Not sure it has anything to do with homophobia, but it
is a mean joke. Of course, politics and editorializing is a mean business.
I didn't watch the show, but it sounds like he is sort of trying to make this point (or is this several points):
- Does paternity leave really have the same justification as maternity leave does? Should it? Obviously, a male parent's adaptation to their newborn isn't identical to what a female's would be - And, should a cabinet member really be granted 12 weeks of absence?
I'm not saying this is an easy question, but anyone who is interested in answering this honestly would have to face the FULL potential ramifications of the rule, by asking yourself: Will it be OK if we someday have a female President who leaves for three months?
"That will never happen" isn't an answer, because it can, and will, given time. Women have children, and now it seems men do too. Is paternity leave an adequate excuse for leaving your post in ALL situations, with no exceptions or common sense expected? Should it be?
I think Tucker raises an obvious question that most rational people would ask themselves. I would not, however, have made the breastfeeding comment. But, I'm also not fooled by
people who try to make every disagreement (or insult) to a gay man "homophobia", every disagreement with a woman "mysogony", and every disagreement with a person of color "racism".
I see the point you're making, and I wouldn't have said what Tucker said, I don't think.
Given, however, the WHOLE context of the situation - whether a Cabinet member of a major country's major ministry ought to be allowed absent for three months, and the fairly widespread eyesbrows already raised from the concept of 'paternity' leave, I don't see it as quite as awful as the article portrayed it.
Ironically: The same website you linked to can't seem to decide whether Pete's friend is
his husband Chasten or
his wife Chasten
Tucker should have just pointed to that fact to make his point and moved on..
www.independent.co.uk
