David Burtka and Neil Patrick Harris looking adorable as always.
Following this assortment of carefully-selected news items, interested readers can find a refreshing pic of a hot man in underwear after the jump. Yes, we're serious.
- Just because we can never get enough of them, the above pic is super-couple Neil Patrick Harris and David Burtka at the one year anniversary party for the nightclub Blush in Las Vegas.
- Ellen Degeneres is once again using her celebrity to fight the good fight, as she blasted V.P. nominee Sarah Palin on her talk show today. The highlight is when Ellen dismisses the view that children will be "influenced" in some way by learning that gay people can also be parents: "I was surrounded by heterosexuals, just everywhere I looked — heterosexuals. And they did not influence ... I mean I dabbled in high school, who didn't? Everyone dabbled, ya know?"
- We've been talking about the new gay themed high school film Tru Loved for quite a while, and now, Roger Ebert has given the film the kind of publicity it wasn't expecting ... or wanting. The iconic critic gave the film one star (out of four), and admitted he only watched eight minutes before shutting it off, something he now regrets.
- Well, they may as well call the election now, as Barack Obama has received the most important of all his endorsements. According to the Weekly World News, Batboy has come out in full support of Barack, thanks to the encouragement of the nominee's recently discovered half-bat, half-human brother Obatma. Rumor has it that Stephen Baldwin has already challenged Obatma to a boxing match.
- Someone who's already made his decision is the out David Sedaris (aka the world's greatest living humorist), whose latest essay contains a hilarious and profane analogy about the presidential nominees (he compares them to airplane food).
- In sad news, out Little Britain star Matt Lucas is officially divorced from his husband of two years, Kevin McGee. They've been split up since June, allegedly due to McGee's "unreasonable behavior".
And today's Briefs are brought to you by...
This guy!
dabbling???
i bet i will feel stupid afterwards, but what does ellen mean by "I mean I dabbled in high school, who didn't? Everyone dabbled, ya know?"
i assume it meant she experimented, but i personally have never heard that term in terms of experimenting.
a little dabble do ya
Dabble, dabble
I have dabbled in many things over the years, art, Violin, and fantasies about the Burtka-Harrises. But maybe that is because I am a dillitante with a healthy fantasy life.
INSIDEGUY
Roger Ebert: "I never change my mind about a film."
I feel somewhat bad piling on Ebert what with his health issues and whatnot--and because many regard him as one of the nicest guys working in film criticism. However, on the "Ask the Monkey" thread we've already laid some of the blame for the "Crash" wave at his feet, since he was one of the early critics to champion it all the way to the Oscars. (Tellingly, the Chicago Film Critics' Circle was the only critic's group that gave "Crash" a Best Picture award, largely because of Ebert's influence.)
Furthermore, I remember other nasty reviews he's given to classic films ("Harold and Maude" for one), and then he rather condescendingly announced that "I never changed my mind about a film." As another critic commented, "Isn't that kind of the same thing as saying 'I'm never wrong'?" (It took me a couple viewings to warm up to "The Princess Bride" for example.) To turn off a movie 8 minutes in and then try to review it doesn't speak well of one's professionalism.
I agree, especially since
Roger Ebert
I found Ebert's review of "Tru Calling" extremely interesting. Well written, as are all of his reviews, all his points logically made, and reflective of someone totally not homophobic. I liked this section: "It's my impression most gay men do not 'sound like gay men.' But we all know exactly what I mean by sounding like gay men. The other side of the rule is: Many men who sound gay are gay, and in many cases, intend to sound gay. Don't get all homophilic on me. You know I'm right." He IS right, but few straight guys would feel comfortable enough to say it.
I'm not comfortable with the idea of ripping a critic because you disagree with him. Movies are so subjective. All I want is some sense that the reviewer understands movies as an art form, and Roger certainly does. To me it doesn't matter whether I totally disagree with him about the merits of a movie.
I also liked what Kyle Buchanan said on "Defamer" about Roger: "We're kind of digging this new, unhinged Ebert". It's like his brush with death has liberated him in some way, which is a good thing....
good writing?
How very, very liberal and unbiased are you? It would be impossible for me to detect any kind of homophobia in your writing after that.
"But we all know exactly what I mean by sounding like gay men."
I don't know if that was his intention, but the phrase "we all know what I mean when I say...." is a propaganda technique that goes back to WWII. The phrase has a sinister tone to it, at the very least it is poor writing to shirk articulation by saying you know what I mean. Why do I get the feeling that every time Ebert attempted to describe "how gay men talk," his homophobia rang loud and clear, and he had to scratch the sentence until he finally came upon that "nudge-nudge" sentence? Granted his column isn't about gay speech patterns, but he brought it up. To be inarticulate is either lazy or deceptive, not courageous because that's what every homophobe is thinking.
"The other side of the rule is: Many men who sound gay are gay." Just like many men who sound black are black, is the "other side of the rule." of wiggerdom? (pardon the expression.) I did not know there was a rule book that governed our perceptions of gay men's speech patterns.
Yes, if I were Goebbels, I would think Ebert's comment was perfectly written prose.
Overdoing it just a bit
Don't you think you're overdoing it just a bit with the Nazi comparison? You're certainly free to see homophobia wherever you see it, but I personally don't see it here at all. Roger is making perfectly obvious statements about gay speech patterns in the context of reviewing a gay movie. See my post below where I discuss that more fully. I just don't see propaganda techniques here at all. In fact, to be honest, it strikes me as very odd that you would see that here. My perception is that you're reading that sort of thing into something that is just a simple articulation of fact.
I'm reminded of a Seinfeld episode where Elaine was dating a guy she thought was of a different race. Whenever she and one of the other characters were talking about that they'd end by getting a pained expression on their face and saying "I don't think we're supposed to be talking about this". Race issues, and now gay issues, are seen by some as just too loaded and fraught with pitfalls to allow them to even be discussed. I don't think we should fall into that trap. And, rather than being homophobic, Roger is so totally NOT homophobic that he just says "fuck it, I'm not going to fall into that pit where I can't address the issue and express the obvious". As soon as we all get to that point we'll be a lot better off.
The Nazi comparison, here we go again
It seems that today we are not allowed to examine the past and learn from history. The Nazi's brought to light the subtle ways that propaganda is used to sway an opinion. Ebert, and the rest of us, should be aware of those practices. I was talking about propaganda techniques, NOT thuggery. Not all Nazi's were thugs, some were well educated, gentlemen who wrote movie reviews, for instance. The phrase, "we all know..." is a classic persuasion technique used by speech writers at the time. That was my point. I question was it Ebert's intention or just sloppy writing, but he should know the difference by now.
I'm unsure what the trap is exactly. Here's how I see the trap. We are raised in a homophobic and racist society. We are raised by people who don't know any better. At this stage of the game, few of us have all the skills needed to navigate the world of diversity with out making a mistep. Seeing that as "just too loaded and fraught with pitfalls to allow them to even be discussed" is a mistake of the individuals integrity, who decides to just throw his hands up in the air. We learn first hand about do-do after stepping in it, not before. In order to learn, we need to examine comments like the one like Ebert made, not by-pass it because "that's how a lot of people think."
By the way, the characters on Seinfield were self absorbed asses, not paragons of civil rights. That's why they were funny, they were meant to exaggerate our own failings, not excuse them.
Seinfeld Asses
Well, yes, of course the Seinfeld characters were self absorbed asses, that was the point of the show! But that doesn't in any way change the validity of my Seinfeld story. In fact, it enhances it. If they WEREN'T self absorbed asses, then they wouldn't just make funny faces and have a generalized sense that they shouldn't talk about sensitive things. Rather, they'd see through that, and just talk honestly. As Roger does.
The "trap" is to become so afraid of saying something that might be seen by someone as the wrong thing that we don't exchange ideas at all. You said it yourself: "few of us have all the skills needed to navigate the world of diversity with out making a mistep". I find that sad. If we could just allow each other to just be honest and say things without examining every word and nuance for offense we'd all be a lot better off.
Speaking of "classic persuasion techniques", you actually use a few of those yourself. For example, "it seems we are not allowed to examine", which subtly implies that the person you're addressing is an oppressor trying to keep you from what is obviously the right conclusion. Or "in order to learn we need to examine", which subtly sets a specific agenda and puts the other person in the category of being unwilling to learn the lessons of that specific agenda.
really now
So, let me explain my writing, which you suggest engages in propaganda, instead.
I wrote "It seems that today we are not allowed to examine the past and learn from history." I thought that it was obvious I was referring to the Nazi dig. I had wanted to write something like, "I notice that recently anytime someone brings up a comparison to Nazism, someone is quick to shoot that comparison down, not on the merit of the comparison but simply on the fact that it is a comparison to Nazism. There's even jargon to describe it, which leads me to believe that it is trendy to shoot down any type of Nazi reference without thinking." But rather than say that, I looked for my own meaning and why I felt that is wrong. Basically, I summarized my objection. I don't see that as subtle or a cohesive propaganda technique like a statement like, "You and me know what we are really talking about."
I wote "In order to learn, we need to examine (comments like the one like Ebert made, not by-pass it because 'that's how a lot of people think.)'"
You said "which subtly sets a specific agenda and puts the other person in the category of being unwilling to learn the lessons of that specific agenda."
Really? Besides the fact that your interpretation is silly, the agenda that I was setting seems to be the same one that you bring up, that we are unwilling to discuss these types of issues, and that it should be examined. I will grant that I was provocative; I was trying to provoke readers here to be willing to discuss these issues. Thank you for complying.
Hey, I'm always ready to
Hey, I'm always ready to comply with requests! :)
I agree, we likely do see things the same way at our core. I don't know you at all, but just from your writing you do seem to become argumentative about little things. As if your goal is to provoke more than enlighten. I may be totally wrong, and I might have just hit a sore spot, but that's how it came across.
I still say that the propaganda things I mentioned represent something you're doing, that you probably don't even know you're doing. And that's to try to undermine the other person's argument by undermining the person himself, or his legitimacy. In other words, it's not enough to say "I disagree". Rather, you have to say "in order to learn we need to examine", and say it in the context of a strong implication that, unlike you, I'm not examining things, and so my opinion isn't just different, but inherently inferior. Sorry to be so deep, but you sound like someone who appreciates that sort of thing.
I think I understand now
You seem to be suggesting that I was trying to imply that you weren't examining these issues because you choose to brush them aside. I am sorry, I didn't mean for that to be implied, I expected it to be read as being directly suggested. Let me clarify the original statement: "I suggest that you are choosing to brush things like this aside rather than examine them."
I believe there is a deeper meaning in the fact that this is a perception and stereotype that many people hold about gay men. I tried to explain what that was. I felt like you were quick to dismiss any criticism as being overly P.C. and overly sensitive. That also sounds like a current trend to me rather than the product of reflection.
Zinger
Hey, nice zinger!
I'm trying to get out of this conversation (no offense!), but you keep saying things I feel I should reply to! (Is that a good thing or a bad thing???) I want to address your comments about me brushing things aside or being quick to dismiss things. I totally see what you're saying, and without knowing me that's a good argument. But here's the thing. I have thought about both of those things (the specific stereotype issue and also the general issue about P.C. and sensitivity) quite a bit, and have opinions that are based on that thinking. Despite what this thread shows, I don't like to go back and forth in argumentation, especially when it's not face to face. I suppose if I wanted to I could write several pages about the stereotype and P.C. issues. I'm just not inclined to get involved in that, though. If you want to fly out here I'll do it in person (!), but I don't like doing it on message boards.
So that means I have to either not say anything, or else try to get my point across in a less detailed way. That hasn't worked with you, but I'd bet there are many other readers who get what I was trying to say.
I'm still curious about your profession, which I asked about in another message that you might not have read. I'd guess a teacher of some kind or someone in the arts (oh no, a stereotype!!!). The dark horse pick would be an IT guy. I hope that's not prying too much.
semantics
seanb, I'm sorry if I've bored people with a semantics discussion but I am glad you feel that you have been able to get your point across to them. I feel the same way.
The reason I didn't answer your question about my line of work in the first place is, to be frank, I thought you were prying too much and I didn't want to insult you by saying that. But thanks for your concern.
Oops, sorry....
In the "ear" of the beholder
afhickman
"The mountain has wings."
Whether you "agree" with Ebert or not, what could possibly be the point of saying such a thing? What you hear when a gay man speaks says a lot more about you than about the gay man. Roger Ebert should quit looking for ways to insult gays and stick to writing film criticism (and campy movie scripts like "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls"--I wonder if Roger sounded "unhinged" when he shopped this gorefest to the Hollywood brass?). The only way anyone can "sound" gay is by imitating tired film stereotypes of the kind Roger exploited in his screenplay. Most of us live in the real world, where people sound pretty much like themselves.
The point of saying such a
The point of saying such a thing seems obvious in the context of the review in which it appears. He refers to "fundamentals we take for granted when we go to the movies", and then lists 8 ways in which this movie fails, including speech patterns.
The fact that you interpret that comment as Roger insulting gays tells me that you may have misinterpreted what he's saying. Basically, it's four interrelated things:
1. Most gay men don't talk in the stereotypical ways that we've all been exposed to. I think virtually all of us would agree with that.
2. "We all know exactly what I mean by sounding like gay men." I'm sure no one disputes this. The stereotypical gay manner of speech is obvious.
3. There are men out there who do talk in stereotypically gay ways, and many of them are indeed gay. Again, how could we dispute that. I hear guys like that in real life quite often, and you see them all over the Bravo reality shows. Some men talk like that.
4. Many of the men who talk in stereotypically gay ways are TRYING to talk in stereotypically gay ways. This might be the one with which you're expressing disagreement. But I would think if you have any sort of extensive network of gay friends or acquaintances you must run into this a lot. I know I do. There are probably different motivations - camaraderie; shocking straight people; defiance of stereotype by exaggerating the stereotype; just being funny; etc. But whatever the motivation, it's not at all uncommon. You say "the only way anyone can 'sound' gay is by imitating tired film stereotypes". That's exactly the point, and that's something that gay guys in the real world (at least my own real world) do with some frequency.
So to me, his observations were right on, and quite perceptive for a straight guy. And worth saying since it fit into the review that he was writing.
Ebert is treading on very thin ice here
So for me, Ebert's comment was a coded and snarky way to make another age old dig toward effeminate men, and gay men in particular. His is not enlightenment.
I have no interest in
I have no interest in getting drawn into a big disagreement here. Maybe we're more laid back in the Northwest, but the people I know don't examine every word in a movie review, looking for underlying homophobia. We're all entitled to our own perceptions, and so I won't dispute you any further. but it seems like it would be a rather unpleasant life to spend it seeing disrespect and hate everywhere.
I think it would also make human interaction far trickier than it has to be, especially with straight people. You mentioned the Shatner roast on another thread, and I mentioned Lisa Lampanelli in my reply. I rather like her attitude. She insults everyone, including gay people, and is quite funny. But her stated purpose is to intentionally get rid of sensitivity to mere words, to put us all on the same level, to remove the sting of words by embracing them. I kind of like her attitude.
As I said, if you choose to see homophobia in Ebert's comments, that's your right. I see something different, which is my right.
neither do I
I embrace words like queer myself. That has nothing to do with the conversation at hand, or my take on it. We are talking about the perception that gay men who speak effeminately are some how faking it, not semantics.
My aim here was to provoke thinking and discussion, not excuse public figures like Ebert or Shatner. Ebert's article is a public statement. This is a blog where we discuss such things. We need a place where we can have an open discussion without fear of being accused of "seeing disrespect and hate everywhere," just because we speak our minds when we perceive ignorance. But I do thank you for reminding us of our rights. For the record, I never doubted yours.
I mentioned my area because
I mentioned my area because I was at a loss to understand where you were coming from since I don't experience hyper-sensitivity around here. Maybe I'm just too sheltered, I don't know. But in my world it seems odd. And there was no intent to stifle debate, just disrespect.
You did say something that helps me understand where you're coming from when you said that the essence of the issue was the perception that "gay men who speak effeminately are some how faking it". In my humble view, I think that missed the point, and certainly wasn't what I was talking about. Ebert was saying that SOME men speak effeminately naturally, but many others speak like Chad Allen, as another poster put it. Then Roger separately said that some men who speak effeminately do so intentionally, for the reasons I stated earlier. He was not saying that effeminate speakers as a class were faking it. For myself, I was saying that those comments reflect my experience. I know two guys who just naturally speak in a stereotypical way. I know other guys who speak like Chad Allen (or me) normally, but occasionally choose to become queeny stereotypes.
For the life of me, I don't know why that is controversial. I'm not avoiding discussion or disagreement, I'm just stating that I don't see a reason for it in this situation. I've been in my share of fights, but they've not usually been fights "about nothing", as Seinfeld might say.
Just out of curiosity,
Stop generalizing (caution, sermon ahead)
afhickman
"The mountain has wings."
That's what stereotypes are all about. You are buying in to some of the most lethal stereotypes about gay men when you start generalizing about how gay men sound. Do they sound like Rock Hudson? Tab Hunter? Anthony Perkins? Maybe they sound like Neil Patrick Harris or T. R. Knight? These days, to my ear, they sound a whole lot like Chad Allen--what a gorgeous stereotype! Or maybe you're thinking of cinema trailblazers like Gus Van Sant and Francois Ozon (French--now there's a stereotype for you!). I prefer to think they sound like Stephen Fry or another one of the countless gay voices of rationality who would throw your stereotypes right back in your face. Shame on you for letting Roger Ebert or anyone con you. Because, believe me, Roger and his kind are laughing at your gullibility. [By the way, I always sided with Gene Siskel against Roger anyway. That guy was a mensch.]
Sermons
The thing I learned about sermons growing up is that they often demonize people simply for thinking about things differently than the accepted way of thinking. Unfortunately, that's what your sermon amounts to - demonizing me because I don't see things your way. I'm just not going to play that game. I think you're wrong, but I'm not going to attack you for being wrong.
I will clarify one thing, however. When you say that a lot of gay men sound like Chad Allen you're exactly right. But that's one of the things Ebert was saying. And are you truly saying that you don't know any gay men who sound stereotypical? I sure do. And I see them on TV reality shows as well. And I also know guys who sound like Chad Allen one on one, but who in a party situation or with a group of friends suddenly turn into queeny stereotypes. Again, that's my experience, and I can't say anything about your experience. But, based on my own personal experience, Ebert expressed the simple truth.
Do you really think Roger and "his kind" are laughing at my gullibility??? Seriously?
Tonight we're gonna party like it's 1959
afhickman
"The mountain has wings."
Of course there are a lot of gay men that sound like Chad Allen. Are you going to tell me they conform to the Chad Allen stereotype? What would that be? A bunch of nice looking guys, some of whom happen to be gay? There are also lots of gay guys who sound like Arnold Schwartzenegger, but most of them live in Austria. I'm the one who's talking rainbow here; you're the one who endorses stereotypes. If your gay friends "turn into queeny stereotypes" at parties, then they certainly have an odd idea of having fun. The gay men and women I know like to party too, but they never forget who they are. They are individuals from all walks of lives, all ethnic and religious backgrounds, and all levels of income who just happen to be gay. I believe most of them would be surprised to be told they sounded gay. Maybe they sound gay because, by definition, they are gay. My point is that it is just as likely for one of them to sound like Arnold or Chad as to sound like Richard Simmons. When you stereotype someone, you seem to be saying, "I know this guy; I've seen his type before. Therefore, I don't have to take him seriously." That kind of thinking will keep you from meeting some very interesting people, let me tell you. I'm sorry if I offended you. That wasn't my intention. I just hate to see anyone in 2008 still buying into stereotypes about gays that should, like Tara, be gone with the wind. Maybe I'm being a little hard on Ebert. But when I lived in Chicago in the 1970s, word was that he was gay. Then, when he married late in life, people said he had made an arranged marraige. Whatever the truth, and it scarcely matters now, Ebert always appeared to me to be gay-friendly: until Brokeback that is. I realize that he's been ill, and I wish him a full recovery. I also wish that he'd get over himself. If he's not gay, he has no right to talk about how gay people "sound." I can tell you how he sounds, and that's bigoted.
You know, apart from your
You know, apart from your assertion that Ebert sounds bigoted I think you and I are basically on the same page. Possibly I haven't expressed myself well. Like you, I completely believe that gay people "are individuals from all walks of lives, all ethnic and religious backgrounds, and all levels of income who just happen to be gay". In fact, that was my point to some degree. But I hope you're not saying that because that is true, it eliminates the reality that there also exists a specific gay "type" that does conform in greater or lesser degrees to stereotypes. There ARE a lot of effeminate gays out there. I know a couple of them. There was a reality show that debuted recently, and was covered here at AE. I normally don't watch those shows much, but I watched this one because of a specific guy who was TOTALLY cute to me. The show had at least four gay guys, and most of them were completely within the effeminate stereotype. Recently I was helped at a store by a teenage guy who was an almost perfect embodiment of the stereotype. Guys like that exist in large numbers. So what? I know you're not saying that there's anything wrong with those guys. So why would you want to say that anyone who recognizes that in any way is committing a grave sin?
Take Clay Aiken for example. When he came out everyone here at AE (and around the world, for that matter!) said, "well of course he's gay; anyone can see that". And why did they say that? Because he just "seemed" so gay, and talked so gay, and acted so gay. In a stereotypical way.
I think sometimes we want to eliminate the unfairness and illegitimacy of stereotypes by saying that the characteristics embodied in those stereotypes don't exist. To me that's unfair to the Clay Aikens of the world. We can have Chad Allens and we can also have Clay Aikens. To recognize that the Clay Aiken group exists and embodies stereotypes to some degree should not interfere with the quest to eliminate the power and illegitimacy of stereotypes.
I realize you're essentially acknowledging all that. At least that's how I interpreted your reference to Richard Simmons. So if that's true, then Ebert's comments make total sense and represent reality. And if they represent reality, and there's no malice in them, then there's nothing wrong with them.
I don't mean this to be snarky, but do you really know no gay guys who sometimes get exaggeratedly effeminate for effect? You know, do the limp wrist or the effeminate voice? Not out of disrespect of either themselves or others, but almost as a bonding thing? That really is quite common. And that's what I think Ebert was talking about when he talked about guys who sound gay TRYING to sound gay. And therefore intentionally fitting into the stereotype for effect.
Roger Ebert.
About ten or twelve years ago or so, I was up on my high horse and e-mailed Roger Ebert about some z-grade horror movie he'd reviewed: one of the "heroes" of the film had tossed around the word "f*g" several times and I asked Ebert why he didn't point that out in his review, as he would (one hopes) if a sympathetic lead in a movie casually tossed around racist language like the n-word (Ebert was by no means alone in totally ignoring such things, and the problem still exists way too frequently with a number of prominent critics). To my surprise, Ebert e-mailed me back and we spoke at length about the issue. He admitted he should (and would) try to be more aware of the casual homophobia sometimes found in Hollywood films, and later reviews that year did find him doing a better job of following through on that promise.
I finally met Ebert at a lecture and book-signing he did three years or so ago. He was quite friendly and didn't bat an eye at writing a nice personal message along with his autograph to my partner and me. Ebert's not a homophobe and, in person, seems like a class act (I hate that he's been ill). I don't always agree with his reviews, but what he hates is bad logic and bad dialogue and that's where he attacks Tru Calling. The review is actually pretty funny, particularly his noting that the high school football coach is, for no discernible reason, Australian (?!)
Re: Roger
All this talk about Ebert...
Does no one have ANYTHING to say about Batboy's endorsement?
Can you handle THE 80'S ACCORDING TO SNICKS?
Bat Boy!
Isn't the point of liberation for Gay Men that all gay men are
treated equally and respected and accepted and loved regardless of how nelly or butch they happen to be?
Some men (gay or straight) just happen to be very masculine/butch
Some men (gay or straight) just happen to be very feminine/queenie.
Could be nature, could be nurture, we'll never really know and who cares?
Taste the Rainbow!
Why is it "better" to behave/speak like Neil Patrick Harris or Chad Allen just because they are more mannish?
I would think that they behave and speak the way they do because it is natural for them to do so, not because they are trying not to be a stereotype.
But I would also like to think that Tim Gunn and Charlie (from Survivor Gaboln) are real gay men being their less then traditionally masculine yet just as natural selves.
As a dyke and a black woman, I know what it's like to spend all of your time worrying about whether or not people actually SEE YOU or the stereotype they have about whatever category you fit into for them.
But as a feminist and a 20yr gay activist, I also think it's EXTREMENLY important for butch women and feminine men not to get shoved back into the closet of shame (whether we're talking about real people or characters in film and tv) just because gay and lesbian folks don't want the straight folks to think their stereotypes are justified.
Should black folks NEVER EACH FRIED CHICKEN AND WATERMELLON in front of white folks so as not to manifest the stereotype? Lots of black folks love fried chicken and watermellon! But so do almost all Southern people. so WTF?
Should southerners break their necks getting rid of their drawl so that Northern folks don't stereotype them?
I get it, it's frustrating and upsetting to have straight folks think that all gay men are super nelly and promiscuous and unmasculine in speech and behavior.
But how much are weas a community (at least on this blog) willing to compromise about our own freedom to be who and what we are and to behave in whatever manner is natural to each of us as individuals in order not to be judged or stereotyped by straight folks?
It feels like it's gotten to the point where any character (Maxxie of Skins, Justin of Ugly Betty, the Beautiful People star) is immediately decried as a "negative" stereotype simply for being who they are.
How is that any different than what straight men say about men (gay or straight) who don't happen to be very masculine?
What kind of lesson does that teach to young gay men (a lot of whom read this blog) who are not very masculine at all?
Should they butch it up right quick and stop liking Dance and Fashion and "girly" things so as not to contribute to the stereotype?
Can't we be proud of and celebrate Christian Siriano AND Chad Allen at the same time for being out and talented and good role models for our youth?
Even the term "straight acting gay man". What the hell is that? Is that like a black person who's "talking white"? I would think we'd progressed beyond the notion(at least within the gay communities) that a gay man who's masculine is somehow coping straight men rather than just being himself.
I won't rant any longer. I know the stakes are different for me because I'm a woman.
But I do care a great deal and I think this conversation is so pivitol for young folks in terms of what they see as the viable options for their own self-expression as gay/queer/lesbian people.
I really don't mean to sound preachy ( I know I can go on a bit) and I realize that there is real and genuine deep rooted pain for some gay men with regard to what stereotypes about their manliness can do and still do.
All men are still very much judged based on how much they do and do not adhere to traditional understandings of what is appropriately masculine behavior.
I hope that folks don't think I'm belittling that reality.
What she said!
Well put.
Actually, "straight acting" for gay guys is much like "talking white" or being an "oreo" for black people. An unfortunate way to try to define what's acceptable for a large goup of diverse people.
Can you imagine the outcry if ATWT added an effeminate guy to Luke's circle of friends?