Ask the Flying Monkey: Should TV Shows Use “Faggot” as a Curse Word?

Today: What’s a gay person to do when he’s made uncomfortable by a show like Justified’s frequent use of the word “faggot”?

Have a question about gay male entertainment? Contact me here (and be sure and include your city and state and/or country!

Q: I've slowly become a big fan of the FX series Justified with Timothy Olyphant. However, the one thing that prevents me from loving it is the way the word "faggot" and its other forms ("dyke") are tossed around in over half the episodes. Is this just reflecting the way these characters would speak in Kentucky? I would like to think so. I mean, once or twice in the context of the show's characters, okay. But at some point, it seems to me that is becomes a bit gratuitous and unnecessary. This isn't 1985 anymore, no? -- Eric, Quebec, Canada

A: There was a furious debate on our site a couple of weeks ago about the issue of whether it’s different when the word “faggot” is used in an ironic or subversive way, as opposed to as a slur, or if it’s not really about context – if the mere appearance of the word is a hurtful reminder of words and attitudes that should be banished, as much as possible, from polite conversation.

But what about when it’s used in a fictional TV show or movie, spoken by a character as a way to illustrate what kind of character that is – or simply to show “realism,” since that’s the way some people speak?

There are, of course, two sides to this debate too. I believe what I said before: context is everything, and different writers and artists writing for different audiences are always going to come to different conclusions, and anyway, we have more important things to worry about than taking on, and possibly alienating, writers and artists who agree with our movement’s larger goals, but simply want the freedom of artistic expression.

But on the other side of the debate, there are people who say that mass popular art like Justified is different from, say, fine art – that it often is viewed by uncritical children, and it literally shapes how they view the world: what kinds of slurs are widespread and appropriate, and which aren’t. After all, we don’t hear the n-word on television much, do we?

And almost all of us agree that while artists have a right to express themselves however they want, along with that right comes a responsibility to be fair to the people you’re representing, and to be aware of the larger, sometimes bigoted social context in which your art exists. Is Justified encouraging the bigots to keep on being bigoted?

And let’s face it: no art project, whether it’s a book, movie, TV show, or painting, is ever truly “real.” It’s a representation of reality. Sometimes “realism” is an important part of that representation, but it’s still not truly “real.” Gritty movies sometimes pretend they’re showing life “the way it really is,” but the fact is, even the grittiest reality usually isn’t nearly that interesting (or well-lit!). Most “reality” would be way too boring for television.

But here’s the rub: when using slurs like “faggot” to represent how some people really talk, what’s “responsible”? What’s “fair”? What’s “gratuitous”?

Here’s what I know: the impact of this word is going to be different on most gay people than it is on most straight people, who are more likely to see it as a throw-away line. Since artists need to know the impact of their work on everyone (not just people exactly like themselves), it’s important that there be critical GLBT voices, both in Hollywood and in journalism. That makes for better art.

Why do we see so many female rapes in movies? I think it’s because most of these movies are written and directed by men – and these men don’t fully appreciate the impact those scenes might have on someone who’s been raped, or could be. (What happens when a man is raped on film, as in Deliverance? Straight men spend the next forty years reacting to it, which just totally proves my point.)

Burt Reynolds and Ned Beatty in Deliverance

Of course it’s not necessarily the case that the minority’s complaint is always right. I think some African Americans are really, really wrong in their wanting to ban or change Huckleberry Finn because of its use of the n-word. They’re not wrong in their feelings, which they have a right to, but they’re really wrong in their solution: I think the solution is to include more minority voices in curriculums and schools, not ban the “offensive” existing ones.

Wow, Eric, I’ve really gone off into the ether on this one, haven’t I?

But the fact is, this is an issue that is near and dear to my heart. As a novelist, I’ve been on the receiving end of more book challenges than you can count, and my opponents always use the same arguments that those who might want to ban “faggot” use: their right to not be offended, even though they have the option not to read or watch what I’ve written, overrules my right to express myself in the way I (and my fans) see fit. Why? Mostly because of all the impressionable children who they think will be harmed by my work.

Trust me: on both sides of this issue, it always seems to come down to “the children.” How ironic is that? And frankly, it's just about the weakest argument imaginable, IMHO. Do we really want to live in a world where everything must be that sanitized? I absolutely don't.

And we can't pick-and-choose these things, not without looking like hypocrites. If we insist the world be sanitized on our issues, we can't turn around and say to others, "Hey, lighten up! If you don't like Kurt kissing Blaine, don't watch the show."

Yes, yes, the folks who want to eliminate either my books or the word “faggot” from the world are just exercising their own right of free expression. I get that. But I say that the “default” position on these issues should be: let writers write what they want, and let the rest of us decide if we want to read or watch it. As much as possible, let’s all try to live-and-let-live.

But what about the use of “faggot” in Justified, which is what you originally asked about?

I see nothing wrong with respectfully putting out into the world the fact that it makes you, and many gay viewers, uncomfortable. It sounds to me that this is exactly the kind of feedback the writers and producers of that show need to hear. But any sort of organized protest or overly critical challenge? Frankly, that gives me the willies.

Actor Timothy Olyphant, Justified creator/producer Graham Yost and FX Network Pres.John Landgraf

Have a question about gay male entertainment? Contact me here (and be sure and include your city and state and/or country!