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!
Dani: I totally agree. And when Finn did say that in the hallway, I literally went “ouch”. (And I think that is what the writers wanted to happen as well). One of the reasons I like the show is because it will present problems that people face and make people think about them in a different way (even if some of the ways they are presented are done so in a bizarre and over the top way).
And as someone else pointed out, if the MRA do not like the show, they are free to pick up their remote control and go CLICK and they can go watch something else. Hell, if their movement is as wildly successful as Anthony says it is, maybe they could make their own show. Call it “Going our own way: Together”.
If the recent “MRA theme song” is any indication, this show should probably not be a musical. 😛
I really tried to get into watching Glee in it’s first season but I couldn’t get past all the breaking into song thing. It was too “happy” for me.
When I was a kid Grease was the thing, I never understood that either.
I was listening to Leonard Cohen and the smiths, looking back I guess I was a morbid child.
What kind of a topsy-turvy world do we live in?
If the recent “MRA theme song” is any indication, this show should probably not be a musical.
I just want you to know, Dani Alexis, that you have just caused the words “MRA Rock Opera” to flash though my mind. I may never smile again.
Women and children first is terrible. We shouldn’t allow that. It pedestalizes women and is incredibly anti-feminist.
The only way the Daily Mail could be less credible is if it added in some page three girls.
By the way, does the Inquirer actually print stories about UFOs? I thought that was the Weekly World News.
Wait, they’re giving out gay orgasm grants, now? Man, maybe my wife and her (very happily gay) best friend and I can work out a deal and split the cash.
@Zarat, I’m assuming you consider most of the female commenters here to be “entitled feminist princesses,” yes? How about you let us know exactly what you think we consider ourselves entitled to, and we’ll confirm and deny. If it’s being saved from a sinking ship before any men are, I think you’ll find feminists are just about the least likely population to feel that way. The group of people who seem to fetishize the Titanic and the whole “women and children first”* idea the most are members of the Quiverfull movement and other fundamentalist Christians, which are about as anti-feminist as you can be. They’re probably more anti-feminist than you are.
*Of course, in reality it was “rich, high-status women and children first.” Nobody have half a damn about the people in steerage.
Confirm or deny! Stupid fingers!
By the way, I do feel entitled to the assurance that there are enough lifeboats to seat every individual on board. So if that’s what you’re after, um, guilty as charged. I’m a total princess.
Except in real life, outing a homophobic closeted bully doesn’t fix them, it makes them worse (and usually more homophobic as they try to shore up their reputation). Outing someone as an attack is a hurtful thing to do. Moreover, it is a homophobic thing to do, as the weapon used is public hatred of queerness and queer sexuality. Outing someone intentionally to hurt them is in and of itself homophobic bullying. Using a queer person’s sexuality as your method of attacking them is akin to using a bully’s being black, female, disabled, poor, etc. against them in a bigoted attack. I did it once, in high school (outed a harassing homophobic bully) and still consider it to be one of the worst things I have ever done.
NW: 12) Teaching tolerance of homosexuals in schools.
No one has to tolerate or accept anyones behavior. Keep your private life private.
Thus spake NWO, the prophet, and from that day forth there was naught a thing said in remonstrance of any person who abused another for being a Christian, for verily there was no need to tolerate anyone, for any thing.
Any one who refused to keep to their closet when they were in prayer; or engaged in testimony; or professed faith in any way which was not private deserved, verily, any scorn or opprobrium which was heaped upon them for their overt shows of that which was meant to be done in secret.
This was in accord with the teachings of Jesus*, who said one should always pray in secret; and profess one’s faith though works, and charity to all.
*Matt chapter 6: 5-7
And lo did NWO spoke in tautologies, for that which one keeps private is that selfsame thing which is one’s private life, by its very definition.
Yet it was to NWO up to him what things should be private and what should not, and we were to tolerate and accept this behavior, notwithstanding that no one has to tolerate or accept anyone’s behavior, and so NWO revealed to us that we were to him no one, and so lived he in irony most deep and profound.
I have to disagree DSC. The closet is not a right, it’s a privilege, extended only to those of us who have the ability to pass as hetero-normative. I’m okay with laissez faire regarding the apolitical queers who refuse to come out of the closet and let the rest of us fight the good fight for them, but if they use the closet as a weapon against us then they should expect a backlash.
Someone writing for the advocate seems to disagree with DSC.
http://www.advocate.com/Print_Issue/Features/A_Case_for_Outing_on_All_Levels/
Personally, I do not weep for the outing of any politician who fights against equal rights for the LGBT community while being a closeted member of the same. They are nothing more than bullies as well and they should be shamed for the harm they are causing others hypocritically. (Not that heterosexual bigots against LGBT causes are any better because they are not hypocrites)
I am also unsure if such behavior as endorsed by the Advocate can be labelled as homophobic.
Dot: As it happens, people may sometimes disagree about whether something is homophobic or not.
I tend to agree with DSC about school bullies and similar private citizen types, because for private citizens whom they’re attracted to is their own business; if you’re a public figure who hasn’t done anything wrong, then your sex life is your business, but if you’re working against queer rights, then I don’t have a problem with outing them for the hypocrisy.
@ lj
Not all queer people agree about lgtb issues. I am going to ignore the unfortunate implication that one queer person is the spokesperson for all queer people……
@blackbloc
Well I’d say being out the closet is more of a privileged than being in I’d think. Especially when there are countries where you can be jailed or killed for being “out”. Not to mentioned being harassed physically verbally and sexually, being kicked out, ect. I don’t think using homophobia to hurt a homophobe is really appropriate. Thats like using sexism to attack a women you disagree with. In the end you are just contributing to oppression.
I actually don’t care if politicians are outed for hypocrisy. In this situation that was mentioned it was outing someone who hurt you so people would uses homphobia to harass them. Its a different situation.
“You bigots have lost.
Feminists own the government, own the media, own the courts, and own public institutions.”
This is hilarious. We own everything, therefore we have lost! But you see…
” But the people have seen your lies and they are with the MRM. Rank comments for this story according to “best rated” and “worst rated”.”
The people, by which we mean the people who comment on the Daily Mail site (the UK’s premier source of wrapping paper for chips, along with The Sun), sort of agree with the MRM if you squint really hard and wish. It’s a revolution!
First, I believe the discussion is in the context of the United States. I agree that outing someone in Uganda has some different implications than outing them in Canada or the USA. In that sense we are relatively privileged compared to foreigners in those countries… but that’s true both of those who are closeted and those who are out.
Now in North America, being closeted is a privilege over those who are out (within the same society). It is an option that is only available to some, those who are hetero-normative and thus have the option of passing. For many GLTs (maybe some Bs), that option is just not there, because their behavior or social conditions makes it impossible for them to pass. Furthermore, your own words make it clear: someone who is closeted “could be harrassed” if they were outed. But those who are out *already* are being harrassed.
In the context of homobigot politicians that are themselves in the closet, the closet is in fact a weapon that they use against us. They are using us as a mean to get social advancement, and the way they are able to do so is by promoting a culture of shame and of secrecy around homosexuality. So in the specific case of homobigots, the act of outing them is to disarm them. It’s self-defence.
If being closeted is a privilege, it’s a complicated one with a lot of costs attached. I’m totally cool with outing anti-gay politicians and public figures who are directly acting to hurt gay interests, but outing anyone who’s not actively working to hurt gay people is totally unethical in my opinion. Why go out of your way to hurt someone if they’re not going out of their way to hurt you? In many cases you can’t even know why that person has chosen to be closeted, or what the costs of being outed would be to them. Unless they’re actively working against gay interests, in which case it’s an appropriate use of a political weapon, outing another person is making a choice for them that only they have the right to make.
There have been a few occasions during my time in journalism where people I’ve been interviewing have outed themselves to me, and every single time I’ve checked in with them about whether or not it’s OK to publish that information. I see that as being kind and respectful to other queer people and letting them make their own decisions, not acting against gay interests.
Like I said, I have a ‘live and let live’ attitude towards your average closeted GBLT, but I do think that closeted homobigots should be outed *forcefully* and without remorse. This is not about changing their minds but about disarming them.
See, I think that inherant in the threat of outing is a threat of homophobic attack. Why is outing dangerous or threatening? Because of homophobia. Why is it shameful? Because of homophobia. It’s not as if we generally threaten to out people as heteros… Homophobia is the only thing that allows outing to be a weapon and an attack.
Also, the closet is such a horrible place. Despite the problems of being out and obvious, the tension and the attempts at lying (which I sucked at as well) were horribly depressing. Repression and fear isn’t a privilege. There are plenty of people who come out not because they think it will be welcoming or because of pride, but because they think it will kill them anyways if they don’t. In the closet or out, you can’t win in a homophobic culture.
“See, I think that inherant in the threat of outing is a threat of homophobic attack. Why is outing dangerous or threatening? Because of homophobia. Why is it shameful? Because of homophobia. It’s not as if we generally threaten to out people as heteros… Homophobia is the only thing that allows outing to be a weapon and an attack.”
That’s why the idea of it makes me feel icky. I do think it can be justified as a political weapon sometimes, ie to put a stop to a particular politician’s anti-gay campaigns, but even in those cases I don’t LIKE it. I take no pleasure in outing even the nastiest person. And the outing of random celebrities who’re not behaving in overtly homophobic ways doesn’t sit well with me at all. I may not agree with their decision to stay in the closet, and in some cases I may think that their coming out would help others, but it’s not my decision to make.