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!
Outing a politician seems OK to me because every politician’s personal life gets examined in minute detail. It would also be mean and gratuitous to tell everyone someone was cheating on his/her SO (not equivalent, since they’re actually doing something wrong, but you get the idea), but that happens to politicians all the time.
Of course the person who does the outing is still being a dick.
We’re going to help the cause of gays by being outing a public homophobe? The people who gather compatriots with, among other things, tales of how gays could be among them, thus reinforcing their idiotic narrative? And this is done under what logic? That that particular homophobe was somehow a lynchpin, that there is not some roughly equally charismatic and capable mouthpiece who can take their place?
Even if it were okay ethically, which, well, no, this tactic strikes me as remarkably useless. You’re not even really defanging the enemy; the homophobic atmosphere is far more the enemy than any one homophobe, and you’re not doing anyone any favors by outing the homophobe.
Jumbo: Never did I claim that one person (or newspaper) was the spokesperson for the lgbt movement. Neither did DSC. We were both stating opinions about the issue. No more. Not sure how you took my words as that sort of implication so there should be nothing to ignore. Perhaps you are oversensitive. But DSC did say it was never ok to do so. I was pointing out an argument made by others where they (and I) feel it is ok to do so.
ozy: I agree with you on private citizen types and about politicians who do not seek to punish people for or prevent people from doing things that they themselves are doing in their private lives.
You know, Dan, you’ve already been asked to knock it off with the attempts at silencing last time you tried the “maybe you have no sense of humor” crap, which is essentially the same thing as “maybe you’re oversensitive”. Perhaps you’re unfamiliar with environments full of people focused on social justice issues, but that kind of thing doesn’t tend to be well received in such environments. It’s particularly unwise to try the “yeah well maybe you suck!” tactic on a mod.
I’ve heard the “pro-outing” argument before. I am not a fan of it when it comes from other queer people. When it comes from a cis hetero, I presume they are not trustworthy on queer issues from then on out unless I see a lot of evidence otherwise. One queer person outing another is problematic enough, a cis hetero outing a queer person is undeniably a heterosexist attack (with very narrow exceptions, such as being that person’s abuse victim and having to out them as part of talking about the specific abuse).
Yeah, the idea of straight people advocating outing is just…no. Not only am I giving their motivations some serious side-eye, I’m not convinced that the people concerned are capable of understanding what they’re proposing to do to someone.
<— Evil. I guess.
Darksidecat:
Sorry. If I had enough evidence to out a, for example, pig like Ted Haggard I'd do it in a second. Just like I'd out Newt Gingrich if I had evidence that he, Mr. Moral America, left his wife while she was undergoing cancer treatment for a woman he'd cheated on her with.
I don't even know what a cis gender is or why they are so inherently trustworthy, but eff me if I'm going to shed a tear for the Ted Haggard's and Newt Gingrich's of the world.
The man made a living on hate for gay and trans people. How many Sundays for how many years did that lying sob sell out everyone in America at the expense of a few so he could rake in a few (thousand? million?) bucks? How many elections did he help sway by bashing gays and getting the haters to the polls? How many people can’t adopt or marry because of self-serving fuckwads like him and the people he duped? How many people put themselves through “ex-gay” christian therapy? In short: how many lives did this one asshole fuck up to make some money and save some face that he didn’t even even need to save in the first place, and why should we not want to expose him for the snake-oil selling fraud that he is?
To protect his ego? Who gives a shit? I don’t. Any more than I care about Newt Gingrich’s enormous stupid ego.
Sorry, typo- the cis gender would apparently be inherently untrustworthy.
@leni
Er who said cis people were untrustworthy? O_o
(Do you serious not know what cis means?)
Jumbofish:
Darksidecat wrote:
And no. I didn’t know what cis was until I googled it as I wrote the last post. Presumably that makes me untrustworthy.
I read that and think “When it comes from a trans, I presume they are not trustworthy on straight issues from then on out unless I see a lot of evidence otherwise.”
Except I don’t really think that cause that would be douchy,.
Related story:
Once I called out a m-f [slur redacted –DF] for saying something like “Us Women”. I got annoyed because this person lived almost their whole life as a male. I thought who the fuck is he to say jack about “us women”? Like he was ever really a girl? Until I realized that he experienced a whole range of extra bullshit that I never would. Much of it worse. Some of it he avoided because he had the option of man default, at least until he fully identified as woman…. and then she got the worst of both spectrums.
It took me a while to realize, but she wasn’t disqualified from remarking on the female experience because she hadn’t lived it her whole life. She was kinda extra qualified because she’d seen it from both sides.
Hence not untrustworthy by the mere fact of being different than me or having a different experience than me.
Sorry- the whole untrustworthy thing just rankled me.
>>The people who gather compatriots with, among other things, tales of how gays could be among them, thus reinforcing their idiotic narrative?
Err, queers ARE amongst them. It’s not a narrative, it’s a fucking fact. We’re everywhere.
The reason they have a narrative that we are at war with them is, get this, WE ARE at war with them.
Speaking in the context of the USA still, right?
Where’s the trenches, again?
We’re not at war with them, we’re not in a revolution. We’re just done pretending we don’t deserve rights. One of those rights is for sexual orientation not to matter. You’re going to need good evidence of efficacy before you can even broach the subject of “Hey let’s throw ethics out the window because they’re assholes anyway”. As it happens, real life doesn’t work like pop history; you’re not going to get rid of a social movement just by removing a single person. In this case, all you’re going to is ruin that person’s life, assuming they don’t go off into the desert with a bunch of strapping young attractive people of the same gender, then come back and say they’re cured. Congrats, I guess.
I’m not going to out anyone. I’m straight, it’s a fraught issue.
I don’t really have a problem with gays outing people who are actively using a pretense of being straight to harm homosexuals. Someone who is campaigning that “teh gay is evil, and ruining America” while being gay, ought not get that sort of cover.
But for me to do it…. ties into the narrative. I’m straight, if I out someone it’s a straight person showing a homosexual person to be full of perfidy.
There are any number of “open secrets” (such as David Dreier [R- Calif]) who aren’t making attacks on gays their lynchpin. No, he’s not really a friend of homosexuals (he voted for DOMA, and supports DADT), but he’s not actively using that sort of thing to stay in office. Then again, his constituency (near Pasadena) is pretty tolerant, and he’d face backlash if he got on that horse.
I’ve been watching the outing movement for what… 30 years, and it’s still a confused mess; with some very carefully thought out positions being taken (and some heat of passion ones too), and it’s still not something I am in a good position to have a declarative opinion on.
I don’t think homosexuals are at war, I do think there are reactionaries who think they are a war; but they are “at war” with a lot more than homosexuals.
It’s not just the mockery issue: if you out a teenager, it could lead to them being homeless (if their parents disapprove of queers), which is really not a proportionate punishment for bullying people. Also I tend not to think that queer kids coping with a cisheterosexist society (even in a very dysfunctional and harmful way) are the big vanguard of the queer rights movement.
Homophobic politicians are different, I think, because it changes the narrative. Now, instead of thinking “how right! HomophobicPoliticianDude has some points,” now people think “I wonder how long until HomophobicPoliticianDude turns out to be having queer sex.” Also, it helps prove that that ex-gay shit doesn’t work if we out those ex-gay therapist assholes.
Again, I do NOT support outing private citizens ever– their sexuality is none of anyone’s business. But if you’re being homophobic in public… yeah.
Leni: Cis means, basically, “not trans.” We use it because the other options are either clunky (not trans) or horribly offensive (normal).
in public should be “as a public figure”
Gah. OUTING queer kids coping with a cisheterosexist society. I can type, I promise. >.>
I think outing someone is using homophobia to your advantage, and that’s problematic even if you’re doing it to fight homophobia.
I don’t think this is a good thing. I think this reinforces the idea that queer sex is shameful and mockable, and takes the focus off “HomophobicPoliticanDude’s ideas are wrong.”
I worry that for every person who turns against a queer homophobe because of hypocrisy, there’s someone who turns against them because ha ha, gay sex.
“I worry that for every person who turns against a queer homophobe because of hypocrisy, there’s someone who turns against them because ha ha, gay sex.”
Yeah, this. It’s true that outing politicians who’re homophobic in public and queer in private does sometimes short-circuit their political careers, but the people doing the outing are kidding themselves if they think that the reason said politicians lose their support is because people are appalled by the hypocrisy. They lose their support because their supporters are homophobic. If the goal is to stop that particular person’s policy initiatives then sure, that may work if you’re cool with the Machiavellian ethics involved, but it really doesn’t do anything at all to change the public conversation about queer people or how society views us. In fact it may reinforce some negative stereotypes.
The strongest case for outing is probably the dudes who run ex-gay ministries, the majority of whom probably are gay themselves, in the sense of going “behold, praying the gay away doesn’t work”. Even then though, what do you think the public takes away from the outing? Nothing good about queer people, I don’t think, and in terms of the supporters the person being outed may not even lose those if they can spin it as “it was an unfortunate lapse and obviously I just wasn’t praying hard enough”.
Anthony Zarat is clearly going for Troll of the Year 2012
BTW, has anyone ever done a Google search for NWOSlave? His interests are, ahem, what you might expect for a typical MRA…
Being the adventures of a young man whose principal interests are rape, ultra-violence and Internet trolling.
I don’t think this is a good thing. I think this reinforces the idea that queer sex is shameful and mockable, and takes the focus off “HomophobicPoliticanDude’s ideas are wrong.”
I worry that for every person who turns against a queer homophobe because of hypocrisy, there’s someone who turns against them because ha ha, gay sex.
Exactly. It’s not really about the hypocrisy, it’s about the narrative that there’s something wrong about being gay as such.
I would hope that arguments against homophobic bigots could stand on their own merits, whether or not the bigot is straight, bi, gay, or queer.
Did you forget the pedophilia, or were we considering that a subset of the general rape category?
He also likes Star Wars! In fact, I really hope he doesn’t write fanfiction. Excuse me for a moment while I go scour out my brain with a scrubbing brush.
Cassandra: In my dealings with jumbo, it is my opinion that jumbo is oversensitive.
Any more comment on this would just be: 1) Defend myself against people misrepresenting my words. 2) Back and forth ensues over the meaning of words. 3) People say that I am making the thread about me when the person who actually made the thread about me is the person insisting on misrepresenting my words. 4) David having to step in and ask us to get back on topic.
So I will just leave it at that and get back to the topic being discussed.
Dan – It is my opinion that your continued defaulting to boring insults always used when people want someone to stop calling them out for saying offensive/stupid/unfunny things is 1) rude given that you’ve already been asked to stop, 2) totally out of line when the person you’re calling “oversensitive” is a mod and it’s their job to monitor conversations, and 3) way out of line for a straight person when talking to queer people about issues such as these.
I’m just going to ignore the bit of drama wank you threw in at the end.
lj: In my watching of your dealings with others, I think you are too defensive.
See how that works. It’s non-specific, is all about the speaker, while attacking the subject.
And it’s weak-tea, because it’s non-substantive. If you have problems with someone’s arguments, attack the arguments, not the person.