them paedophiles in the modern sense, it simply illustrates a different cultural norm. At the same time, those classical Greeks clearly liked to sleep with women, otherwise the plot of Lysistrata wouldn't work. Just because we've reified the categories of 'gay' and 'lesbian' in a certain rigid way doesn't mean our ancestors did; past conceptions of sexuality were often far more fluid.

I also mentioned Buchanan earlier in the thread.

And let's not forget Edward Heath on this side of the pond: obligatroy wiki link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Heath#Sexuality)

Good for Iceland but really this shouldn't be anything more than a passing mention. It's a nice milestone to reach, but a political figure's sexuality should not be a major story, their policies should be.

...During prehistory, when group survival depended on every member of the group pulling there weight and reproducing when able it is unlikely a homosexual would become a tribal leader...

If you are discussing nomadic hunter-gatherer societies, then you might like to know that many tried to limit their population, rather than expand it, so as not to stress the resources of their habitat. Moreover, while some groups had made the relationship that sex equals babies, many had not. So, even if reproduction was encouraged, it would be unreasonable to argue that all prehistoric tribes would have condemned homosexuality on this basis.

...Tribes have beliefs, taboos, and what not that are fairly strictly enforced. Deviations from accepted behaviors were generally viewed with suspicion at best. Homosexual behavior has only recently become more and more accepted. Even today it is still punishable by death in some countries. Go back in time and the nonacceptance of homosexuals would only increase. ...

Do you have any evidence at all indicating that these societies were homophobic before contact with Christian civilisation?

Do you have any evidence at all indicating that these societies were homophobic before contact with Christian civilisation?

In my opinion, he'll find the evidence indicates the opposite the more he looks into earlier and/or non-Western civilisations.

How 'bout them Athenians...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/Pederastic_courtship_Louvre_CA3096_n2.jpg/250px-Pederastic_courtship_Louvre_CA3096_n2.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3b/Tombofthediver_banquet.jpg/250px-Tombofthediver_banquet.jpg

Edit:
I hope the mods don't pull me up on posting the above, but I'm hoping Classical pottery and painting don't count as gay porn!

In my opinion, he'll find the evidence indicates the opposite the more he looks into earlier and/or non-Western civilisations.

You realize who you're talking about, right? You'll be lucky if he even admits to ever seeing this thread.

This was a kind of fun thread till some people runied it for the rest of us.

Notice the terms of 'history' and 'prehistory' I used.
I noticed you used them, but I don't see the significance.
Ok. You named a handful.

During prehistory if a 'homosexual' reproduced, that really wouldn't make them homosexual, would it?
Yes, it would.
Tribes have beliefs, taboos, and what not that are fairly strictly enforced. Deviations from accepted behaviors were generally viewed with suspicion at best. Homosexual behavior has only recently become more and more accepted. Even today it is still punishable by death in some countries. Go back in time and the nonacceptance of homosexuals would only increase.
Even if it was true that homosexual behaviour was totally not tolerated in prehistoric tribes(and I certainly don't know if it is true), then that doesn't preclude there being homosexuals that stayed in the prehistoric closet.

Now I think there is consensus here that there are some gay leaders and alpha males out there, so there may have been a few gay tribal leaders. But not many.
I, for one, suspect that it would average out to about the same number of homosexuals in any other sub-section of society. If it worked out that say 1 in every 10 people are/were gay, then chances are 1 in every 10 leaders are/were gay.
Nope, there was an Egyptian Pharaoh. Daughter of the previous Pharaoh, had herself officially declared a man, and took a wife. Apparently a reasonably good ruler, too, I just can't think of her name.

Well, not like anyone would argue with the current god king/queen.

Do you have any evidence at all indicating that these societies were homophobic before contact with Christian civilisation?

I remember reading a book entitle Aesop's fables (and no this wasn't a child's book with cute little drawings) this was a book that had all ones attributed to him and came with various translation notes and explanations on phrases and terms that is not common in the English language. Now one of them was about gays, it said something along the lines of when Zeus made humans he placed in them all emotions except for shame which he forgot. When he told shame that she would have to be inserted anally she accepted but only on the condition that if Eros ever entered a human via the anal area then she would leave. The moral of the story being that this explained why all homosexuals had no shame. Homophobic? Well I thought so, but I will leave it for the viewers to decide.

I, for one, suspect that it would average out to about the same number of homosexuals in any other sub-section of society. If it worked out that say 1 in every 10 people are/were gay, then chances are 1 in every 10 leaders are/were gay.

I don't know man that is a larger call to make, sure there would be some leaders with homosexual tendencies but for the same as the general population? Yeah but then again talking about leaders here it is a different population we are talking about, after all not everyone is a good leader where as a large percentage of leaders are good leaders.

I don't know man that is a larger call to make, sure there would be some leaders with homosexual tendencies but for the same as the general population? Yeah but then again talking about leaders here it is a different population we are talking about, after all not everyone is a good leader where as a large percentage of leaders are good leaders.

what about being a leader would make them less inclined to be gay?

what about being a leader would make them less inclined to be gay?

Would it? Drawing a long bow there Neo, I think, but hey let us discuss this hypothesis.

Would it?

that's your contention, not mine.

that's your contention, not mine.

Is it?

Dude, I'm not like Trollgaard where I am making a strong statement I am mearly discussing something here without digging my feet in the ground and saying this is right.

If you want a firey debate where you just twist other people's post around then by all means look for one. You won't find it here because a) I am not making a strong stand here where I think I am right and b) I just don't fall for the same shit you dish out to other people.

Her first job will be to call her female staff to the carpet to chew them out.

I don't know man that is a larger call to make, sure there would be some leaders with homosexual tendencies but for the same as the general population? Yeah but then again talking about leaders here it is a different population we are talking about, after all not everyone is a good leader where as a large percentage of leaders are good leaders.

Well, unless there's something about being gay that would affect/effect(argh, I never remember which is which. Stupid language) one's ability to become a leader. Being openly gay would certainly be an issue in some societies. That's why the gays invented the closet.

Dude, I'm not like Trollgaard where I am making a strong statement I am mearly discussing something here without digging my feet in the ground and saying this is right.

No, you're not, you're playing childish and stupid games, and I won't play along. If you wish to have a discussion, pick a point to discuss, don't pull this adolescent bullshit of "but I didn't say that!" and refuse to clarify what you did say

I'm not like Trollgaard

You're right, he at least comes right out with the stupid shit he's thinking. You hem and haw about it.

Well, unless there's something about being gay that would affect/effect(argh, I never remember which is which. Stupid language) one's ability to become a leader. Being openly gay would certainly be an issue in some societies. That's why the gays invented the closet.

Yeah true man I don't know, I am sure there is a whole range of things that affect what would make someone a leader. The question is do these things that poorly affect leadership qualities come with being attracted to the same gender? Who knows, and I won't deny that there have been gay leaders or even bisexual leaders before but just because someone enjoys hanging around with the guys doesn't mean they are gay.

Nothing wrong with the closet man, you can still enjoy life fairly well.

I remember reading a book entitle Aesop's fables (and no this wasn't a child's book with cute little drawings) this was a book that had all ones attributed to him and came with various translation notes and explanations on phrases and terms that is not common in the English language. Now one of them was about gays, it said something along the lines of when Zeus made humans he placed in them all emotions except for shame which he forgot. When he told shame that she would have to be inserted anally she accepted but only on the condition that if Eros ever entered a human via the anal area then she would leave. The moral of the story being that this explained why all homosexuals had no shame. Homophobic? Well I thought so, but I will leave it for the viewers to decide.

Man, the Greeks are weird.

No, you're not, you're playing childish and stupid games, and I won't play along. If you wish to have a discussion, pick a point to discuss, don't pull this adolescent bullshit of "but I didn't say that!" and refuse to clarify what you did say

Cool man, (Y) if that is what you think I am doing I won't try and change it, but don't go around saying I am saying this when I am not, what I did say is there for all to see.

Man, the Greeks are weird.

It took you this fable to figure it out? :tongue:

Man, the Greeks are weird.

That's not the half of it.

As far as many Classical Greeks (and indeed Romans) were concerned, sexual activity between grown men and adolescent boys was considered a socially-acceptable and manly thing to do, but sexual activity between two grown men was considered immoral (I'm intentionally oversimplifying, otherwise we'd be here all day).

Another example of how modern morality is an at best dubious guide to judging the morality of the past.

That's not the half of it.

As far as many Classical Greeks (and indeed Romans) were concerned, sexual activity between grown men and adolescent boys was considered a socially-acceptable and manly thing to do, but sexual activity between two grown men was considered immoral (I'm intentionally oversimplifying, otherwise we'd be here all day).

Another example of how modern morality is an at best dubious guide to judging the morality of the past.

Reminds me of the old joke.

Q. How do you separate the men from the boys in the Greek army?
A. With a crowbar.

(That was beneathe me, I know.)

If you are discussing nomadic hunter-gatherer societies, then you might like to know that many tried to limit their population, rather than expand it, so as not to stress the resources of their habitat. Moreover, while some groups had made the relationship that sex equals babies, many had not. So, even if reproduction was encouraged, it would be unreasonable to argue that all prehistoric tribes would have condemned homosexuality on this basis.


Do you have any evidence at all indicating that these societies were homophobic before contact with Christian civilisation?
In fact, among many north american aboriginals in particular, homosexuality was not seen as problematic or dirty, and transgendered people were regarded as having access to a wholistic fount of power not available to the average man or woman.

In Cree, we have a word for transgendered people (who probably wouldnt not be reproducing either) ayekkwew...neither man nor woman. Then again, our language isn't gendered...we have no 'he' or 'she'. It has been widely recognised by our elders that any sort of bad feelings we have towards homosexuals or transgendered people is a result of colonialism, and there has been a strong push towards more traditional patterns of acceptance.

Ok. You named a handful.

During prehistory if a 'homosexual' reproduced, that really wouldn't make them homosexual, would it?

...um, yes, yes it would. Contact with vagina is not some sort of magical mystical cure for teh ghey.

Tribes have beliefs, taboos, and what not that are fairly strictly enforced. Deviations from accepted behaviors were generally viewed with suspicion at best.

I would really love to see evidence of the sociological studies you've apparently done on tribes with no recorded history to find out what their taboos and their opinions on what were and were not "accepted behaviors" were.

Homosexual behavior has only recently become more and more accepted. Even today it is still punishable by death in some countries. Go back in time and the nonacceptance of homosexuals would only increase.

Ah, yes, because Greece in the past was MUCH less tolerant of men having sex with teenage boys than it is today.

Oh, wait.

Seriously, do you think about these things before you say them? Are you honestly asserting that cultural development has proceeded in exactly the same direction at a constant rate everywhere since the beginning of time? Do you not get how colossally, ridiculously silly that sounds?

Now I think there is consensus here that there are some gay leaders and alpha males out there, so there may have been a few gay tribal leaders. But not many.

You keep making this assertion, and you keep supporting it with absolutely no evidence other than "because I say so."

How do people find evidence on anything in prehistory? Archeology and anthropology! :)

Okay, so show me the anthropological evidence against prehistoric societies ever being led by females. *waits*

About matriarchy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy

From the opening paragraph: "There are no known societies that are unambiguously matriarchal"

ARE. Present tense. Good grief.

Secondly, "led by a woman" and "unambiguously matriarchal" are not at all the same thing. I asked for evidence that prehistoric societies were NEVER led by females, not that they weren't ALWAYS led by females.

...um, yes, yes it would. Contact with vagina is not some sort of magical mystical cure for teh ghey.



I would really love to see evidence of the sociological studies you've apparently done on tribes with no recorded history to find out what their taboos and their opinions on what were and were not "accepted behaviors" were.



Ah, yes, because Greece in the past was MUCH less tolerant of men having sex with teenage boys than it is today.

Oh, wait.

Seriously, do you think about these things before you say them? Are you honestly asserting that cultural development has proceeded in exactly the same direction at a constant rate everywhere since the beginning of time? Do you not get how colossally, ridiculously silly that sounds?



You keep making this assertion, and you keep supporting it with absolutely no evidence other than "because I say so."



Okay, so show me the anthropological evidence against prehistoric societies ever being led by females. *waits*



ARE. Present tense. Good grief.

Secondly, "led by a woman" and "unambiguously matriarchal" are not at all the same thing. I asked for evidence that prehistoric societies were NEVER led by females, not that they weren't ALWAYS led by females.

Forget it Poli, it's chinatown.

And of course, it's a Nordic country. How predictable. :D
It's not gay, it's lesbian. While gay can mean lesbian, lesbian doesn't mean gay.


Also, the first gay head of state was actually Gary Niger, in Africa.

Gary Niger

I bet you only call him that because he's black, you racist.

What about Alexander the great?

Not gay. Bisexual probably hits the mark. Somehow a gay man sacrificing the loyalty of his Greek generals and causing strife in his High Command (Which wanted him to marry a proper Greek lady and sire a pure-blooded Greek heir) which eventually leads to the dissolving of his Empire (Murdering his son and wife after he dies, refusing to contemplate the concept of allowing a half-blood barbarian to be their leader) because of his love to a Tajik woman he wanted to take as his wife doesn't sound too gay to me.

Nope, there was an Egyptian Pharaoh. Daughter of the previous Pharaoh, had herself officially declared a man, and took a wife. Apparently a reasonably good ruler, too, I just can't think of her name.

Hapsepshut, or something like that. I don't think she was actually a lesbian; the wife was probably just to help keep the vast majority of the Egpytians fooled into believing she was a man.

I believe you may be thinking of Hatshepsut. She was shown as a man in official ceremonial portraits, but sculpture still often shows her wearing women's clothing.

She initially ruled as co-regent for her step-son, the also highly successful Thutmose III, before taking the full title of pharaoh in her own right. Apparent attempts to deface her monuments after her death may have more to do with Thutmose's resentment at being usurped than any resentment of being ruled by a woman.

She was previously one of the wives of Thutmose II, and I know of no document stating that she took a wife (persistant rumours that she ceremonially married her step son Thutmose III may be true, but this sort of ceremonial marriage lasted to the Ptolomaic period).

Contrary to popular perception, she wasn't the first female pharaoh; she was preceded by, at least, Khentkaues and Sobeknefru (the latter six dynasties before Hatshepsut).
Ignore me, and listen to this person.


A couple of other points that have come up in the thread...

1) I think the article might have been better described the new Icelandic PM as 'first openly gay head of government of a democracy', much like 1980s Icelandic President Vigdis Finnbogadottir had to be described as 'first elected female head of state' (they love their female firsts in Iceland).


Indeed.

2) Trying to ascribe modern conceptions of sexuality to figures of the past is problematic. Did Alexander the Great sleep with men? Very probably - but in that regard he was no different from a lot of cultures impacted by classical Greece. He also slept with women. A lot of very prominent classical Greek figures had sex with adolescent boys. That doesn't make them paedophiles in the modern sense, it simply illustrates a different cultural norm. At the same time, those classical Greeks clearly liked to sleep with women, otherwise the plot of Lysistrata wouldn't work. Just because we've reified the categories of 'gay' and 'lesbian' in a certain rigid way doesn't mean our ancestors did; past conceptions of sexuality were often far more fluid.
I agree. The problem is that our culture views homosexuality very differently from the way much older cultures did.

That's why this is important for us, as a whole Western culture, to see an openly homosexual leader, because in our culture that's not something that is all that acceptable.

I have to wonder, though, when homosexuality suddenly became sinful. Where did this idea come from, given how perfectly fine most older societies were with it?

I believe you may be thinking of Hatshepsut. She was shown as a man in official ceremonial portraits, but sculpture still often shows her wearing women's clothing.

She initially ruled as co-regent for her step-son, the also highly successful Thutmose III, before taking the full title of pharaoh in her own right. Apparent attempts to deface her monuments after her death may have more to do with Thutmose's resentment at being usurped than any resentment of being ruled by a woman.

She was previously one of the wives of Thutmose II, and I know of no document stating that she took a wife (persistant rumours that she ceremonially married her step son Thutmose III may be true, but this sort of ceremonial marriage lasted to the Ptolomaic period).

Contrary to popular perception, she wasn't the first female pharaoh; she was preceded by, at least, Khentkaues and Sobeknefru (the latter six dynasties before Hatshepsut).


A couple of other points that have come up in the thread...

1) I think the article might have been better described the new Icelandic PM as 'first openly gay head of government of a democracy', much like 1980s Icelandic President Vigdis Finnbogadottir had to be described as 'first elected female head of state' (they love their female firsts in Iceland).

2) Trying to ascribe modern conceptions of sexuality to figures of the past is problematic. Did Alexander the Great sleep with men? Very probably - but in that regard he was no different from a lot of cultures impacted by classical Greece. He also slept with women. A lot of very prominent classical Greek figures had sex with adolescent boys. That doesn't make them paedophiles in the modern sense, it simply illustrates a different cultural norm. At the same time, those classical Greeks clearly liked to sleep with women, otherwise the plot of Lysistrata wouldn't work. Just because we've reified the categories of 'gay' and 'lesbian' in a certain rigid way doesn't mean our ancestors did; past conceptions of sexuality were often far more fluid.

Yes, they were pedophiles and that was accepted just like slavery was once accepted. The action is still wrong.

Altho, Alexander the Great might have been bi, he could of been gay as well. You can be gay and sleep with women. Many gay guys I know, including me did that. It aint hard. If I rub my penis against a chair, I achieve an erection but that doesnt mean I'm a chairosexual.

Similarly, str8 guys who get hard during a prostate examination are not gay. It's a physiologic reaction, like sweating when it gets hotter.

I remember reading a book entitle Aesop's fables (and no this wasn't a child's book with cute little drawings) this was a book that had all ones attributed to him and came with various translation notes and explanations on phrases and terms that is not common in the English language. Now one of them was about gays, it said something along the lines of when Zeus made humans he placed in them all emotions except for shame which he forgot. When he told shame that she would have to be inserted anally she accepted but only on the condition that if Eros ever entered a human via the anal area then she would leave. The moral of the story being that this explained why all homosexuals had no shame. Homophobic? Well I thought so, but I will leave it for the viewers to decide.

Considering Zeus "made love" to practically everything, women, men, little boys, in various interesting shapes (e.g. a light summer rain, falling on a naked womans skin ;)) I daresay he personally was not against male-male sex.
However, as indicated, it is quite possible that societies did frown on exclusively gay relationships. As in "bi is fine, gay is not".

Considering Zeus "made love" to practically everything, women, men, little boys, in various interesting shapes (e.g. a light summer rain, falling on a naked womans skin ;)) I daresay he personally was not against male-male sex.
However, as indicated, it is quite possible that societies did frown on exclusively gay relationships. As in "bi is fine, gay is not".

Well it wasn't Zeus it was actually Shame that said she would leave the body if Eros entered anally. But then again this is done by Aesop rather than from Zeus.

Considering Zeus "made love" to practically everything, women, men, little boys, in various interesting shapes (e.g. a light summer rain, falling on a naked womans skin ;)) I daresay he personally was not against male-male sex.

More of a pansexual than anything.

However, as indicated, it is quite possible that societies did frown on exclusively gay relationships. As in "bi is fine, gay is not".[/QUOTE]

Au contraire, we don't believe in bisexuals, unless they're college-aged women.

Not gay. Bisexual probably hits the mark. Somehow a gay man sacrificing the loyalty of his Greek generals and causing strife in his High Command (Which wanted him to marry a proper Greek lady and sire a pure-blooded Greek heir) which eventually leads to the dissolving of his Empire (Murdering his son and wife after he dies, refusing to contemplate the concept of allowing a half-blood barbarian to be their leader) because of his love to a Tajik woman he wanted to take as his wife doesn't sound too gay to me.It is not known whether Alexander ever slept with Roxanne at all. Nobody at the time took seriously her claim that her son was Alexander's.

It is not known whether Alexander ever slept with Roxanne at all. Nobody at the time took seriously her claim that her son was Alexander's.

I certainly didn't, who were you masquerading as back then?

What about Hadrian?

What about Hadrian?

He built a wall.