Gay Outrage! From "30 Days" to Mayonnaise

Great article, Brent, addressing an issue we should all think about. And thanks for quoting my comments about "Hancock"!

I have one quibble, though. I don't think you intended this, but you implied a dichotomy between outrage on one hand and acceptance on the other. If the issues are complex, then the reactions need not be a choice between outrage and acceptance. Disappointment, annoyance, puzzlement, etc. are all viable reactions. For example, I'm both puzzled and disappointed by the Brokeback cuts. But since they've pledged to restore the important scenes for the next showing, outrage seems like an overreaction and a waste of my psychic energy. The 30 Days episode was extremely gay-positive, and so I'm merely annoyed that the derogatory comments were deemed necessary, perhaps as a conscious effort for balance.

Outrage is a strong emotion, and it seems unwise to overuse it. Each person has to set his or her own standard, but for me, I'm outraged that there are states where you can be fired for being gay; I'm outraged that gay people can't serve openly in the military; I'm outraged that civil marriage (as opposed to religious marriage) isn't the fait accompli that logic seems to dictate; I'm outraged by everything the Fred Phelps group does; I was outraged by the murder of the gay high school student in the southwest a couple of months ago; I'm outraged that the AFA is boycotting McDonalds because of their inclusive hiring and benefits policies. And I've got a bunch more!

With all those things to be legitimately outraged about, I just can't muster outrage because the first American soap opera to have a gay relationship doesn't do it perfectly; or because a
gay-friendly documentary includes a right-wing spokesperson; or because the most gay-friendly mainstream TV network makes a bad mistake and over-edits a movie (and promises not to do it again).

If we want we can see slights or questionable comments or unenlightened attitudes everywhere. But I think it's important to remember that we are lucky enough to be living through a major gay revolution that will transform our world over the next twenty years. No revolution is instantaneous, and attitudes don't change overnight.

There is nothing wrong with disagreements within the GLBT community, or different emphases. In fact, I think those things are healthy. Personally, I think GLAAD does a terrific job, but that's not because I always agree with them, because I don't. But they do reflect an intelligent balance of reactions, all along the spectrum between outrage and acceptance, and they are not knee-jerk or excessively PC. And so I support them even when I don't necessarily agree. Similarly, we can all be on the "same side" without agreeing about everything.

It is important to note that conflict of interest also plays a role in reactions. GLAAD did not chastise BRAVO about Brokeback. BRAVO hosted the GLAAD Awards. There are closeted actors who even go so far as to marry women and have kids to try to cloak their sexual orientation. And there are tons of gay people working in the motion picture industry who will let things slide to stay employed. This is no different than the James West's and other gay politicians of the dog-eat-dog political world; there are closeted, and not-so-closeted gay politicians who will even get married to women to further their careers, or who vote for anti-gay measures to cling to power. There are even gay people who start anti-gay megachurches and large "pro-family" groups to line their pockets with cash at the expense of the glbt community. So, it is important to remember that not all gay people have the community's interest at heart when they excuse homophobic or anti-gay remarks and activities.

It's a shitstorm out there 24/7. Now Fred Barnes the editor of The Weekly Standard says McCain's best bet to win the White House is to attack us. And I will protest every thought word and deed committed by Scinetology scumbag Will Smith with my dying breath!!!!!!

I'd just like to point out the real shocking thing about the Heinz debacle which Americans don't seemed to have picked up on. Heinz pulled their commercial after a grand total of 200 people complained. This represented 0.036% of the total viewership. So in fact, virtually no one complained, but Heiz spinelessly removed the add saying they had not meant to offend anyone with their commercial. I could understand them removing the add if there had been a significant number of complaints, but this does not seem to have been the case.

Here at AfterElton, at least, it seems that to even mention a slight in the media is to be perceived as being "outraged." What I am saying is, if I disagree with what Will Smith's character has said and I voice my opinion here, I am perceived as being "outraged." Let's get our adjectives in order, lest we stifle debate.

• Outraged = Calling for a Boycott, staging a demonstration.
• Upset = Posting a letter to the editor or phoning a Media outlet.
• Annoyed or Miffed = posting a rant at a blog site, like AfterElton.

Since I have yet to show any outrage toward the above flaps allow me explain why I would be miffed.

• I get upset any time they shove a microphone under the chin of one of those left wing nuts, like their opinion balances out a debate. That's hogwash, If you want to balance out the opinion of some idiot from the AFC, balance it with the nutty notion from that guy at the bar who's always saying that AIDS was created by the Army as a way to kill Gays and Blacks. When ever they allow these folks to voice their lies, they have imbalanced the debate. But gays aren't the only ones being singled out, so I wouldn't blame 30 days alone, as all news programs need to be educated in this regard. The media squelches the liberal view. They often have a serious discussion with a right wing nut representing the 'right' opposing someone who is dead center, as representing the "left." Since the majority of idiots try to form an opinion that is conciliatory, viewers are lead to believe that the center is actually to the right of where it really is. It's a propaganda technique.
• Someone at Bravo made a mistake in editing Brokeback Mountain, both GLAAD and Bravo worked to clear that up. This is the type of thing we all learn from and I have gained respect for both groups.
• I haven't seen the movie, but Hancock clearly is not a villian, as some have reasoned. The use of the word "Homo," is inflammatory. And like Wanda Sykes observed before this, "we are the bigots, now." What if it had been a white dude who was looking though urban costumes for a dance and said, "jungle bunny, porch monkey, ooh spooky?" I guess if African-Americans got upset about that in this day and age, they'd be reacting with a P.C. Knee Jerk? The double standards of what is acceptable and what is derogatory bigotry masquerading as comedy starts right here.

I found it hard to understand your take on this subject, Brent. You seem to be reporting the obvious, that defining what is outrageous is subjective and the LGBT community's reactions are as varied as a rainbow. The only thing you did tell me is what GLAAD thinks, how GLAAD operates, and what GLAAD is up to as if that is the standard of the LGBT community. But I do thank you for reminding us all that outrage has brought about change in how we are portrayed in the media.

I am annoyed at the constant reminders here of the work that GLAAD does. GLAAD's primary job seems to be to court straight celebrities in order to be perceived as being just as cool -nice work when you can get it. But what about the The Southern Poverty Law Center, who have worked tirelessly to end discrimination against the LGBT community without having to raise a champagne flute? What about other media watch dog groups who also fight on our behalf even though they are mostly made up of straight people? GLAAD isn't the be all or end all and has shown serious short comings.

Last thought -how does the case of the Heinz kiss compare with the Snickers Super Bowl kiss. (I forget, how did Bill O’Reilly weigh in on that one?) I don't know if I can fault the week-knees at Heinz more than any other company who will use a gay character for profit; but it doesn't endear me to their brand. At the end of the day they did choose bigots over gays.

.

Brent, thanks for including my comment regarding Heinz. ;) Good article!

Men who like being men, who prefer to look like other masculine men, and so on ... will have a decided opinion on what clothes they feel that makes them feel masculine and manly. Sometimes the expression of that set of ideas, also includes what they do not feel themselves to be, and that is anything un-manly. Some folks want to stir the pot about the movie Hancock, concerning the character's views on a possible super-suit. A similar scene occured in X-Files when a character objected to the "super-suit". There was a similar scene in the early episodes of Superman where Dean Cain tried on several outfits before he found the one that suited his sense of self. It is simple - guys have concerns about the clothes that they wear. Guys have always had concerns about the clothes that they wear. Since when did the clothes that a guy chooses wears become a part of the politically correct debate? Are clothes politcal now? Something that makes a statement? In New York City on a recent Sunday, I stood out in the rain with a few thousand other folk - many of them men, wearing clothes (or not wearing clothes), hair and makeup that I never would. These folks have called each other names that are being objected to now. And yes I am sure that some of these folks were at other times also called names. Wearing outlandish clothes and "dressing up" for some is a sport, an expression of themselves - they believe. Often this is done to get a reaction from others - which begs the question of whether only "certain" reactions are now allowed? The discussion is not about the n-word, or the j-word, etc. It is about what clothes makes a man feel manly, and the descriptions provided to those clothes, and a statement some may make about the wearer of those clothes. Are men concerned about the clothes that they wear? Does a fish swim in water? From the earliest times to Queer Eye For The Straight Guy, and beyond - men have always been concerned about their appearence - and not just for practical reasons. Mike

Come sit by me, Nukely.

This has been an interesting discussion all along! .

 

Because, as noted, Will Smith's character is repeatedly characterized by everyone, including children, as an a$$hole. What was wrong was JUSTIN BATEMAN'S RESPONSE. After "Norwegian homo", he says, "I'll give you that one." WHat he should have said, in character, would be "OK, so now we know you're alcoholic and also apparently a bit homophobic. Moving on..." It is the sympathetic Bateman's homophobia that upset (but not outraged) me. I feel the same way whenever a character we are supposed to like says "fag" or "queer", all my relating to them goes out the window. None of these is major in itself, but what I AM outraged about, is that I have lived to see the 80's return -- not just the fashion and music (which I love) -- but the use of "fag" and "gay" in almost EVERY movie comedy as a slur. Not O.K.

(1) Their are many different ways that we can respond to racism and bigotry (of all kinds) in both the public life and in the mass media (news and entertainment). Sometimes just sending a nice, but direct, little email to the company or politician involved is all that really needs to be done. Or maybe just complaining/talking about it on-line. (2) Many people -- gay and straight -- may not be aware of certain acts of prejudice or bias (I do not get Bravo and do not watch much British tv) or may feel that they are worth a different level of response them assembling the gay mob (i.e. do we get upset at Hancok or the fact that we cannot afford health iinsurance). (3) I do feel that Bateman's response to Will Smith's characters "homo" language should have been different. Given that he is the moral character in the film, from start to finish. Again, the fact that his (SMith's) character never really completes a full story arch, that the film was redesigned to appeal to straight, teenage boys and to be much 'lighter' explain a lot about this film. Although it is worth noting that a few years ago their was an animated film about two men on search for a lost city of gold and, from what I heard, the powers-that-be would not allow even the slightest, possible hint that the two men might be more then friends. Maybe, the real problem is not so much the "homo" references or the lack of response to them, but the fact that when making a film for "family" or 'young adults' you can ignore gays or make fun of them, but don't you dare support them or make a major character one of them... Summer action-adventure block buster films tend to either ignore the 'gay issue' entirely or use it for some form of humor. Maybe we should, along with complaing, try to find some films that have done better, then what would appear to be the norm. * Independence Day (1996) - Two gay characters. * Eraser (1996) - Fairly decent scene in a gay bar. http://www.geocities.com/edwardtjbrown

Can somebody tell me where in the message that I wrote that I said something to the effect that a) it is bad for the hero of a movie to be gay, b) is good for gay folk to be beaten or assaulted, c) the conflates or places on a pedestal masculine men versus non-masculine men? I do not remember writing or expressing any of those things. Is this a case where folks are "reading too much into" a scene, then applying their own thoughts to confirm their own ideas? In the movie, the Bateman character is carried home drunk, and the Hancock character is placing him in bed. As the Hanccok character is removing some of Bateman's clothes to help him sleep, Batemen's character asks if Hancock is going to take off his pants. The Bateman character implies that he does not want that to happen. Is this a case of his own homophobia or a case that some guys simply have boundary issues that they do not want to go past?