AE: What’s the gay rodeo circuit like? Were you
ever in the traditional circuit?
SD: I did. I
wasn’t really in the straight circuit. I did a lot of small jackpot rodeos and
open rodeos. I was never in any of the professional circuits but once I made my
way into the gay circuit is when I really, really began to flourish. I love the
gay rodeo circuit. It’s great and I would love if you could let everyone know I
pretty much will be able to be seen at most every gay rodeo from here on out.
I’m going to start trying to make it to every single one and people can get the
schedule at IGRA.com.
AE: Actually, you just answered my next
question if you were getting back on the circuit…
SD: Yes, I
absolutely want to get back on the circuit. I hurt myself, I took a long time
off. I was very out of shape. I needed to have rehab on my shoulder.
I tried to ride once, it didn’t go so well. And then there were other
circumstances in my life – job and a former relationship – that was keeping me
busy. But I’m ready to hit the ground running. I can not wait to go to my next
gay rodeo.
AE: What does a bull-rider do for those who
aren’t familiar with the rodeo?
SD: Basically,
you sit down on the back of a bull in a chute. They throw the chute door open,
you hold on with one hand with the rope that’s around the back of the bull.
Your other hand is your free hand which is not allowed to touch the bull. You
then have to ride him for eight seconds and basically you are scored by two
judges on how well the animal performed as well as how well the rider
performed. I invite anyone who wants to learn anything about it, come to any
gay rodeo and I will be glad to sit down and give them a close-up, first-hand
look at how it works.
AE: You told Julie Chen the goodbye videos were
very emotional for you because you didn’t get to spend time around a lot of
straight people outside of work. Do you think your experience in the house will
change how you deal with straight people?
SD: Absolutely.
After I came out, I moved to a new city. All my friends were basically gay
friends in the sense of that’s the only places I went and the only people I had
contact with. This whole experience has given me the enlightenment I need to
get back – there’s a whole straight world out there of people who are extremely
caring and don’t care at all that you’re gay. I want to get back in that world.
Submitted by
on Sun, 2008-07-27 23:01.
Any relation to "Claude Daigle"?
Probably not!
Poor Claude was the last of the Daigles, because Hortense had him late in life.
Unless he was adopted (which, given what the Daigles looked like, is highly likely. And preferable.)
I loved The Bad Seed-it's easy to joke about Nancy Kelly's over-the-top acting, but really...what's the CORRECT way to react to finding out your 8-year-old's a homicidal sociopath?
Steven's a cutie...I almost regret not watching Big Brother.
Finally!
someone to root for
for once i had someone to root for and had a reason to watch Big Brother - now it's gone and i've lost interest again - maybe next time someone worth watching will last longer
cheers :)
but then......
i just saw on Gay Socialites dot com (http://gaysocialites.com/2008/07/is_big_brothers_jessie_godderz.html) that Jessie may be gay too =:o could it be so?!? :D
their source even is sharing photos of his nude modeling :p wow!
so we'll see if they can keep me watching ;)
cheers
For god's sake, stop going
It's 2008 he knows better
If someone keep going around calling me colored or that colored guy, I'd probably punch them.
I don't know how they carry it in jolly old England but in the USA "colored" is a derogatory term.
I don't watch reality shows very much but in this interview he comes off as a bit of a jerk.
'Coloured' is nowhere near
That's your opinion
It's pretty sad that you are so content with your own bigotry.
Intent is the most important part of the equation. His intent was to dehumanize her, and it doesn't matter what word he used to do it. He knows what his intentions were, he knows that it was wrong, but he did it anyway.
Jason, we do have to look at context.....
You can bring some much value added if one the UK-produced shows that gets discussed here used terminology that had a pejorative connotations in the UK or elsewhere and had not been picked up by any one else.
We just have to be mindful that those who live within a particular culture or subculture serve as the best barometers of "meaning" when it comes to most of these matters. I don't think anyone that anyone should or is trying to indoctrinate you not to use that word in your daily life as it does not have the meaning that is does here. No changing needed, except recognizing that in the United States the only acceptable term using "color" is "people of color."
Side-bar: I think that your comment brings up what could be a very interesting topic regarding the United States continuing to have a cultural dominance in the word of entertainment. That is starting to change and is being reflected on this site via the contribution of both content and commentary from abroad. The world should not revolve around the US as we'd all continue missing out on global treasures.
Guillermo's Media Guillotine: Entertainment, journalism, politics, and popular culture.
http://springintoaction.typepad.com
Side-bar: People of color
I agree with everything you said. I do have my own side-bar about the phrase "people of color":
It's rather humorous that "colored people" is offensive and "people of color" is not offensive. At the root and in normal deconstruction they are the same thing! And yet one is close to "beyond the pale" and the other is a preferred designation. Obviously, the difference is that one was used by racists in the past, while the other was "chosen" by the group itself. But still, it's the same thing! Imagine what some person learning English would think of such a thing. Or even people from England, where those terms don't have the same connotations. It shows how fluid, squishy and imprecise the concept of language can be.
Intent?
Cadence - I don't think it's wise or fair to be calling Jason a bigot. The word "colored" is apparently not offensive (or offensive to the same degree) in England as it is here. Not recognizing the offensive nature of the word in the US is not the same as being personally bigoted. (On the other hand, Jason should take note of the fact that the term IS offensive in the US, and since the show occurs in the US it was an offensive comment in its context.)
You're right, "intent" is the key thing here. However, you are leaping to conclusions when you say Steven's intent was to dehumanize Libra. In fact, his interview indicates that was not the case. Of course, you can "think" that dehumanization was his intent, despite his words to the contrary. But that would be an opinion based solely on your perception of Steven on the show. We can't "know" what his true intent was, we can only guess based on what we see, and what he says later. The latter would indicate the intent was something different.
Actually, Mormons believe that when Jesus returns
Steven and Dan are the only 2 BB10 cast members....
Much was made of the fireworks that would come between Dan and Libra as Libra is allegedly a "liberal." They've gotten zero from that angle as Dan (who I am rooting for now) must have pulled a great bait and switch with CBS as he has kept his conservative ways close to his chest, is well aware that perception is almost everything in that enclosed place, and is using the time to learn about people without giving the network its unearned money shots of people screaming AT one another as exemplified Joshua during BB9, and is happening with almost every "house guest" on BB10.
Best of luck to Steven and I hope that he uses this weird experience to its fullest extent. His comment about Libra was wrong, but no less offensive than Libra calling him a "woman" or any of the many other pejorative terms that all these closed-minded people on the show use to refer to one another all the time. Side-note: I can't believe that after seeing Showtime 2's BB (should stand for beyond boring) After Dark coverage, Steven would ever want to be in that house. I've caught two full episodes and a minutes here and there and not only are the shows like a slow death, but the house guests keep talking about how absolutely boring their time there is. But then it seems like Steven and his bf at the time liked that they saw. Was Steven dating Noah from ATWT? 3 hours every night with your bf watching BB After Dark??????
Guillermo's Media Guillotine: Entertainment, journalism, politics, and popular culture.
http://springintoaction.typepad.com
Quote:It's pretty sad that
That is a joke! How can I be called a bigot for not appreciating how derogatory a word like 'coloured' can come across? Yeah ok, so in the US it is a 'slur' or whatever, but I just think that the AfterElton editors have been over the top about it. Mentioning how 'disappointing' it was that he said it all the time. I'm sorry but Steven's intent was definitely not to dehumanise her, I mean come on! Just like in UK Big Brother, I'm sure the houseguests (as you guys call em') get hours of coaching before they go into the house about how not to be rascist, homophobic e.t.c. He wouldn't be stupid enough to do that on live television. All that happened was that he just used a word that he uses all the time and didn't realise how it could come across. Just like me not knowing how derogatory it's supposed to be. Again, I say that you guys go so over the top about things sometimes when there is no need for it.
Jason, I've been puzzled by your attitude from the begnning.
Clearly calling someone colored in the UK is no big deal, but you insist on telling us in the States that we shouldn't consider it a big deal either. Frankly, your attitude comes across as rather stereotypically American by insisting that you know better when it comes to this issue. A number of people have explained to you that in America the term is very offensive, but you just deride that as being over the top. I wouldn't call your attitude bigoted, but it certainly seems arrogant.
As for Steven using a word that he uses all the time and "not knowing how derogatory it's supposed to be" well, given that this is 2008 and Steven is 35, I have to say I find it inexcusable he doesn't know how offensive it is. I'd say pretty much any African-American person could tell you it's offensive so it says something about Steven that he doesn't know that. Which isn't to say he's a bigot. He actually seems like a nice guy, but this isn't some little thing like you seem to want it to be.
Furthermore, Steven either doesn't remember how he used the word or isn't owning up to it. In our interview with him, he claimed he only used it to explain to Jerry how offensive it is to use. Oh, I guess that means even he knows it isn't an okay word to use. In fact, Steven did use the word in a derogatory fashion when talking about Libra and we pointed out just the way I would if someone uses the word queer or fag.
Minorities are bigots too
It amazes how often members of a minority group are often bigoted against other minority groups. I've seen it in the black community on occasion with prejudice against gays or sometimes in the gay community with prejudice against blacks. Sometimes I just shake my head. What it projects is a lack of empathy on all sides.
If someone told you that something was offensive why would you want to go on repeating that or worse, tell them that they don't have the right to be offended or that they should lighten up. Jason I'm not saying your a bigot or anything but I do think your showing a lack of empathy.
Oh an by the way what is it with reality tv shows lately? Are they trying to corner the market on racist gay hicks or something. First Davis from the Real World and now this Steven guy.
I was at tutorial class
I was at tutorial class the other day here in aussie,and I was so shocked that the teacher refered asians & black people as "colored".I`m the only asian there,the rest of class was made up of about half from america & half local folks,and they were all white.
So is it OK to use such word here in aussie?none of my class seemed bother by that word except me.
colored offence
While I have never used the term 'colored' it was a term that in the racist past didn't have the same connotations, other then to lump full blooded, mulatto and any other race they didn't like into one category, in case there was any doubt. The signs read, "No Colored", not "No Negro."
Today, I think colored has about the same weight at fairy or queer. What if one of the housemates had said "that fairy boy," or "that queer boy." The determiner 'that' is always meant for derision, regardless of the weight of the word.
Steven should be apologizing, not making excuses.
Steven Calls Libra "That Colored Girl" on YouTube.
Quote:In fact, Steven did
Well that's a bit hypocritical coming from you, when you use queer all the time in your articles when referring to gay people. There seems to be a double standard here and no-one seems to want to admit it except for me.
You're kidding, right? Whenever I have used the word "queer" in
Jason why not tackle Nukely bilatery, as your comments to him
appear to show little reflection of the consistent point that all posters are trying to address? I italicise "appear" not to jump to conclusions.
I know that if this were an argument that you were trying to win with Nukely, it's a smart move to focus on the possibly complexity/weakness of his last post, but focusing on him does not make your commentary any more true as you simply don't have the cultural awareness (nor were you expected too) to determine what is offensive to the vast majority of the U.S. You know better now, yet it now becomes about pointing fingers and a self congratulatory post about speaking out.
I will burst your bubble with regard to you being the one who is somehow exposing/verbalizing double standards, as many do it here all the time. I've pointed out when I think that Nukely is off base, and would do it right here if warranted.
I am assuming that the quote you are referring to might sound confusing/contradictory, but in many US circles, gay men address one another as "fags." I don't like it at all, but know that like the " word is one that some feel that can use when among gay. "Queer" is even more complicated as historically it has had the same negative connotation as "fag," when used by straight people. When used among gay people, it's different than "fag" in that "queer" has now has elements of empowerment in younger gays and some even prefer the description to "gay." But it's still not accepted for straight people to call gays "fags" and only an enlightened few could get away with queer as most would still use it as a put down.
If you want to learn something, as most ere seem to, just ask. In the US it's not OK to refer to black people as "colored." No one is trying to force you to change how you speak in your culture/sub-culture. Also language is always changing so when in doubt asking works. I know that I would not have the audacity to opine on language across Great Britain and hope to be able to ask, or look at the many resources available instead of beating a dead horse.
As someone who was born in Latin America and grew up in the US, I've become more aware of the meaning of words around the world. I am not professing to have a knowledge base to prevents me from mucking it up, but an awareness and tentacles to learn words are not universal and that I have to defer to others when on their turf, especially when it's not just one person saying that it is what it is.
No double standard or free passes, at least from me to anyone, be it Nukely (when merited/not the case here) and you. Few of us fear calling things out even if it involves someone we might like or it may rile up the masses.
Guillermo's Media Guillotine: Entertainment, journalism, politics, and popular culture.
http://springintoaction.typepad.com
Actually, Jason was
Actually, Jason was responding to Michael's post from above, not to Nukely's.
I do think Jason should be more cognizant of words having different meanings in different places, but I think he's feeling frustrated by what he sees as an overall excessive sensitivity to words. The key word in that last sentence is "excessive". Who's to draw the line as what constitutes "excessive"? Some people want to jump on every nuance, every inflection, every word, no matter the context. Others want to let most anything go. I think Jason's being so persistent because he's objecting to those who would jump on virtually anything.
I guess that we ( I ) should not speak for others... Good catch
If I am not mistaken Jason's first quite pointed rant was directed at Dennis, so based on both posts I would tend to agree with your perception that Jason thinks that this is much ado about nothing. I can only look at what I see and what I see is immaturity and calling out people by making sweeping generalizations, so it could be re framed as who's being excessive now?
I've stated that I think that this is kind of silly as Steven's remark was no more/less offensive than the other crap in the house, but since this was an interview and given the nature of this forum it's perfectly appropriate to ask him the question and call him out on not owning up to it. I wish that more interviews (even on this site) asked tough questions, gave the opportunity to set the record straight, and then not leave it hanging. I think that if Steve has said mea culpa or said that he said so much crap while at the house that he's going to have to look at the tapes to see what he said, he would not be getting this much crap. In a way being tough on the gay man is a good thing, as shouldn't be as tough on our own as we are on others? When Libra's annoying ass gets thrown out of the BB house I hope that an AfterElton type site asks her the same questions about her homophobic remarks, her game play, and whether she partook in some of the ageism, sexism that is also running rampant in the house.
There are some subject matters that I know nothing about or disagree with and move on. Others I disagree with, but it all depends on what is being discussed. I stuck my nose here as I tend to when I smell something that does not compute. If Jason thinks that the whole site, contributors, and posters jump too quickly, then that is his prerogative. I don't think that most do. Sometimes we incorrectly jump to conclusions based on perception rather than trying to find out if something occurred due to intent/oversight/malice/______ . That is where I think we can help one another as we can highlight what we see/perceive and true engage to see if that leads to a change in the original perception or something even more relevant comes out of the exchanges.
I also think that we should also use email to address one another privately (as I recently did with snicks) or put it out there with relevant examples directed at those "jumpers." The hit and run generalizations won't change anything, especially when coupled with deconstructing something that might not have the sweep in the UK that it does here. Maybe there are more "jumpers" because this country is filled with so much hatred and we keep trying to sweep it under the carpet. I think that Europeans generally are leaps ahead of the US when it comes to many of the issues that we are still battling here, but our history is different and the challenges are real. I wish that this site could be all about celebration, but can it really be?
Guillermo's Media Guillotine: Entertainment, journalism, politics, and popular culture.
http://springintoaction.typepad.com
My personal view is that no,
to kvetch or not to kvetch?
I have been on panels and been to discussions where they have tried to place a "well rounded spectrum" on the issue at hand even where it didn't belong. Where is the positive spin on the issue of hate crime? I have witnessed discussions that have tried to put a positive light on gay murder victims, merely for the sake of creating a positive balance, even when it is inappropriate. I wonder if that's part of what I call the Puke or Pity response. Where the victim is too horrible to contemplate because of the incidental association to the crime. Why the victims of the concentration camps didn't trust the liberators, who where obviously disgusted by what they saw. Puke or Pity.
Also, AfterElon seems to be a media critique forum. Look at RottenTomatoes.com which presupposes a pan in it's title. Inviting critique tends to attract negative commentary as most people believe that a critique means a negative pan, (otherwise we wouldn't have a term like "honest critique" which basically means objective criticism.) Most people only know empty praise (called support) or subjective reaction (called critique.)
There are items on AfterElton that celebrate gay life and the images of GLBT in the media. Remember, it only takes one voice to lead a conversation into a constructive direction..
It's entirely possible
It's quite likely Steven's story about Jerry is true, but
I watched it.
Shame on After Elton
"Once more we have a Big Brother gay contestant out of the competition pretty quickly. Why do you think that that keeps happening?"
It doesn't keep happening. Out of ten openly gay contestants (counting Marcellus twice since he was on two seasons) that have appeared on Big Brother, exactly 2 have been evicted early. (Joe and Stephen).
Were you trying to imply that Americans hate gays so they get evicted quickly. Why would you try to create some victimization that isn't even there? Isn't that what GLAAD is for?
Catch Steven at the Gay Rodeo...