So W. F. Price of The Spearhead has made a momentous discovery: there is a television show called Glee. In a recent post, he shared some of his findings with the regular crowd:
I’ve only recently heard of the teen drama Glee, which is evidently a big hit with the teenybopper crowd. The other day, I came across it while flicking through channels and forced myself to watch some of the show.
Apparently, it is really, really gay.
First, I have to say that I now do believe the conservative Christians are correct in saying that the media is pushing a gay agenda. Of course, I don’t really care (one can always change the channel), but it was so blatant on Glee that I couldn’t help but laugh. The show revolved around a “glee club” (an insipid American high school institution for you Brits), cheerleaders, football players, gay football players, football players in drag, football players with cheerleaders, with gay cheerleaders, etc. There was even Broadway-style singing and dancing.
The horror!
Glee is about the gayest show I’ve ever seen on TV. Even the name is gay.
So, you’re saying it’s gay.
Still, Price did have one little complaint about the show:
The gay issue aside, there was one thing about the show that, although unsurprising, was still obnoxious: it features the same old negative stereotypes about normal males. The teen sluts (both gay and straight) are the heros, while the villains are generally straight or straight-acting males … .
It’s true. No one in American society is more oppressed than “normal” dudes. How dare Glee add to this bigotry!
Shockingly, it turns out that there aren’t any Glee fans amongst the Spearhead set – at least none willing to speak up.
In the comments, Meistergedanken explained that Glee was just a part – a loud, singing part — of a devious queer conspiracy:
It’s all part of the plan. Just like “Desperate Housewives”, “American Horror Story” or “Dawson’s Creek”, or any of those other shows created by the queers, straight couples – particularly married ones – are inevitably shown to be the most hypocrital, intolerant, ignorant, mentally unbalanced and emotionally dysfunctional characters. In this way normality is portrayed as a sorry sham. …
It’s so strange to see the progressives insist on marriage for gays, while at the same time showing married couples (and the husbands/fathers especially) as the worst people out there. They want to tear down marriage so they can scrounge the tattered remains for themselves, I guess.
Towgunner, for his part, delivered up a long, rambling manifesto of sorts on the subject of the gays. Some highlights:
Is it a tragedy that gay people suffer? I honestly used to think so, but I don’t really think they suffer all that much. They seem pretty happy at their parades. Matter of fact, I’d say that a balding women (regardless of her sexuality) or a poor black family or an orphan in Africa suffer thousands of times more than some sappy fruit.
In that light homosexuals have proven to be one of the most selfish groups in all of history, right up there with women – after all they want to be women anyway. …
Furthermore, it says something about our culture that gives only homosexuals and other sluts special treatment. … All this to facilitate a small group’s ego so they feel only slightly less guilty at themselves when they orgasm. That’s where your taxpayer money goes to…to make a pervert feel good about itself.
So, apparently, the government is giving out gay orgasm grants, or something?
Andybob, meanwhile, spoke up for the gays. Or, at least, the gays who hate Glee. And women.
The first time I saw “Glee” I wanted to punch my flatscreen through the wall. Here again, gay men/teens are being shown as shallow, trite, superficial, dismissable, malleable, silly, flippant cretins with nothing to offer the world except fashion advice and sloping shoulders for whiny bitches to cry on. …
Those of us [gay men] who live far from Hollywood and have no connection whatsoever to Broadway musicals are very likely to be very aware of issues confronting men. Some of us are even vocal MRA’s. … [We’re] not handicapped by the need for sex from women. We can recognise their manipulative BS from miles away. The female psyche laid bare is an ugly thing.
Gay men like men, identify with men, actually are men. We watch men we care about like our brothers (I have a straight twin brother), fathers, and mates get ground down by a system created and maintained by feminists and their pussy-begging lackeys – and yes, some poodle-carrying flamers along for the ride. Women are always shocked to learn that most gays side with men. That’s not what they see on the telly. …
The bitchy gays who discriminate against straight men … are the manginas of the gay world. …
Women don’t like gays and straights to collaborate because they don’t want us to compare notes. I have seen women try to shame my straight friends out of hanging out with me. They are threatened by our mutual support. Together, we are able to construct a composite picture of women that would peel paint for sheer gruesomeness.
Gay men and straight men – together, united in hatred of whiny bitches!
LJ, why do you feel the need to lecture LGBT people about LGBT issues? Do you not understand why this can be really fucking annoying to people?
Dude, you’re completely not understanding why I’m telling you to fuck off. You are an asshole of immense proportions if you think feminists sit around saying things are sexist when they’re not for fun or even for effect.
Fuck off and stop having stupid opinions.
“And for someone who wanted an example of oversensitivity…”
Nobody ask for such a thing. This is an ad hominem, not an argument. Your comments deserve, at the very least, a big deal of clarification.
Kyrie: I do not think my female senator is being a misogynist when she uses that line. That is the thought I was trying to convey in the first post. I wrote it wrong. I could have written it better.
But my beliefs on the matter were better clarified in the way I stated them in my 2nd post I made (the one in response to your question about women being incapable of misogyny).
lj4: I hope that Obama get reelected, as the thought that any of the running Republican (or Palin, for that matter) could be POTUS frightens me, even as a non-USian. That doesn’t mean I can’t criticize his words.
Rutee: “Dude, you’re completely not understanding why I’m telling you to fuck off. You are an asshole of immense proportions if you think feminists sit around saying things are sexist when they’re not for fun or even for effect.”
Didn’t even say that either. I was referring to CONSERVATIVES who were NOT FEMINISTS claiming that Obama was being sexist in his comments pertaining to lipsticks and pigs and the like.
“I do not think my female senator is being a misogynist when she uses that line.”
That’s not what we asked. Why did you precise that she’s female in this argument? For that matter, why would you mention this person in this argument, unless you think something about her make her an authority on the matter?
David: I am not lecturing anybody on anything LGBT.
Kyrie: When I was initially commenting on the faux controversy over Obama’s use of the term during the 2008 election, I brought up how frequently my senior senator had used that phrase frequently and how it was not considered a sexist thing to say against anyone. So when I was reminded of it again in this conversation, I brought her up. I don’t know why I didn’t just say Senator Landrieu or my senior senator instead of saying my female senator. It is just how I worded the post. Perhaps I should have put more thought into it.
“lj4: I hope that Obama get reelected, as the thought that any of the running Republican (or Palin, for that matter) could be POTUS frightens me, even as a non-USian. That doesn’t mean I can’t criticize his words.”
Where did I suggest you cannot?
@Dan
If you mean me, I wasn’t looking for an example, I was looking for a definition. You haven’t said anything that would change my mind about the definition being “I get to say or do whatever I want, and I also get to dictate how you should feel about that.”
I don’t care if you find Rutee’s reaction to be inappropriate, because it’s Rutee’s reaction, not yours. If you want to argue her points, do that. If you want to say “your emotional experience is WRONG because I say so,” I’m going to be pissed. At which point, I’m sure, you’ll tell me that I, too, am oversensitive e_e
Ok, I am taking a breather as this is becoming a “let’s nitpick everything Dan says and falsely represent him and then claim Dan is making the thread about him when he clarifies and defends himself” thread.
EVERYONE IS SO MEAN TO DAN WHY DID WE ALL DECIDE TO PICK ON HIM FOR NO REASON
lj4: That is why I stated in my comment that I do not have the life experience that would enable me to understand it.
And whe you got feedback on the subject you called the respondent,”oversensitive.”
That’s not listening to someone who had the experience to give an answer.
To Dan “clarifies” apparently means try to weasel out of having implied that something can’t be sexist if a woman has said it, and “defends” means call people who don’t agree with him oversensitive.
Okay Dan, that last thing I said was nastier than it had to be. Let me be more clear: I get the impression that you think you’re not getting a fair shot here; that, for some obscure reason, everyone keeps dogpiling on you. Dan, the reason the responses you elicit are much more negative than the responses elicited by the average commenter is that you are displaying patterns of behaviour that bother people. The regulars didn’t just play a game of “which new commenter are we going to irrationally dislike.” You may think those behaviours are totally acceptable and choose to continue them — I obviously can’t stop you. But you’re not going to be able to continue those behaviours and be well-liked here. Choose which is more important to you and go with it.
Yeah that’d be the first time a democrat said something sexist, if democrats did that, but they don’t.
Christ on a stick. Seriously fuck off.
@LJ: one first has to ask a question.
Then one second has to listen to the answers.
Then third and most importantly one has to not lecture people on whether X is or is not homophobic in one’s opinion.
We’ve been down this road before–I still call troll on you because of the lack of any true desire to learn indicated by your questions which you use as a flimsy shield to try to hide behind after lecturing people who know better about what they should or should not do, or say, or think.
Troll.
Pecunium: I called the person oversensitive, not just for the one comment, but for several interactions I have had with that person.
lj4: It doesn’t matter why you called them oversensitive. You were wrong.
That’s the meat of it.
Then you compounded that error by saying it wasn’t something people got to talk about; you put yourself on a pedestal. Even at that I let it drop; until pompously claimed you were all about asking questions and listening to the answers.
Because I’ve watched you do this before. You say something, people take; not unreasonable, offense. You try to defend it; saying they shouldn’t have taken offense at something they found offensive, and then complain it’s become all about you and they were being unfair.
Well they weren’t,and it isn’t.
ithiliana: Considering the disingenuous way you started off with me, I really couldn’t care less about what you personally think about my intent in posting.
you called me oversensitive when you started harassing my friend on the forum….
you also called me oversensitive when I felt as if your comment was using one lgtb person as a spokesperson for the matter….
*when I got mad that you were harassing my friend on the forum
Pecunium: I was wrong that Jumbo is oversensitive? Or I was wrong for calling Jumbo oversensitive? Because in my personal experiences, jumbo is very much that. And I didn’t want to debate the reasons why I felt Jumbo was wrong because then I get accused of making threads about me when I start defending myself to others.
I never said it was something people couldn’t talk about. You do not need anyone’s permission to talk about whatever you wish. I would never claim the authority to tell anyone otherwise. I just didn’t want to be accused of thread derailment when others insist on talking about their misconceptions of what I say and I defend myself when they do so.
jumbo: I didn’t want to bring up the other reasons surrounding why I feel you are oversensitive as I was concerned that would be deemed thread derailment by David. However, if you still believe that was harassment, then I will stand by my claim that you are oversensitive.