Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile My Website Previous Previous Next Next
GLAAD - Sing With Me If It's Just For Today... — LiveJournal
If I should fall behind, Guyster, wait for me.
“She came from forty-two foster homes, but does she have the stuff to become an American Idol?” This was Ryan Seachrist’s gushing teaser last night before contestant Kendra took the small stage in front of the three judges.

Last week, Seachrist promised us one of the strangest auditions ever, and indeed, it was odd. Dressed in a skintight French-cut belly shirt with Frankie Bs slung down to the pubic region, a rail-thin giggly eighteen-year old told the judges that he found it funny that people mistook him for a girl. Randy feigned surprise that he was a boy, Paula was quiet, and Simon smirked. The jet-boy-jet-girl was predictably an awful singer, and the segment was played for laughs.

Within 48 hours, GLAAD, a watchdog group of shrill finger-waggers that really should accessorize their acronym with an exclamation point, issued a condemnation of American Idol for its amplified homophobia this season. I’d furrow my brow, too, if I thought it accurate, but the show is all about ridicule, and baby, if you’re going to wear your hair in a pampered bob, be prepared.

The Tanning Salon Coalition didn’t freak out over the sun-damaged girl and her mom, and there wasn’t a peep heard from the NAACP when creative editing and the panel of judges routinely make a mockery of black contestants. The mentally challenged, witness the "entrepreneur" in his checkered outfits, are woefully underrepresented, much to our delight.

Maybe because GLAAD is purportedly my watchdog group that I find them choosing all the wrong battles, whether its whining about Eminem lyrics or railing against Dr. Laura. Yeah, Mr. GLAAD, that’s what’s causing homophobia. Willfully ignorant of context and lacking the humor gene, GLAAD are professional foot-stamping activists, and every time they issue one of their sniveling press releases, I want to shrink.

The good news, though, is Kendra made it through to Hollywood and hopefully her lifetime of foster care will come to a happy conclusion. That’s what Hollywood is all about. Healing. Now if she can only get GLAAD’s publicist on board, she’ll have a superstar career.
43 comments or Leave a comment
mondragon From: mondragon Date: January 26th, 2006 01:30 am (UTC) (Link)
You work in the industry, your perception of what's normal and what's not is completely skewed.

No one wants to beat up tan girl. No little tan girls are watching the show wondering if tonight is the night they get the nerve to finally cut themselves deep enough to bleed out. No little tan girls run away from people who love them to bury their pain in as much crystal meth as they can fuck their way into. Where *do* you think that pain comes from?

The normalization of cruelty is just part of the problem. I'm sorry GLAAD gets in the way of your enjoyment of it. Laugh at the nelly fag. Ha ahahahhahahah! It just brings in more viewers, no? Get out the pipe, let's all enjoy it.

Now that we know who GLAAD shouldn't be defending, what would you suggest as better projects for them?

mondragon From: mondragon Date: January 26th, 2006 01:46 am (UTC) (Link)
I'm sorry I was mean and I can't seem to be able to delete it. Your post made me cry. I hit back. I'm sorry.
raptusanxieux From: raptusanxieux Date: January 26th, 2006 02:54 am (UTC) (Link)
Whazzamatta with people?! A large portion of Idol is the whole coming on despite a lack of a chance; I'm sure Kendra showed up to make that kind of splash. This is the first instance I've heard of anybody named Kendra being sans a vagina, so yeah, people are gonna say stuff. Simon's just going to be meaner about it.

And eewww...why is GLAAD handing out special awards to "Will & Grace?!" It's nothing more than a vile minstrel show with unlikeable characters.
From: ex_hotlavamo352 Date: January 26th, 2006 02:57 am (UTC) (Link)
As is anyone else with a functioning mind, I'm aware of the rampant homophobia & hatred in the U.S. But I tend to agree with you--yesterday on Salon.com, a story about the crazy man-boy who runs Abercrombie & Fitch was posted. It was mentioned in the story that A&F is sometimes used as a 'masculinizer' by gay men who are trying to pass, simply because of A&F's emphasis on 'real manhood.'

The first thing I saw when I opened the letters was some shrill woman crying homophobia on the writer and attempting to shame him for 'psychologizing' gay men and blah blah blah. I couldn't resist posting my own letter noting that I very much doubted the homophobia of the writer, considering he is, you know, a gay man.
thirdreel From: thirdreel Date: January 26th, 2006 03:14 am (UTC) (Link)
GLAAD puzzles me. In some sense, I think they need something like this every once in a while to justify their own existence. That is, if they let things slide, if they didn't blame things for causing hate crimes and encouraging low self-esteem and self-destructive behavior among queerfolk, then they'd have no reason to exist. So that's what they do.

The thing is, deviation is funny. It always has been. Deviation of gender expression will make people laugh. Is that necessarily hurtful? I'd tend to say no. In fact, it seems like the places which in the past were most accepting of gender-bending as a joke are the places that are now most accepting of gender expression in general.

But what's always puzzled me about GLAAD is their categorizing of gay-themed humor, commending some and condemning others. Why is watching Jack (on Will and Grace) fall apart at Karen's criticism worthy of an award, but watching Zachary fall apart at Simon's criticism worthy of a finger-wagging? Is it that one of them is done by "us" (whoever "we" are) and the other is by "them" (presumably straight people)?
guysterrules From: guysterrules Date: January 26th, 2006 05:40 pm (UTC) (Link)
I'm curious how they actually help instead of making the gay community look like ninnies. Since they're the self-appointed voice, it reflects on me, and that makes me grind my teeth.

I couldn't agree more about their take on comedy. In order for them to sanction gay humor, it seems there needs to be a monolithic and deep-pocketed company producing it. Odd.
ruralrob From: ruralrob Date: January 26th, 2006 03:37 am (UTC) (Link)
Sorry td, I have to disagree with you on this one. I like American Idol once we get past the freak show that the audition rounds have become. But I have extreme discomfort in people being lampooned for their size and particularly for their gender identity/sexual orientation issues. I know some things are fair game and talent or lack of it certainly is (that's what the show is about), but those other two areas are not, at least in my book.
guysterrules From: guysterrules Date: January 26th, 2006 05:45 pm (UTC) (Link)
I have tremendous respect for you, Rob, but one of my points was the show has equal opportunity humiliation. I don't think they single out the large or gender confused; it seems they focus on ridiculous bravado and misplaced confidence.
tedwords From: tedwords Date: January 26th, 2006 03:58 am (UTC) (Link)
I am so with you on the GLADD controversy. Way too much ado about absolutely positishly nothing! When you go on those shows, you have to expect that they're going to be tough, especially if you don't have much talent...
guysterrules From: guysterrules Date: January 26th, 2006 05:01 am (UTC) (Link)
Wait. I haven't been on here much lately and have never seen that icon. Is that Corb?
From: ex_hotlavamo352 Date: January 26th, 2006 04:26 am (UTC) (Link)
Who knew bears were so sensitive? I thought they were BEARS.


guysterrules From: guysterrules Date: January 26th, 2006 05:00 am (UTC) (Link)
You're the fuckin' best, baby. Grrrr.
From: solemnrayne Date: January 26th, 2006 06:41 am (UTC) (Link)
I completely agree, for what it's worth.

Can't believe this started e-drama, lol.
e_ticket From: e_ticket Date: January 26th, 2006 08:34 am (UTC) (Link)
Who says it's drama?

I thought it was lively discourse :)
discreet_chaos From: discreet_chaos Date: January 26th, 2006 09:44 am (UTC) (Link)
Dude; While your journal has certainly bore the brunt, I appreciate what you're saying. As you know, I tried to give GLAAD a gentle jab over their Gene Shalit uproar and though you may not have seen it, a few days later, I may have started getting a little mean when they tried to take Isaac Mizrahi to task. (It was also at that time, I added a little more context to the whole Shalit mess). When I saw them taking a swing at American Idol, I thought about posting again, but decided that I may not be the perfect person to speak and I'm really glad you decided to visit the issue.

I support the ideals of GLAAD, but whomever has been doing their speaking and basking in the recent limelight is risking alienating the mainstream. I'm of the opinion that generating some headlines and getting a little publicity is a proper function for any group, but for them to be truly successful, I also feel that they must pick and choose their battles. What we had was a succession of verbal reprimands toward three friendlies. OK; So, maybe they can take it and if they were better spaced, then I'd feel they're well and good. But, if a group starts picking at every word, no matter how little basis they may have for their assault and doing it mostly for the publicity, they run the risk of becoming like PETA in the public's mind.

IMHO; Some things are worth of quick and decisive action, but GLAAD has lately gotten more and more toward pricking things relatively innocuous and though they may be trying to make a point about the use of language, it could cost them the war.
guysterrules From: guysterrules Date: January 26th, 2006 05:34 pm (UTC) (Link)
GLAAD has long been a source of silliness, and I'm tired of their ridiculous proclamations that do more harm to the cause than they help. Gene Shalit is the enemy! Dr. Laura is a hate crime! The thin-skinned shrieking is deafening.

More disturbing, GLAAD reviews scripts that are about to go into production. The studios and networks have been bullied into letting them review their material. If GLAAD raises an objection to a line or character, all it takes is a large check to get a stamp of approval from them. It's not about promoting a positive gay image, it's about money.
From: (Anonymous) Date: January 27th, 2006 02:23 am (UTC) (Link)
My friend and I were discussing the X Factor last night and how we should audition even though we can't sing, because it'd be funny. The joke is me, being deaf and blind it would be fun to put Simon on the spot where he doesn't really want to criticise me but would be forced to.

I suppose though, some people would get their knickers in a right twist if it were to actually happen. Forget the fact she can't sing. How DARE he pick on the poor hard-of-hearing, visually impaired girl?

I guess, I just don't like any of those organisations who stick up for the wee man (which essentially, is what they see themselves as doing) especially when it seems to be the sole reason for their existance. I think they probably do more damage than good. As you (Terry) stated in one of your comments, you worry that GLAAD makes the gay community look like ninnies. Yup, I think that summed it up in a nutshell.

Anyway, good post Terry, I definitely have to tune into LJ more often again :)
guysterrules From: guysterrules Date: January 27th, 2006 04:42 am (UTC) (Link)
Is this C.? And if so, where've you been, young lady? Don't make me wag my finger at you!
43 comments or Leave a comment