Here's a sub-headline you probably never imagined seeing in a liberal magazine:
Gays on TV once helped promote tolerance. Now they may be hurting it.
Shocking, yes?
Even more so was the point of Newsweek's "Kings of Queens" -- the overly-sexual, "flaming" characterization of gays on television is actually increasing a negative stereotype (h/t Big Hollywood):
Even if you've never seen glee [sic], the Fox dramedy with show tunes in its veins and opera in its nervous system, you probably know that it's TV's gayest product since Richard Simmons. [...]
In the past year, however, the public-acceptance pendulum seems to have shifted back, at least for what is arguably the biggest test of equality. Two weeks ago, the people of Maine followed the people of California in reversing existing laws that had legalized gay marriage. In fact, when gay marriage has been put before the voters of any state, it has failed every time. Is TV to blame for this? Of course not. The mission of popular culture is to entertain, not to lecture. But if we accept that [Will and Grace], [Dawson's Creek], and the rest once fostered acceptance, it's fair to ask if Gleemay [sic] be hurting it, especially because the Kurt model is everywhere. There's Marc (Michael Urie), the flaming fashion assistant on Ugly Betty; Lloyd (Rex Lee), Ari's sassy receptionist on Entourage; the gay couple on Modern Family (one guy still pines for his ice-skating career; the other wears purple in every episode). The fey way extends to nonfiction, too, from the dozens of squealing contestants on Project Runwayto [sic] the two gayest words in the English language: Perez Hilton. Next week American Idol runner-up Adam Lambert's new album, For Your Entertainment, arrives: that's Lambert on the cover, wearing heavy mascara, black nail polish, and perfect lip gloss.
Interesting. Author Ramin Setoodeh made the point that gay characters on television who are flaunting their sexuality both in manner and attire might actually be increasing anti-gay sentiment:
The problem with the Glee club is that Kurt and the rest are loud and proud, but their generation has turned down the volume. All this at a time when standing apart seems particularly counterproductive. Marriage (and the military) are sacred institutions, so it's not surprising that some heterosexuals will defend them against what they see as a radical alteration. But if you want to be invited to someone else's party, sometimes you have to dress the part. Is that a form of appeasement? Maybe. It's not that gay men and women should pretend to be straight, or file down all their fabulously spiky edges. But even Rachel Maddow wears lipstick on TV.
Fascinating, and certainly NOT what you'd expect from Newsweek.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
These Shows Just Suck!
November 14, 2009 - 15:38 ET by thedailyzingThere is two problems with the "gay movement" one many gays and pro gay
people demand you are tolerant of them. But its a two way street they
must also be tolerant of the Christians belief system. They must come
together and be tolerant of each other, agree to disagree if you will.
Two these "shows" are just lame and annoying and not realistic. They do
not help anyone and will be canceled because no one watches them. Read this write up on Nancy Pelosi is awesome! http://thedailyzing.com/412/etymology-of-nancy-pelosi/
There never used to be all
November 14, 2009 - 15:42 ET by notonmywatchThere never used to be all these androgynous people. But you quite often see people now, like for example that Maddow person, & you're like "is that a man, or is it a woman?"
There must be something in the water now, that there didn't used to be?
The worst one (on a par with the dead baby wrinkle cream) now is where they say it's legal to cut off a little boy's penis because he says he feels like a girl one day - those people are no different from child rapists and should be treated EXACTLY the same.
___________________________________________________________
Graphical conservative commentary - animations & pictures for posting on forums: http://ubama.org/chu...
What I learned from the Newsweek article.
November 14, 2009 - 15:42 ET by Mike Bratton1) I will never watch "Glee."
2) Popular culture, apparently, has a "mission." Who knew? Well, if you were paying attention, you knew that shows like "Will & Grace" certainly weren't designed to entertain as much as they were to propagandize and normalize. Remember: If you think it's funny enough to laugh at, you'll eventually accept it.
3) Apparently, Rachel Maddow doesn't always wear lipstick.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport...
forget Will and Grace
November 14, 2009 - 16:25 ET by Candance MooreIt started with Three's Company and then carried over into Friends. Now even Nickelodeon and Disney produce shows with characters who are flamingly gay, proudly atheist, or are glamorized for having absolutely no moral fiber.
If Newseek thinks that Dawson's Creek was not designed to lecture people, they must have watched a different version than I did.
These over the top
November 14, 2009 - 16:48 ET by MidAmericaThese over the top flamers triggered my gag reflex a long time ago.
Those aren't stereotypes!!!
November 14, 2009 - 16:52 ET by MilfordHavenThe characteristics and mannerisms, herein described as stereotypes, are the direct manifestation of the homosexual lifestyle and NOT exceptions to the rule.
Hollywoods Role?
November 14, 2009 - 17:00 ET by exLibTV producers like Boccio (sp?) have claimed in interviews that their job is to push the envelop of what is accepted culturally and during the Bush years claimed "censorship" had caused him problems in writing new TV Shows, since without all those colorful "terms" his shows wouldn't be as entertaining or edgy or some such word.
I think Hollywood looks to move the goal-posts, push the boundries towards the "lack thererof" state.
As far as how homosexuals are portrayed in TV and Movies, I think what homosexuals want is a homosexual version of "The Brady Bunch".
Despite railing for years against whole families with well-behaved kids who basically did the right thing, liberals and homosexuals have adopted what I call the "1st Commandment" which is "Thou Shalt not Speak Ill of the Homosexual". Therefore realistic views of all the negatives about the lifestyle cannot be shown, and the fairy tale version that they think will help sell middle america on accepting the lifestyle is the only thing they want to see.
We must see middle america in a poor light (American Beauty or Pleasantville) and also see mostly the negatives of heterosexual marriage in order to tear it down.
SICK of being preached to on TV
November 14, 2009 - 18:15 ET by ptsonSick of sickos, tired of TVs, alienated by agendas. Just do entertainment! without a gay, enviornmentalist, politically correct agenda. What the hell is all this doing to our kids? THEY know whats up and have an expression: THAT IS SO GAY! YUCK!
I will say it again because no one else is saying it.
November 14, 2009 - 18:27 ET by JWFThe only thing hurting the gay cause is the gay cause. You want my support. How about supporting some of the things I believe in.
The war in Iraq. And Afghanistan. and the GWOT in general. Or maybe even reducing the defitcit. Or smaller government. Or stopping the Democrat onslaught of our rights.
Oh. Sorry. I have yet to hear from gay rights groups on anything I care about. Oh dear. Guess I am not gonna be so hot on your cause.
You want to play in the far left sandbox. Enjoy. But you will not get my sympathies when everyone starts peeing in that sandbox.
This is what happens when you try to change privileges. Not rights. Privileges. You have to convince everyone else you get that privilege.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
JWF
November 14, 2009 - 18:35 ET by MrShyWhat gays support is love and sex with another man. And as much of it and as boldly public with it as they desire. And they want you and your kids to know it's all the RAGE!! (oops, did I just type "rage" in a post about homosexuality?)
Wars? Deficit? Government stuff? "OMG, what are you talking about?? .... MEN ON MEN, BABY!!!!!"
But seriously, you make a great point. Like all of these "minority" and "civil rights" groups (I put both in quotes because it's all so confusing) it becomes a hyper-selfish/one-track issue in their lives, all the while they walk around righteously as if everything is about their concerns.
There are gay republicans
November 14, 2009 - 21:05 ET by mamabearThere are gay republicans
Cool
November 14, 2009 - 21:34 ET by general companyAre there any straight Liberals?
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Yup, I think there are.
November 15, 2009 - 11:28 ET by mamabearYup, I think there are.
i invited a gay couple to our tea party
November 15, 2009 - 09:47 ET by lunaticcringeradiowith the exception of their sexuality their values are damned conservative(big time gun owners, as much as i have), they do not associate themselves with the democratic party, and they resent the notion that they are expected to vote liberal (cough cough like black are suppose to) just because. they are not the flaming parade marching attention yearning in your face "gay" like hollywood is teaching everyone. they are very conservative, one is a computer business owner, the other an accountant, making lots of bank for omaba to tax, and they're pissed. they are pissed because of the way they are stereotyped, pissed because of what society both liberal and conservative expect from them, and pissed that they have to take heat now from both sides. as i've made it clear in my opinions in the past, i think sexuality is a right to persue happiness issue, so long as it's with consenting adults and it is just as normally private as anyone else with self respect would treat it(you would be just as upset if your heterosexual neighbors were frolicking around naked in the front yard exposing children to sexual behavior just as much). they are a welcome asset to our tea party because they are using their skills to help us grow and promote and they desire like all of us to get back to our constitutional roots.
lunaticcringeradio
Constitutional roots?
November 16, 2009 - 08:26 ET by Sergeant ROCKHomosexuality and the promotion of it is not in the 'roots' of our Constitution. Nor is it a plank of any conservative platform I have ever seen.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Sorry, lcr, but that
November 16, 2009 - 22:59 ET by MikeBSorry, lcr, but that "pursuit of happiness" phrase didn't mean grubbing after pleasure, but rather the government could not choose your carreer for you. You could engage in whatever pursuit, occupation, interest, career, vocation, or work that you wanted to do. Read Jefferson and the rest of the founding fathers.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
The Gay Minority Has Overplayed Its Hand
November 14, 2009 - 20:05 ET by TenebrousAnd I mean, SERIOUSLY overplayed it. Gays make up less than ten percent of the population, and yet they are catered to as if they were 90% by law, TV, news, and so on. Not only that, but we all know that the gays are airbrushing their lifestyle with a vengeance. So we have sexual deviants who won't shut up pushing some false fantasyland while disrespecting everybody else. That public support is in freefall should not surprise anyone.
-----
Random-jumbled-thoughts.blogspot.com
Talk about a vengeance, ever
November 14, 2009 - 21:59 ET by Radical1979Talk about a vengeance, ever see a gay pride parade? Those are more like a sex parade. I read "And the Band Played On" and was absolutely horrified by the lifestyle.
But even Rachel Maddow wears lipstick on TV.....
November 14, 2009 - 20:29 ET by Tugboat PhilWhat? Why does that dude wear lipstick on air?
Gun Control - The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.
John F'ing Kerry did
November 14, 2009 - 20:54 ET by jon_torlinJFKerry wore lipstick during his campaign a few times, not to mention the botox.
-Jon
This is a fascinating
November 14, 2009 - 21:29 ET by mamabearThis is a fascinating article, but it's not a new concept. Characters in pop culture that are defined solely by their gayness can only go so far in promoting acceptance, because real people don't want to be defined solely by their sexual orientation.
But that's what happens when minority groups are singled out or discriminated against. Imagine if every day you could open up a website like NewsBusters and read about what straight people think, how straight people act, and how disgusting straight sex is. I imagine it would be hard not to end up feeling like your sexual orientation was more important to the world than your occupation or where you live or even your race. Read the whole piece, specifically the stuff about generational gaps, it's interesting stuff. I wish they'd given it more space for more thorough treatment.
So those of you who are complaining that gay people only care about their sexual orientation, want everything to be about them, want special treatment, etc etc. This should be a welcome perspective, that, in the words of the article, "Younger men and women, for whom society has been more tolerant, think
of themselves as 'post-gay,' meaning their sexual orientation is only a
part of who they are...their generation has turned down the volume."
Sounds like a good thing, right? And if it was caused by increased tolerance from society... hmmm, I wonder if there's a lesson there? :)
Imagine if every day you
November 15, 2009 - 10:05 ET by motherbeltImagine if every day you could open up a website like NewsBusters and
read about what straight people think, how straight people act, and how
disgusting straight sex is.
In the first place, why do you imply that NB is about what straight people think and how they act? Do you imagine there are no gay conservatives who read Newsbusters?
And Newsbusters certainly doesn't have an obsession with gay sex.
Even if they did, the solution for the gay community certainly isn't to flaunt homosexuality in a clownish way, by caricaturing themselves.
And it certainly isn't to celebrate homosexuality with vulgar and pornographic public displays like the Folsom Stree Fair and what gays have tried to do to the St. Patrick's Day parade!
Yeah, there's a lesson here: If you're gay and want to be accepted as "We're just like you; we're lawyers, we're accountants, we're real estate agents" (which supposedly is the aim of gays, to be recognized as "just people" like everyone else), then act like lawyers, accoutants, real estate agents instead of being fixated on shoving your sexuality at everyone in the most disgusting way you can dream up.
And don't beclown yourselves by caricaturing your behavior.
I didn't imply that NB was
November 15, 2009 - 11:28 ET by mamabearI didn't imply that NB was about straight people. I'm talking about what appears on the site, not who posts it. I think it's a safe bet that the majority of NB readers are straight, because the majority of people are straight. What I want you to do is imagine what it would be like to be a gay NB supporter and read stuff on here about your sexual orientation all the time. I hope there are some out there, and I hope I'm overestimating how uncomfortable this stuff makes them.
And you're preaching to the choir when it comes to the article, it made exactly the same point. Personally, I think there should be room for gay people who "act gay" and those who don't, the same way there is room for straight men who drink wine and go to gallery openings and those that whistle drunkenly at every woman who walks by their tailgate party.
That can't happen if every time you see a flamboyant character on TV you get angry that all gay people are trying to shove their sexuality down your throat. It just isn't true, and it's unfair.
You would have a point and some relevancy, mamab
November 15, 2009 - 11:56 ET by BO STINKSif the US gov't were imprisoning/executing homosexuals for their behavior. As it is, they are free to behave in any way they want.
Your discrimination/unfair argument is a strawman. They know it, you know it. None of them would ever live in a country where there is actual discrimination against them, i.e. all muslim countries. That is probably why their desire to 'marry' keeps getting voted down by the people in many states (what is it now - 31?).
I guess protesting and yelling about imaginary discrimination gives them something to do.
"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the Plain Meaning of Words!" ~Sam Adams
Here's the thing though
November 15, 2009 - 12:05 ET by nwahsIs homosexuality just like heterosexuality except for gender choice? Now maybe I'm dumbed down by television and the news, but it seems, other than a simple gender choice, there is an overemphasis of sex , youth, good looks, and flamboyancy in the gay community - more so in the male gay community.
Every year down here, we have an event in the French Quarter called the Decadence Festival. Its put together by the local gay community to celebrate, guess what? Decadence and all that it entails - anonymous sex, promiscuity and excess. This isn't television portraying homosexuality. This is gay people portraying homosexuality.
Anyway, the premise of the article seems to be that gay people are hurt by the image that they overemphasize their sexuality. My question is if its more accurate than the gay community would like?
Thank you for proving my point.
November 15, 2009 - 12:16 ET by BO STINKSThey are free, in this great republic, to behave in any disgusting, self-loathing fashion they wish.
Wonder what would happen in let's say Saudi Arabia if the homosexuals tried to throw a decadence festival? Wouldn't be pretty.
"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the Plain Meaning of Words!" ~Sam Adams
He oughta know.
November 15, 2009 - 16:59 ET by JWFnwahs: ...there is an overemphasis of sex , youth, good looks, and flamboyancy in the gay community
The man that loves insignificant sticky things ought to know best what the gay community emphasises.
My point is that there
November 15, 2009 - 19:29 ET by mamabearMy point is that there should be room for both, and that it isn't fair to paint everyone with the same brush. Straight men behave wildly different from one another, and some of them behave incredibly inappropriately. Not every straight woman behaves like Girls Gone Wild.
But we don't think they do, because pop culture shows us lots of different types of straight people. Pop culture shows us flamboyant gay people, and the ones who live quietly down the block from you you probably assume are straight.
This is changing, as the article said, because people feel more safe identifying themselves as gay. But the kind of comments that tend to show up on this site when gay issues come up strike me as exactly the sort of thing that drives a community to stand up for itself by embracing wild behavior.
I don't think I can answer your question about what the community would
like, because I'm not a member of that community, but the article seems
to say that they'd like portrayals to be more three dimensional.
Its like the chicken and the egg question
November 15, 2009 - 19:39 ET by nwahsI don't know if the outrageous behavior or demonstrations come from oppression or is in some way related to the homosexual mindset. But most assuredly its not confined to television depiction of gays. There are gay events all over the country that have nothing to do with television, and the depiction is the same outrageous behavior. People aren't walking in business suits during the gay pride parades.
Are these people conditioned by television or is television copying the people they see at those events?
Which came first? Who knows? But to do this article and not examine eccentricities of the lifestyle, is to do half an article (IMO).
Why do we Americans treat homosexuals....
November 14, 2009 - 21:32 ET by stage9...the same way we treat Muslims? With political correctness?
Get a clue America. Taken from the book "After the Ball, How America will conquer its fear and hatred of Gays in the 90s" Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen laid out a propagandistic plan to change how America would view the homosexual community:
If you think that the radical changes in the minds of Americans -- and in your own mind -- about homosexuality in the last decade are an accident, you must read the section below. From the 1989 book, "After the Ball - How America will conquer its fear and hatred of Gays in the 90s" (Penguin Books) which immediately became a beacon for the then-emerging homosexual movement.
Building on the basic strategies outlined in Marshall Kirk's groundbreaking 1987 article, "The Overhauling of Straight America", this book puts forth the very sophisticated psychological persuasion and propaganda mass media techniques that we've all seen and been affected by over the years -- but never understood what was happening.
You can read exerpts here:
http://www.article8....
I would strongly recommend everyone read this article. If nothing else the highlighted sections.
"If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place. It will
be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for
pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner."
— Malcolm Muggeridge
Or juuuuust maybe
November 16, 2009 - 09:44 ET by theduck6They are unrelated and those states are just voting their convictions. When the public doesn't back up your preconcieved notions it seems like the norm is to find the solution in outside forces and not the premise of your belief.