Kids in the Hall
William B. Thacker
>
> One episode that I am VERY sorry I missed is the one where
> Scott Thompson looks right into the camera and gives a personal
> monologue on being a gay actor. Can anyone who has seen it recall
> exactly what he said?
(to the best of my memory)
He had just finished playing an extremely campy waiter in a skit.
As the skit ended, he turned toward the camera and said, "I'm not
really a waiter, I'm Scott Thompson, actor-comedian and member of
The Kids in the Hall... and yes, I'm the fag!"
(At this point the camera begins to back up, and Thompson advances to
follow it.)
"What are you running away for ? Scared ?"
"As a gay entertainer, I feel an obligation to portray my brothers
in a positive way. But I don't know. Whenever I play the part of
a waiter, and that spotlight hits me, I can't help myself. I just
begin to (lisping) lisp."
"Someday, the gay waiter will be a folk hero. But until then...
(lisping) 'smoking or not ?'"
- - - - - - - - valuable coupon - - - - - - - clip and save - - - - - - - -
Bill Thacker AT&T Network Systems - Columbus w...@cbnews.att.com
"C" combines the power of assembly language with the
flexibility of assembly language.
Bob Donahue
>cra...@contact.uucp (brad crafton) writes:
>> One episode that I am VERY sorry I missed is the one where
>> Scott Thompson looks right into the camera and gives a personal
>> monologue on being a gay actor. Can anyone who has seen it recall
>> exactly what he said?
>He had just finished playing an extremely campy waiter in a skit.
>As the skit ended, he turned toward the camera and said, "I'm not
>really a waiter, I'm Scott Thompson, actor-comedian and member of
>The Kids in the Hall... and yes, I'm the fag!"
>"As a gay entertainer, I feel an obligation to portray my brothers
>in a positive way. But I don't know. Whenever I play the part of
>a waiter, and that spotlight hits me, I can't help myself. I just
>begin to (lisping) lisp."
THIS is *help*?! THIS is POSITIVE?
I'm VERY glad I missed that --- replacing TV sets after throwing
something thru them gets to be VERY expensive.
>"Someday, the gay waiter will be a folk hero. But until then...
>(lisping) 'smoking or not ?'"
OK... Gee, maybe I'm mithing the point! I mean MAAARY, we ALL
jutht want to be "that way". I'm THo unhappy with mythelf being THo
Butch and all. (THob) I'll Jutht NEVER be the good queer/faggot role
model I'm thupp-p-p-pothed to be! I mean if we can't eathe the minds of
the "normal" people around uth by playing into their precomtheptions
and theterotypth, then we'll NEVER thee equality! Or ith that the other
way around? Oh well, ath long ath I can drool over SCOTT, and can get
my injection of IM, everything is just DUCKY.
You know, it's interesting that the lesbian community doesn't
have this hang up, or at least to the degree than some gay men do.
Sounds like Miss Scott has a problem with internalized homophobia,
and dare I say is that the people who have no problem with this whatsoever
are likely guilty of thinking with their genetalia as opposed to their
cerebrum.]
Drag is great, camp is great. But supporting a stereotype by a
(supposed) member of the GBLO* community to get laughs from a comparitively
uneducated (to GBLO* issues) population is sickening. If there was a
message that leaked out, it didn't make it electronically, at least to me.
BBC, who doesn't care for
traitors...
Brett (Evil Ed) Manz
>w...@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) writes:
>>cra...@contact.uucp (brad crafton) writes:
>
>>> One episode that I am VERY sorry I missed is the one where
>>> Scott Thompson looks right into the camera and gives a personal
>>> monologue on being a gay actor. Can anyone who has seen it recall
>>> exactly what he said?
>
>
>
> THIS is *help*?! THIS is POSITIVE?
>
> I'm VERY glad I missed that --- replacing TV sets after throwing
>something thru them gets to be VERY expensive.
>
>>"Someday, the gay waiter will be a folk hero. But until then...
>>(lisping) 'smoking or not ?'"
>
> OK... Gee, maybe I'm mithing the point! I mean MAAARY, we ALL
>jutht want to be "that way". I'm THo unhappy with mythelf being THo
>
>have this hang up, or at least to the degree than some gay men do.
>
>
>(supposed) member of the GBLO* community to get laughs from a comparitively
>uneducated (to GBLO* issues) population is sickening. If there was a
>message that leaked out, it didn't make it electronically, at least to me.
>
>BBC, who doesn't care for
>traitors...
Can you say 'satire'? To a large extent the KITH's brand of comedy
involves the gross exageration of stereotypes to a ridiculous level.
I've seen every episode of KITH, and in not one of them can I say
they have ever done or said anything that I would consider to be
an offense to the GLBO* community. Far from it in fact.
--
| ma...@bode.ee.ualberta.ca Brett (Evil Ed) Manz | My opinions aren't likely |
| You can't be proud of who you are if you are | those of the EE dept. of |
| ashamed of what you are. __ | the University of Alberta. |
| 1991 - The Year of the Queer \/ | Good thing too. |
Bob Donahue
>In article <57...@spdcc.SPDCC.COM> rdon...@spdcc.COM (Bob Donahue) writes:
>Can you say 'satire'? To a large extent the KITH's brand of comedy
>involves the gross exageration of stereotypes to a ridiculous level.
>I've seen every episode of KITH, and in not one of them can I say
>they have ever done or said anything that I would consider to be
>an offense to the GLBO* community. Far from it in fact.
Actually, there is a different way to state this... Let's
say Eddie Murphy or Sam Kinnison did exactly the same thing as a skit.
Would you react the same way? Why? In either instance you have to
make an intrinsic assumption and trust about the person delivering it.
You are assuming the the Kids are well-intentioned, I would guess that
you would say Eddie and Sam are not. All well and good.
But you are also making the assumption that John Q. Public
and Joe SixPack ALSO make this distinction, and even worse The Kids are
ineffect doing the same. So, what you are able to discern as satire is
in the mainstream simply taken as a reinforcement of what is already a
gross misconception which they (ie. the mainstream) aren't energetic about
adjusting without prodding from us.
So, in the grand scheme of things, how much help have the Kids
been using material such as this? Little, if any, if not negatively.
And that is what I am upset about.
Albert Einstein once said "you can't simultaneously prepare for
and prevent nuclear war". The same can be said for GBLO* rights:
"You can't simultaneously reinforce and change people's perceptions
about stereotypes." It's just logical that way.
And if you'll recall, blackface was once defended as "the gross
exaggeration of a stereotypes to a ridiculous level" as well. Somehow
we outgrew that. I expect in time we will outgrow "the Kids" and their
ilk just as much (we being here the larger community, not just the GBLO*
community).
Now it could be that this is an isolated case, and just VERY poor
judgement on their parts. I'm sure time and motss-folk will tell.
BBC
Bob Donahue
>> OK... Gee, maybe I'm mithing the point! I mean MAAARY, we ALL
> Good guess. ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
>Can you say 'satire'? To a large extent the KITH's brand of comedy
>involves the gross exageration of stereotypes to a ridiculous level.
Which doesn't do ANYTHING to remove them. So, what happens
is we "have a laugh" among ourselves, and the rest of the world has
a laugh at our expense. Big Freaking Deal. And all those people laughing
aren't going to give a flying frog's ass about you when it comes down to
your rights or your freedoms. Wake up and smell the coffee.
>I've seen every episode of KITH, and in not one of them can I say
>they have ever done or said anything that I would consider to be
>an offense to the GLBO* community. Far from it in fact.
>| ma...@bode.ee.ualberta.ca Brett (Evil Ed) Manz | My opinions aren't likely |
>| You can't be proud of who you are if you are | those of the EE dept. of |
>| ashamed of what you are. __ | the University of Alberta. |
>| 1991 - The Year of the Queer \/ | Good thing too. |
So, um, which other sterotypes do you think are funny? Ones
about womyn? Ones about people of different races? Creeds? Abilities?
Ethnic groups? Gee we have have gross exaggerations about EVERYTHING! And of
course no one should get offended, right Ed, I mean we were just having
ourselves a laugh. Your choice of .signature is ironic. Unfortunately, I
*can't* laugh at the exaggeration therein which you apply to yourself.
BBC, who is told he has
a great sense of humor,
but doesn't accept assinine
substitutes.
William B. Thacker
> ma...@ee.ualberta.ca (Brett (Evil Ed) Manz) writes:
> >In article <57...@spdcc.SPDCC.COM> rdon...@spdcc.COM (Bob Donahue) writes:
>
> >Can you say 'satire'? To a large extent the KITH's brand of comedy
> >involves the gross exageration of stereotypes to a ridiculous level.
I don't think Thompson's statement was at all intended to be satire,
or even funny. I think he was simply defending his use of the lisping
waiter character under the auspices of "in humor, there are no sacred
cows." When I saw the episode, I figured he'd probably taken heat from
gay men about his use of the lisp (which he does from time to time; this
wasn't a once-off) and this was his response to such statements.
(BTW, his other major lisping character is a night-club performer,
which character he has repeatedly used as a vehicle to attack stereotypes.
See my .signature, a quote from that character.)
> Actually, there is a different way to state this... Let's
> say Eddie Murphy or Sam Kinnison did exactly the same thing as a skit.
> Would you react the same way? Why? In either instance you have to
> make an intrinsic assumption and trust about the person delivering it.
> You are assuming the the Kids are well-intentioned, I would guess that
> you would say Eddie and Sam are not. All well and good.
>
> But you are also making the assumption that John Q. Public
> and Joe SixPack ALSO make this distinction, and even worse The Kids are
> ineffect doing the same. So, what you are able to discern as satire is
> in the mainstream simply taken as a reinforcement of what is already a
> gross misconception which they (ie. the mainstream) aren't energetic about
> adjusting without prodding from us.
Thompson did a lisping gay waiter. He then told the viewers that he was
gay, and regretted that the portrayal was not a fair depiction of gay men,
but that he thought it was funny so he did it that way. In this same
episode, viewers saw Thompson do a number of other characters who did
not lisp. I think it would be as clear as one can make it that the
lisping waiter was a caricature, and not indicative of how most gay men
act.
> Albert Einstein once said "you can't simultaneously prepare for
> and prevent nuclear war".
History seems to be showing Einstein wrong on this one.
> "You can't simultaneously reinforce and change people's perceptions
> about stereotypes." It's just logical that way.
Let's think about that. People *do* do drag. I've met gay men who aren't
too far from Thompson's portrayal, and I'm sure you have, as well. Should
we deny they exist, or claim that they're a minor, embarrassing part
of our community ? (This begins to smack of the argument about whether
groups such as NAMBLA should be allowed in Pride Parades, for fear of
harming our image) Or should we admit that many gay men enjoy this sort
of behavior, in part because it's entertaining? This is precisely what
Thompson did.
For that matter, Bobby, what words do you have for gay men who *do*
lisp and mince like this on a daily basis ? They're out there...
along with leathermen, S&M lovers... a whole rainbow of embarrassing
stereotypes.
Anyway, I think that if you watched a good number of TKITH episodes,
your opinion would change. Overall, I rate their show as very
gay-positive; drawing one example out of context is a poor way to
treat any performer, I think you'll agree.
- - - - - - - - valuable coupon - - - - - - - clip and save - - - - - - - -
Bill Thacker AT&T Network Systems - Columbus w...@cbnews.att.com
"Americans know about as much about Canada as straight people do about gays.
Americans arrive at the border with skis in July, and straight people think
being gay is just a phase." - Scott Thompson, "The Kids in the Hall"
ryerson.schwark
> about womyn? Ones about people of different races? Creeds? Abilities?
> Ethnic groups? Gee we have have gross exaggerations about EVERYTHING!
Yup. I particularly liked the one about businessmen. Definitely a real
oppressed group there.
Ry Schwark
r...@attunix.att.com
"Buster the cat patiently listened to what the mice wanted for Christmas,
then he ate them. I hope you got what you wanted, too." -a bunch of sickos
Bob Donahue
>> Albert Einstein once said "you can't simultaneously prepare for
>> and prevent nuclear war".
>History seems to be showing Einstein wrong on this one.
Hardly... we are disarming, and only by disarming can you
make sure things will never get used... And it only being 11 days
until Bush's hardon pushes us possibly into a war where nuclear weapons
might be used... I think it holds. BUT that is not what we are really
discussing here...
>> "You can't simultaneously reinforce and change people's perceptions
>> about stereotypes." It's just logical that way.
>Let's think about that. People *do* do drag. I've met gay men who aren't
>too far from Thompson's portrayal, and I'm sure you have, as well. Should
>we deny they exist, or claim that they're a minor, embarrassing part
>of our community ? (This begins to smack of the argument about whether
>groups such as NAMBLA should be allowed in Pride Parades, for fear of
>harming our image) Or should we admit that many gay men enjoy this sort
>of behavior, in part because it's entertaining? This is precisely what
>Thompson did.
Ah... good point. But I don't have any problem with drag per se.
People do drag, people watch drag, people enjoy drag. First, it isn't
100% GBLO* owned and operated, as Carnival events (e.g. New Orleans)
will show... And I am 100% for inclusivity in things like Pride parades,
I think BECAUSE they destroy the stereotypes --- if we really are John Q.
Public insofar as there are GBLO*-every-kind-of-people, then "gay"
characters should be portrayed as such, randomly. What Thompson did
wasn't drag, anyway.
>For that matter, Bobby, what words do you have for gay men who *do*
>lisp and mince like this on a daily basis ? They're out there...
>along with leathermen, S&M lovers... a whole rainbow of embarrassing
>stereotypes.
The PEOPLE aren't embarassing, not one bit! Men who by coincidence
reflect what a stereotype happens to be need no "words", nor do they need
to change themselves to suit me, or the GBLO* community at large. But if
Thompson is gay, and is in the position to write his own material, then he has
the power to do more good than apeing what a largely ignorant society
expects of him. To cater to just Joe SixPack's prejudices is irresponsible
and does a disservice to the GBLO* community to whom he must also want some
support since he comes out as gay.
This is also borne out by his treatment of this --- he comes out
and SAYS that the portrayal is unfair --- that is akin to getting up on
stage and saying "gee I have some jokes about womyn, and yeah, they are
probably misogyinist, but what the hell I think they're funny". Being
part of the group you are insulting doesn't give you immunity.
Were things different in our society I would find it a LOT
easier to lighten up... Were people more educated to GBLO*-issues
and attuned to them, open about them, and fair [it would be nice to
for example not be a criminal in some states, I think I would like that]
then it would seem less one-sided... Gee, it's already Jan 4th... Anyone
want to take a stab at who many GBOL*-folx have already been murdered or
maimed this year because John Q. Public doesn't really give a flying froog's
ass about the value of a GBLO* life? I wonder how many of them ever laughed
at a good "queer" joke?
BBC, still not laughing
Brett (Evil Ed) Manz
>ma...@ee.ualberta.ca (Brett (Evil Ed) Manz) writes:
>>In article <57...@spdcc.SPDCC.COM> rdon...@spdcc.COM (Bob Donahue) writes:
>>> OK... Gee, maybe I'm mithing the point! I mean MAAARY, we ALL
>> Good guess. ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
>
>>Can you say 'satire'? To a large extent the KITH's brand of comedy
>>involves the gross exageration of stereotypes to a ridiculous level.
>
> Which doesn't do ANYTHING to remove them. So, what happens
>is we "have a laugh" among ourselves, and the rest of the world has
>a laugh at our expense.
>
The exageration of the stereotypes is so extreme as to deflate them; to
make them completely unbelievable. In the 'gay waiter' instance for example
it is patently obvious (even to straight folk) that Scott is not being
serious. Can you say 'Sarcasm'?
> So, um, which other sterotypes do you think are funny? Ones
>about womyn? Ones about people of different races? Creeds? Abilities?
>Ethnic groups? Gee we have have gross exaggerations about EVERYTHING! And of
>course no one should get offended, right Ed, I mean we were just having
>ourselves a laugh. Your choice of .signature is ironic. Unfortunately, I
>*can't* laugh at the exaggeration therein which you apply to yourself.
????????
Would you care to elucidate?
>
>BBC, who is told he has
>a great sense of humor,
>but doesn't accept assinine
>substitutes.
No, he just generates them.
--
Rod Williams
>Can you say 'satire'? To a large extent the KITH's brand of comedy
>involves the gross exageration of stereotypes to a ridiculous level.
I'm all for satirical exaggeration of stereotypes if there are some
Real(tm) examples of the stereotyped group available for comparison.
Lisping waiters on "Kids In The Hall" and "Men On Film" in "In Living
Color" may be a real hoot, and don't seem to upset the sponsors, but
apart from the half-million-dollar men on "thirtysomething", Dr. Mike's
brother in the canceled "Doctor, Doctor", and the occasional handsome,
rich, white, tastefully moribund professional gentleman on a Disease
Of The Week...if I may paraphrase our former Shah...uh...President,
"where's the rest of us?"
--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Rod Williams * I feel like a fugitive from th'law of *
* Pacific Bell - San Ramon CA * averages. - Bill Mauldin *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Jess Anderson
>w...@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) writes:
>>cra...@contact.uucp (brad crafton) writes:
>>>One episode that I am VERY sorry I missed is the one where
>>>Scott Thompson looks right into the camera and gives a
>>>personal monologue on being a gay actor.
>>He had just finished playing an extremely campy waiter in a
>>skit. As the skit ended, he turned toward the camera and
>>said, "I'm not really a waiter, I'm Scott Thompson,
>>actor-comedian and member of The Kids in the Hall... and
>>yes, I'm the fag!"
>>"As a gay entertainer, I feel an obligation to portray my
>>brothers in a positive way. But I don't know. Whenever I
>>play the part of a waiter, and that spotlight hits me, I
>>can't help myself. I just begin to (lisping) lisp."
>THIS is *help*?! THIS is POSITIVE?
I think it is, and I'm sure it could be. A lot depends on
who's doing that kind of thing, under what conditions, and
for which audience.
Your question seems to suggest you strongly think it *isn't*
help, that it's (as you would say) NEGATIVE.
>I'm VERY glad I missed that --- replacing TV sets after
>throwing something thru them gets to be VERY expensive.
Oh, gimme a giant break.
>>"Someday, the gay waiter will be a folk hero. But until
>>then... (lisping) 'smoking or not ?'"
>OK... Gee, maybe I'm mithing the point! I mean MAAARY, we
>ALL jutht want to be "that way". I'm THo unhappy with
>mythelf being THo Butch and all. (THob) I'll Jutht NEVER
>be the good queer/faggot role model I'm thupp-p-p-pothed to
>be! I mean if we can't eathe the minds of the "normal"
>people around uth by playing into their precomtheptions and
>theterotypth, then we'll NEVER thee equality! Or ith that
>the other way around? Oh well, ath long ath I can drool
>over SCOTT, and can get my injection of IM, everything is
>just DUCKY.
You're entitled to your opinions. I'm entitled to mine, and
mine is that you seem to have enough hatred for *some* gay
people and gay things going for an entire legion of straight
oppressors. Over and over and over and *over* again, you go
on and on about your pet hatreds (International Male not
being the only one).
It has reached the point where one could imagine the only
thing that would ever make you *really* happy would be an
unending supply of the provocations such things as this
fellow's remarks apparently present to your own idea of
What's Right (worse, What's Right For Everybody).
I am probably the *only* one who thinks this, but by now
that stuff has gotten so lame that finally I feel I have to
call you out for it. I am *so* tired of that anti-gay stuff
you spew out all the time.
By all means, work out your destiny, have a blast doing it,
but put me right down as one uppity faggot with attitude (tm
Jeff Dauber) who is going to do his level best to outrage
your obsessively Puritan sensibilities every time he gets a
chance. I don't regularly lisp, but I can do it to
perfection, and on behalf of the perfectly fine gay people
all over the world who do the things you despise so VERY
much, it's going to be my symbol of protest against
pointless hates like yours.
>You know, it's interesting that the lesbian community
>doesn't have this hang up, or at least to the degree than
>some gay men do.
Hang-up, eh? Feh! The pot is calling the kettle beige.
>Sounds like Miss Scott has a problem with internalized
>homophobia, and dare I say is that the people who have no
>problem with this whatsoever are likely guilty of thinking
>with their genetalia as opposed to their cerebrum.
Is that supposed to be some kind of insult? There's nothing
at all wrong with genitalia, and for best effect it has
always seemed to me the connection between genitals and
brain is so intimate that to speak of them as separable is
ludicrous if not perverted.
I think there are circumstances in which "Miss Scott" would
be an allowable phrase. But in your usage, it's intended to
deride, a not very internalized expression of *your*
homophobia.
>Drag is great, camp is great. But supporting a stereotype
>by a (supposed) member of the GBLO* community to get laughs
>from a comparitively uneducated (to GBLO* issues) population
>is sickening. If there was a message that leaked out, it
>didn't make it electronically, at least to me.
But then, it wouldn't, locked as you are behind kevlar
character armor.
>BBC, who doesn't care for traitors...
Then stop being one.
--
Jess Anderson Madison Academic Computing Center University of Wisconsin
Work: Rm. 3130, 1210 West Dayton St., Madison WI 53706, Ph. 608/262-5888
Home: 2838 Stevens St., 53705, 608/238-4833 Bitnet: anderson@wiscmacc
Internet: ande...@macc.wisc.edu UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson
Bob Donahue
>In article <57...@spdcc.SPDCC.COM> rdon...@spdcc.COM (Bob Donahue) writes:
>>ma...@ee.ualberta.ca (Brett (Evil Ed) Manz) writes:
>> Which doesn't do ANYTHING to remove them. So, what happens
>>is we "have a laugh" among ourselves, and the rest of the world has
>>a laugh at our expense.
>>Wake up and smell the coffee.
>The exageration of the stereotypes is so extreme as to deflate them; to
>make them completely unbelievable. In the 'gay waiter' instance for example
>it is patently obvious (even to straight folk) that Scott is not being
>serious. Can you say 'Sarcasm'?
That doesn't answer my point. In fact that doesn't even address
the point. Please cite demographics or some standard of reference. And
please spell exaggerate correctly. How can you make a stereotype (which
is already a gross warping of something), "extreme"? Furthermore, how
would doing that (provided such a beast exists) deflate anything. Just
restating something doesn't make it any more valid the second time around.
>> So, um, which other sterotypes do you think are funny? Ones
>>about womyn? Ones about people of different races? Creeds? Abilities?
>>Ethnic groups? Gee we have have gross exaggerations about EVERYTHING! And of
>>course no one should get offended, right Ed, I mean we were just having
>>ourselves a laugh. Your choice of .signature is ironic. Unfortunately, I
>>*can't* laugh at the exaggeration therein which you apply to yourself.
> ????????
>Would you care to elucidate?
Look at the quote in your signature. Look at what we are discussing.
Look up "irony" in the dictionary. If you're still confused, repeat a few
classes in English vocab. and lit. form...
>>BBC, who is told he has
>>a great sense of humor,
>>but doesn't accept assinine
>>substitutes.
>No, he just generates them.
Where?
>| ma...@bode.ee.ualberta.ca Brett (Evil Ed) Manz | My opinions aren't likely |
>| You can't be proud of who you are if you are | those of the EE dept. of |
>| ashamed of what you are. __ | the University of Alberta. |
>| 1991 - The Year of the Queer \/ | Good thing too. |
Oh yeah it's the stuff on the LEFT side
I'm talking about BELOW your name. Just
so you won't get confused.....
Bob Donahue
>> ma...@ee.ualberta.ca (Brett (Evil Ed) Manz) writes:
>>Can you say 'satire'? To a large extent the KITH's brand of comedy
>>involves the gross exageration of stereotypes to a ridiculous level.
>I'm all for satirical exaggeration of stereotypes if there are some
>Real(tm) examples of the stereotyped group available for comparison.
>Lisping waiters on "Kids In The Hall" and "Men On Film" in "In Living
>Color" may be a real hoot, and don't seem to upset the sponsors, but
>apart from the half-million-dollar men on "thirtysomething", Dr. Mike's
>brother in the canceled "Doctor, Doctor", and the occasional handsome,
>rich, white, tastefully moribund professional gentleman on a Disease
>Of The Week...if I may paraphrase our former Shah...uh...President,
>"where's the rest of us?"
Hon, they don't exist. Not in the minds of John Q. Public or in
network sponsors. They don't want to see us. They don't need (in their
minds) to see us...
And it's OK, see because we have KITH's "out" actors to supply
a GOOD, squeaky, "cute" role model to drool over. They know what's best
for us.
Besides, we might have to start showing the "nasty" people inthe
GBLO* community if we opened their/our minds any further... and we can't
have that.
Hell, I'd rather have Waldeaux as a GBLO* role model, but I spose
he's too short.
BBC
Brett (Evil Ed) Manz
>Real(tm) examples of the stereotyped group available for comparison.
>Lisping waiters on "Kids In The Hall" and "Men On Film" in "In Living
>Color" may be a real hoot, and don't seem to upset the sponsors, but
>apart from the half-million-dollar men on "thirtysomething", Dr. Mike's
>brother in the canceled "Doctor, Doctor", and the occasional handsome,
>rich, white, tastefully moribund professional gentleman on a Disease
>Of The Week...if I may paraphrase our former Shah...uh...President,
>"where's the rest of us?"
CBS claims that "Doctor, Doctor" is only on hiatus until March. I hope
this is true, as it's one of a very few programs on TV worth watching.
One of the things I particularly like about it is the portrayal of
Dr. Mike's brother (Richard). The humor centered around his sexuality
comes not from derision or sight-gags (as most other sit-com queers
get) but is rather more fodder for the same style as everything else.
And he's damn good looking. :-)
Brett (Evil Ed) Manz
>
> That doesn't answer my point. In fact that doesn't even address
>the point. Please cite demographics or some standard of reference. And
>please spell exaggerate correctly. How can you make a stereotype (which
>is already a gross warping of something), "extreme"? Furthermore, how
>would doing that (provided such a beast exists) deflate anything. Just
>restating something doesn't make it any more valid the second time around.
>
>Look up "irony" in the dictionary. If you're still confused, repeat a few
>classes in English vocab. and lit. form...
>
> I'm talking about BELOW your name. Just
> so you won't get confused.....
What the hell does any of this have to do with demographics? What I am
stating is that the portrayal of stereotypes as obviously ludicrous
deflates the impact of the stereotype. Perhaps if you had seen the
piece in question (which you haven't) you may have gotten a different
opinion of it. Since you haven't seen it maybe you aren't really that
qualified to comment on its validity. The 'quotation' (quote IS a verb)
in my signature is original. It expresses my disbelief that we have to
be proud of our sexuality, which we had no input in the choosing of.
By the same argument we shouldn't have to be ashamed of it. We should
be proud of the way we accept and deal with the things we can't change.
Well, most of us should be. The ironic overtone is intentional.
Thanks for noticing.
--
Henry Mensch
->I'm all for satirical exaggeration of stereotypes if there are some
->Real(tm) examples of the stereotyped group available for comparison.
->...if I may paraphrase our former Shah...uh...President,
->"where's the rest of us?"
this is (imho) an accurate description of the problem.
the problem is not solved by yammering on about how awful the
'stereotypical' characters are, though (not that rod was yammering
about anything) ...
# Henry Mensch / <he...@garp.mit.edu> / E40-379 MIT, Cambridge, MA
# <hme...@uk.ac.nsfnet-relay> / <he...@tts.lth.se> / <men...@munnari.oz.au>
# via X.400: S=mensch; OU=informatik; P=tu-muenchen; A=dbp; C=de
Stanley L. Kameny
Stan (that's me) adds: I really think that BBC said it all! But still
I add that the more I know and feel comfortable with the fact that I am
basically gay, the less I feel that I have to adopt ANY stereotypical
behavior to try to "fit in"! I still won't fool any finely-tuned
gaydar. (No way of hiding the attraction to other men and the lack of
the same degree of attraction to most women.) But this apparent need,
demonstrated by some gays, to do something outlandish and encourage a
negative reaction in hets as a form of defiance is self-defeating: why
encourage conflict?
Stan stan_...@rand.org valley!st...@rand.org randvax!valley!stan
Bob Donahue
>Stan (that's me) adds: I really think that BBC said it all! But still
>I add that the more I know and feel comfortable with the fact that I am
>basically gay, the less I feel that I have to adopt ANY stereotypical
>behavior to try to "fit in"! I still won't fool any finely-tuned
>gaydar. (No way of hiding the attraction to other men and the lack of
>the same degree of attraction to most women.) But this apparent need,
>demonstrated by some gays, to do something outlandish and encourage a
>negative reaction in hets as a form of defiance is self-defeating: why
>encourage conflict?
Whoa, though, there IS a difference between being yourself and
going out of your way to promote a stereotype. Some GBLO* folk, (hell
some ANY-folk) *are* outlandish as it's part of their nature, and that
shouldn't be quelled one bit. If the "hets" (really anyone, and I think
actually that the reaction by the GBLO* community is most important to
look at) is negative, it is not the fault of the "outlandish" people!
The conflict is not generated by the people themselves, but by the
narrowmindedness of the "receiving" community.
Camp, drag, leather-opera-queens, etc. are just manifestations of
people's personalities, or who they are and like to be. That's not (or
should not be) an issue. The issue is to what degree emphasis should
be placed on GBLO* stereotypes to the "outside" world. In *my*
opinion (which may be worth less than dingo's kidneys) people with the
opportunity to present a slice of the GBLO* community should not just
do stereotypical roles, not because there is anything wrong with the
behavior (far from it), but because the GBLO* community is much broader
and that should be stressed. On the other hand I will admit that I feel
VERY uncomfortable with doing stereotypical roles as "humor", since that
it supports a picture that is not accurate and that is unduly unfair to
a group of people.
I mean we have all been angry when someone in a group tells a
"queer" joke. By and large said jokes prey on a stereotype. Why is it
suddenly OK when one of "our own" does it, even with disclaimers?
BBC
George Madison
>In article <57...@spdcc.SPDCC.COM> rdon...@spdcc.COM (Bob
>You're entitled to your opinions. I'm entitled to mine, and
>mine is that you seem to have enough hatred for *some* gay
>people and gay things going for an entire legion of straight
>oppressors. Over and over and over and *over* again, you go
>on and on about your pet hatreds (International Male not
>being the only one).
To quote you, ``Oh, give me a giant break.''
>
>It has reached the point where one could imagine the only
>thing that would ever make you *really* happy would be an
>unending supply of the provocations such things as this
>fellow's remarks apparently present to your own idea of
>What's Right (worse, What's Right For Everybody).
Utter, complete and total bullshit -- though why anyone should expect anything
else from you is unclear. If you've not gotten BBC's points about the
looksism of the gay community (exemplified by International Male) and the
marginalization of everyone who doesn't fit that `look,' I'm certainly not
going to waste my time trying to pound it through a skull of solid bone.
Suffice it to say you've missed something.
>
>I am probably the *only* one who thinks this, but by now
One *would* hope you're the only one this egregiously stupid.
>that stuff has gotten so lame that finally I feel I have to
>call you out for it. I am *so* tired of that anti-gay stuff
>you spew out all the time.
To begin with, it is of course not anti-gay -- but [chuckle] once again, what
more could we expect from our very own font of Misinformation? If BBC's
opinions upset your lone surviving brain cell so much, I suggest you edit your
KILL file appropriately and save yourself the trauma.
[ George Madison, a/k/a George The Bear, a/k/a Furr 8-{)] ** BEAR POWER! ** ]
[fu...@pnet12.cts.com |NBCS:B8f+t+w-e+s+k+a!cv PIG 8/7| ucsd!serene!pnet12!furr]
[> GEnie: GEORGE.M | Ursinophiles And Barbophiles Unite! | PLink: BEARDLOVER <]
``Betty's in the sauna and she's gettin' kinda hot -- Mary's in the
icebox wishin' she was not. Connie's in the whirlpool, Jimmy's tryin'
to be cool, and Larry's in the bushes 'cause he's nobody's fool.''
-- _Party On The Patio_, ZZ Top
Nigel Whitfield
>>He had just finished playing an extremely campy waiter in a skit.
>>As the skit ended, he turned toward the camera and said, "I'm not
>>really a waiter, I'm Scott Thompson, actor-comedian and member of
>>The Kids in the Hall... and yes, I'm the fag!"
>
>>"As a gay entertainer, I feel an obligation to portray my brothers
>>in a positive way. But I don't know. Whenever I play the part of
>>a waiter, and that spotlight hits me, I can't help myself. I just
>>begin to (lisping) lisp."
>
> THIS is *help*?! THIS is POSITIVE?
I think you can argue about whether or not it's positive, but equally
you can argue about whether or not it's negative. Absence of one
doesn't necessarily imply the presence of the other.
Now, I've not seen this sketch, but from reading what's above, it
strikes me that the actor has made a point of telling the audience
that the character is unrealistic. If nothing else, people are going
to wonder what is realistic, aren't they?
> Sounds like Miss Scott has a problem with internalized homophobia,
>and dare I say is that the people who have no problem with this whatsoever
>are likely guilty of thinking with their genetalia as opposed to their
>cerebrum.]
My dear! I don't even have a television set, so I have no idea what
the chap looks like. I must admit though, I'm a sucker for a witty
piece of writing... :-)
>BBC, who doesn't care for
>traitors...
You should come over here. We hang them - it's a lot cheaper than caring.
Nigel.
--
Nigel Whitfield. uk-motss caters for gay, lesbian,
The Truth is more often bisexual and sympathetic people in
relative than absolute. the UK and elsewhere.
n.whi...@cc.ic.ac.uk, uk-motss...@cc.ic.ac.uk
Stanley L. Kameny
> > But this apparent need,
> >demonstrated by some gays, to do something outlandish and encourage a
> >negative reaction in hets as a form of defiance is self-defeating: why
>
> Whoa, though, there IS a difference between being yourself and
> going out of your way to promote a stereotype.
Somehow or other, try as I will, I cannot see that much difference
between adopting a stereotypical behavior in everyday life and doing it
to "promote a stereotype!" When I seee a punk rocker with spikey hair,
I see a kid who has adopted the spikey hair mode for the time being,
however long he chooses to play this role; he, himself is not just
a kid-with-spikey-hair.
> Some GBLO* folk, (hell
> some ANY-folk) *are* outlandish as it's part of their nature, and that
> shouldn't be quelled one bit.
Here, I agree only in part: it may be in a peron's nature to be
outlandish, or it may be that the person tends to act outlandish in
as a reaction to some sort of perceived pressure. But a stereotypical
pattern is the same whether it is done for public display of for ingroup
display. And the person simply isn't the pattern he displays!
> If the "hets" (really anyone, and I think
> actually that the reaction by the GBLO* community is most important to
> look at) is negative, it is not the fault of the "outlandish" people!
Here, most psychologists and psychiatrists and most people would
disagree. If the person exhibits behavior that causes a negative
reaction in others, he is at liberty to change that behavior. It is
only when the behavior is part of the essential makeup of the person
that it is out of line for the others to exert the influence for change.
For example, if a person has strong same sex attraction and weak or
negative opposite sex attraction, no amount of pressure is going to
change that preference, and this is simply an essential part of the
person, in my view. But if he wears only t-shirts and jeans, that is a
behavior which is not built in and can be changed if desired.
> The conflict is not generated by the people themselves, but by the
> narrowmindedness of the "receiving" community.
Living in society, one is always faced with the question of conformity
versus internal comfort and satisfaction. So the question of the the
acceptability of a speciic behavior seem to depend upon the intent with
which it is done. If it is done because it feels good, fine; but if it
is done only with the intent of making someone else uncomfortable, then
it is not okay.
> > Camp, drag, leather-opera-queens, etc. are just manifestations of
> people's personalities, or who they are and like to be. That's not (or
> should not be) an issue.
Again, the matter of intent appears. When it is done for entertainment
of the in-group, no problem, but...
> The issue is to what degree emphasis should
> be placed on GBLO* stereotypes to the "outside" world. In *my*
> opinion (which may be worth less than dingo's kidneys) people with the
> opportunity to present a slice of the GBLO* community should not just
> do stereotypical roles, not because there is anything wrong with the
> behavior (far from it), but because the GBLO* community is much broader
> and that should be stressed. On the other hand I will admit that I feel
> VERY uncomfortable with doing stereotypical roles as "humor", since that
> it supports a picture that is not accurate and that is unduly unfair to
> a group of people.
> > I mean we have all been angry when someone in a group tells a
> "queer" joke. By and large said jokes prey on a stereotype. Why is it
> suddenly OK when one of "our own" does it, even with disclaimers?
> > BBC
Here, we agree, but I guess that I would go farther: unless the context
is that of carnival merrymaking, any behavior or setreotypical behavior
in public is presenting those stereotypes to the "outside world". Or do
you draw the line only when soemone is paid for the performance?
Stan
Bob Donahue
>> rdon...@spdcc.COM (Bob Donahue) writes:
>>
>> st...@valley.UUCP (Stanley L. Kameny) writes:
>> > But this apparent need,
>> >demonstrated by some gays, to do something outlandish and encourage a
>> >negative reaction in hets as a form of defiance is self-defeating: why
>> >encourage coflict?
>> Some GBLO* folk, (hell
>> some ANY-folk) *are* outlandish as it's part of their nature, and that
>> shouldn't be quelled one bit.
>Here, I agree only in part: it may be in a peron's nature to be
>outlandish, or it may be that the person tends to act outlandish in
>as a reaction to some sort of perceived pressure. But a stereotypical
>pattern is the same whether it is done for public display of for ingroup
>display. And the person simply isn't the pattern he displays!
But it arises from the fact that some people do act as such in
their everyday mannerisms. Otherwise why would the stereotype develop!
So, while the pattern may be the same, it doesn't matter because the "pattern"
isn't the problem, it's the negativeness incorrectly attributed TO that pattern
which is extended to a larger group of people. Show the broader outlook
and the stereotype no longer holds and disappears - the answer is NOT to
eliminate the pattern/behavior!
>> If the "hets" (really anyone, and I think
>> actually that the reaction by the GBLO* community is most important to
>> look at) is negative, it is not the fault of the "outlandish" people!
>Here, most psychologists and psychiatrists and most people would
>disagree. If the person exhibits behavior that causes a negative
>reaction in others, he is at liberty to change that behavior. It is
>only when the behavior is part of the essential makeup of the person
>that it is out of line for the others to exert the influence for change.
>For example, if a person has strong same sex attraction and weak or
>negative opposite sex attraction, no amount of pressure is going to
>change that preference, and this is simply an essential part of the
>person, in my view. But if he wears only t-shirts and jeans, that is a
>behavior which is not built in and can be changed if desired.
Come again? What's wrong with t-shirts and jeans (BBC's normal
fashion manifestation)? While that can be "changed" it could be the BEST
thing for someone to wear under a different set of "fashion rules". Similarly,
one could have a set of circumstances where "swishy" behavior in men is
considered the norm in strayt men and the stereotype for GBO* men is "butch".
The ramifications are exactly the same... I think your example fails, because`
you are assuming "ab initio" what the ground rules ought to be. Whether
behavior is "built in" or not has nothing to do with the issue. What is
more important I think is that the stereotype is placing a "list" of
attributes on a list marked "bad" and that it is also applied to a larger
group of people. What attributes are ON the list is unimportant. The
stereotype for GBO* men could have been people like Robert Young in
"Father Knows Best" (well, look at that guy over there! He's smoking a pipe!
Bet *he's* a faggot!)...
>> The conflict is not generated by the people themselves, but by the
>> narrowmindedness of the "receiving" community.
>Living in society, one is always faced with the question of conformity
>versus internal comfort and satisfaction. So the question of the the
>acceptability of a speciic behavior seem to depend upon the intent with
>which it is done. If it is done because it feels good, fine; but if it
>is done only with the intent of making someone else uncomfortable, then
>it is not okay.
That goes against your earlier example though to an extent. What if
the people I work with are uncomfortable with the fact that I like to wear`
jeans and t-shirts all of the time? It is their problem or mine? Sure I can
change it, but "my" reasons for doing it are because it feels good, *yet*
it bothers them. You can paint yourself in a corner pretty quickly because
everyone has their own value system... Going back to the initial question,
what if my (presumably strayt) brother, liked frilly things, and talked with
a lisp? He's not gay, but some (narrow-minded) people might brand him so.
Is that his problem? He could I suppose adjust his personality to make people
around him more comfortable, but I don't think that's fair to him to put him
in that position. And even if he were gay, he shouldn't be put in that position
for the strayt OR (and esp.) the GBLO* community.
>> > Camp, drag, leather-opera-queens, etc. are just manifestations of
>> people's personalities, or who they are and like to be. That's not (or
>> should not be) an issue.
>Again, the matter of intent appears. When it is done for entertainment
>of the in-group, no problem, but...
But what? I'm not sure to what degree this should be
carried... because now you get into the problem of what people "should"
and "should not" do from some external "set of rules"... Anyway this is
also getting far-field from the original boiling kettle (is this an
understatement???), and might be persued in a separate thread...
>> > I mean we have all been angry when someone in a group tells a
>> "queer" joke. By and large said jokes prey on a stereotype. Why is it
>> suddenly OK when one of "our own" does it, even with disclaimers?
>> > BBC
>Here, we agree, but I guess that I would go farther: unless the context
>is that of carnival merrymaking, any behavior or setreotypical behavior
>in public is presenting those stereotypes to the "outside world". Or do
>you draw the line only when soemone is paid for the performance?
No, I draw the line when the person doing it ONLY perpetuates the
stereotype to an otherwise ignorant audience. Within the GBLO* community
it's less of a problem (sort of) because we [ought to] realize that there
is a broader spectrum than that contained under the stereotype. But as one
other posted pointed out - there ISN'T much displayed in venues "tapped in"
by the mainstream community to show this - and to have someone presumably
from the GBLO* community not point this out, and blantantly so, is IMHO
terribly wrong, and shortchanging BOTH communities in the process.
BBC
Rob Boldbear
> But it arises from the fact that some people do act as such in
>their everyday mannerisms. Otherwise why would the stereotype develop!
Many gay males acquire certain stereotypically gay mannerism as children
before they come in contact with a gay community or with other
stereotypical gay men, not after, which strongly suggests that the
stereotypical mannerisms are somehow picked up from the culture at
large. Could it be that some gay males pick up the stereotyped
mannerisms simply because they are aware of and abide cultural
expectations that gay men exhibit those behaviors?
>So, while the pattern may be the same, it doesn't matter because the
>"pattern" isn't the problem, it's the negativeness incorrectly
>attributed TO that pattern which is extended to a larger group of
>people.
While I agree the negativeness attributed to the behavior is largely the
problem, it's not clear to me that such behaviors are necessarily not
bad. A lot of stereotyped behaviors associated with gender and racial
stereotypes *are* bad, and it would surprise me if no gay stereotyped
behaviors were bad.
--
Rob Bernardo Mt. Diablo Software Solutions _ /
email: r...@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US phone: (415) 827-4301 <_/_><
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" /
- Hobbes (Bill Watterson)
Bob Donahue
!In article <58...@spdcc.SPDCC.COM> rdon...@spdcc.COM (Bob Donahue) writes:
!>So, while the pattern may be the same, it doesn't matter because the
!>"pattern" isn't the problem, it's the negativeness incorrectly
!>attributed TO that pattern which is extended to a larger group of
!>people.
!While I agree the negativeness attributed to the behavior is largely the
!problem, it's not clear to me that such behaviors are necessarily not
!bad. A lot of stereotyped behaviors associated with gender and racial
!stereotypes *are* bad, and it would surprise me if no gay stereotyped
!behaviors were bad.
Ah, yes. This is true, and I was only thinking of this particular
stereotype (GLBO*-wise).
Jess Anderson
In article <146.UUL1.2#2...@valley.UUCP> st...@valley.UUCP
(Stanley L. Kameny) writes:
>In article <57...@spdcc.SPDCC.COM> rdon...@spdcc.COM (Bob
>Donahue) writes:
>>The issue is to what degree emphasis should be placed on
>>GBLO* stereotypes to the "outside" world.
I've not seen in the discussion to date mention of what I
might call the "inside" view.
It seems to me that the discussion needs to include the
issue of what emphasis is placed on LG stereotypes *by* the
outside world. (I confess to not knowing what stereotypical
B or O behaviors would include.)
>>In *my* opinion [...] people with the opportunity to present
>>a slice of the GBLO* community should not just do
>>stereotypical roles, not because there is anything wrong
>>with the behavior (far from it), but because the GBLO*
>>community is much broader and that should be stressed.
I think stereotypical LG behaviors are actually a tiny
subset of our total range of behaviors. If this were not
so, we would spot each other *far* more readily, and our
gaydar would be so loud as to deafen us.
The issue is not what we present ("inside"); it is what
*they* perceive ("outside").
>>On the other hand I will admit that I feel VERY
>>uncomfortable with doing stereotypical roles as "humor",
>>since that it supports a picture that is not accurate and
>>that is unduly unfair to a group of people.
The humor is not about us; it is about them and their absurd
distortions, which seize upon a perfectly acceptable but
tiny set of behaviors the oppressors use to concentrate
ridicule upon us and to distance themselves from the
discomforting idea that we might be every bit as human and
every bit as deserving of decent lives as their most august
selves.
>>I mean we have all been angry when someone in a group tells
>>a "queer" joke. By and large said jokes prey on a
>>stereotype. Why is it suddenly OK when one of "our own"
>>does it, even with disclaimers?
The humor does at least two things: it releases our anger
and it skewers them.
>Here, we agree, but I guess that I would go farther: unless
>the context is that of carnival merrymaking, any behavior or
>setreotypical behavior in public is presenting those
>stereotypes to the "outside world".
That is looking into the wrong end of the telescope, I
think. We have nothing to hide from the public. Again, the
issue is not what we present; it's that they choose to
perceive only a tiny fraction of our full humanity.
There is absolutely (absolutely!) nothing wrong with what we
are pleased to call stereotypical behaviors. *Great*
numbers of *us* do not believe that, however.
And when we find ourselves (as we have throughout this
discussion) time and again examining our own behaviors for
putative flaws in our presentation, we are complicit with
the oppressors. We must *not* do this.
Why do so many LGBO people dislike and distrust effeminacy
in men and masculinity in women, campiness, limp-wristedness
or truckdriverness, and all the rest of it? You know very
well why: that stuff tells the whole wide world that *here*
is a living, breathing faggot or dyke, and quite often the
shit then starts flying. Why do so many of our own people
hate that? Simple: they don't want to get it *on* them.
The real reason, I think, for celebrating and proudly
presenting the so-called stereotypes, is that it is
fundamentally radical and activist.
The chiefest beneficiaries of that radicalism and activism
will be other LBGO people, who need to wake fully up to
their complicity with the oppression. To my mind, our
rainbow banner should proudly carry the words Faggot and
Dyke and defiantly proclaim the slogan Don't Tread On Me.
What I would expect at this point, if people have read this
far, is that there would be a lot of tight lips and
drawn-up sphincters. Tells ya, doesn't it?
Bob Donahue
!The humor is not about us; it is about them and their absurd
!distortions, which seize upon a perfectly acceptable but
!tiny set of behaviors the oppressors use to concentrate
!ridicule upon us and to distance themselves from the
!discomforting idea that we might be every bit as human and
!every bit as deserving of decent lives as their most august
!selves.
This is VERY true. But it does have its ramifications both
"inside" and "outside" of the GBLO* community.
!>>I mean we have all been angry when someone in a group tells
!>>a "queer" joke. By and large said jokes prey on a
!>>stereotype. Why is it suddenly OK when one of "our own"
!>>does it, even with disclaimers?
!The humor does at least two things: it releases our anger
!and it skewers them.
I'm not sure about that... I mean that would be fine and all,
but I think that too many times people "go along with it". And I
think that is why my anger kicked in initially, because that is how
I saw it. I mean it's one thing to lampoon ourselves, because we are
internally "in the know" (one hopes) and one supposedly can separate the
"fact" from the "fiction"... I suppose you're right in that people who
WILL respond to those situations when those things rear their ugly heads,
(and in effect that is what I did, like it or not).
!The chiefest beneficiaries of that radicalism and activism
!will be other LBGO people, who need to wake fully up to
!their complicity with the oppression. To my mind, our
!rainbow banner should proudly carry the words Faggot and
!Dyke and defiantly proclaim the slogan Don't Tread On Me.
Yeah, but do you want to have the snake on there too? :-)
Well, I am VERY sleepy --- I doubt that this is even 64% coherent...
After tomorrow, Waldeaux can resume proofreading these things, and y'all can
blame him when it's unclear, etc.. :-)
Hugs, BBC
Scott Amspoker
>!The humor is not about us; it is about them and their absurd
>!distortions, which seize upon a perfectly acceptable but
>!tiny set of behaviors the oppressors use to concentrate
>!ridicule upon us and to distance themselves from the
>!discomforting idea that we might be every bit as human and
>!every bit as deserving of decent lives as their most august
>!selves.
>
> This is VERY true. But it does have its ramifications both
>"inside" and "outside" of the GBLO* community.
This has become and interesting thread but I'm surprised that it
came up the way it did. The orginal response to a post about
a Scott Thompson skit on "Kids in the Hall" said, "YOU CALL THAT
FUNNY". My immediate urge was to respond with, "you had to be there".
The skit lost something in the translation to ASCII. Scott Thompson
was making fun of people's expectations of gay stereotypes. Unfortunately
the real homophobes won't get the joke (a moot point - the real homophobes
wouldn't have lasted that far into the show).
As an interesting contrast to the Kids in the Hall skit: I was flipping
the channels the other night and came upon the local community access
channel. There was a phone-in auto repair show called "Ask Otto" (I
think). I watched for a bit while a pleasant, smiley gentleman took phone
calls from people having questions about their cars - pretty innocuous.
At one point he got a couple of calls where the caller hung up before
saying anything. He eventually made some comment about
"the fucking chicken-shit FAGGOTS" who call and hang up.
I was stunned. I didn't change channels. I turned the TV off and
wandered around the house for a couple of minutes feeling wierd.
I wondered if it would be PC to call the station and complain. The
community access station has had many gay-positive shows on in the past
and I'm sure some people complained about them. I really don't care what
people say on television but it was so out of place on a show like that.
Did "Otto" think that there wouldn't be any faggots watching a manly car
repair show? That kind of crap bothers me a lot more than a comedy skit.
--
Scott Amspoker |
Basis International, Albuquerque, NM | This space available
(505) 345-5232 |
unmvax.cs.unm.edu!bbx!bbxsda!scott |
John Merrill
> This has become and interesting thread but I'm surprised that it
> came up the way it did. The orginal response to a post about a
> Scott Thompson skit on "Kids in the Hall" said, "YOU CALL THAT
> FUNNY". My immediate urge was to respond with, "you had to be
> there". The skit lost something in the translation to ASCII. Scott
> Thompson was making fun of people's expectations of gay stereotypes.
> Unfortunately the real homophobes won't get the joke (a moot point -
> the real homophobes wouldn't have lasted that far into the show).
Ah, but. Here we arrive at one point that I haven't seen raised
before, but which is essentially relevant to the debate at hand:
intentionally ridiculous stereotypes are generally seen as reinforcing
the preconceptions of the viewer. For instance, consider Archie
Bunker. The character was supposed to be offensive and ridiculous;
those who held that his views were obnoxious felt reinforced in their
attitudes.
And those who shared his views felt reinforced in *their* attitudes.
This, I confess, is what bothers me about the skit in question:
although the Thompson skit is intended to parody the stereotypes of
those "fucking chickenshit FAGGOTS", I don't think it necessarily will
do any such thing.
--
John Merrill / mer...@bucasb.bu.edu / harvard!bu.edu!bucasb!merrill
Rob Boldbear
>>>I mean we have all been angry when someone in a group tells
>>>a "queer" joke. By and large said jokes prey on a
>>>stereotype. Why is it suddenly OK when one of "our own"
>>>does it, even with disclaimers?
>
>The humor does at least two things: it releases our anger
>and it skewers them.
But it can do other things, bad things, depending upon how it's done and
how it's taken: it can lead the naive into accepting the stereotype as
something they must live up to in order to be gay or lesbian. It can
lead us to buy into restrictive or simply negative self-images.
>There is absolutely (absolutely!) nothing wrong with what we
>are pleased to call stereotypical behaviors. *Great*
>numbers of *us* do not believe that, however.
I don't believe that all parts of the gay and lesbian stereotypes are
not bad. What about the part of the gay stereotype that says gay men
lead lonely, unhappy lives (a la Boys in the Band).
>And when we find ourselves (as we have throughout this
>discussion) time and again examining our own behaviors for
>putative flaws in our presentation, we are complicit with
>the oppressors. We must *not* do this.
On the other hand, my belief is that a lot of the stereotypes come from
the society at large, from a fictional view of gays and lesbians, and
that many gay and lesbians adopt stereotypical behavior, in compliance
with our oppressors' view of gays and lesbians, as part of their
self-identification as gay/lesbian (often unconsciously at a young age
prior to actually coming contact with "the gay community").
>Why do so many LGBO people dislike and distrust effeminacy
>in men and masculinity in women, campiness, limp-wristedness
>or truckdriverness, and all the rest of it? You know very
>well why: that stuff tells the whole wide world that *here*
>is a living, breathing faggot or dyke, and quite often the
>shit then starts flying. Why do so many of our own people
>hate that? Simple: they don't want to get it *on* them.
Not so if someone believes that at least some parts of the stereotype
are actually bad in a way that is independent of it being a identificatory
of being gay/lesbian.
Sorry, I don't see why the all parts of the stereotype should be upheld
as good. Why should we view gay and lesbians stereotypes any
differently from ethnic stereotypes?
>The real reason, I think, for celebrating and proudly
>presenting the so-called stereotypes, is that it is
>fundamentally radical and activist.
On the other hand, one could view the stereotype as a conforming
to mainstream society's negative expectations of gays and lesbians.
Jess Anderson
In article <1991Jan7.1...@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US>
r...@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US (Rob Boldbear) writes:
>In article <58...@spdcc.SPDCC.COM> rdon...@spdcc.COM (Bob
>Donahue) writes:
>>But it arises from the fact that some people do act as such
>>in their everyday mannerisms. Otherwise why would the
>>stereotype develop!
>Many gay males acquire certain stereotypically gay mannerism
>as children before they come in contact with a gay community
>or with other stereotypical gay men, not after, which
>strongly suggests that the stereotypical mannerisms are
>somehow picked up from the culture at large.
I think we need some examples here. I assume you mean more
or less masculine/feminine traits that don't accord with
simple-minded gender roles, but I think even that is a
pretty confused and confusing context.
>Could it be
>that some gay males pick up the stereotyped mannerisms
>simply because they are aware of and abide cultural
>expectations that gay men exhibit those behaviors?
I can hardly imagine it not including at least some of
that. But how much?
>>So, while the pattern may be the same, it doesn't matter
>>because the "pattern" isn't the problem, it's the
>>negativeness incorrectly attributed TO that pattern which is
>>extended to a larger group of people.
>While I agree the negativeness attributed to the behavior is
>largely the problem, it's not clear to me that such
>behaviors are necessarily not bad.
Now *that's* an interesting question, all right. We could
talk about whether any of the stereotypes associated with
us actually *are* bad. Naturally, I can't think of any :-).
>A lot of stereotyped behaviors associated with gender and
>racial stereotypes *are* bad, and it would surprise me if no
>gay stereotyped behaviors were bad.
I assume it's the stereotypes that are bad, not the
behaviors. Also, some stereotypes, though grounded
originally in some behavior or others, are probably
distortions sufficient to render the source completely
obscured.
Here too some examples would help us move forward. I'm
having trouble thinking of some myself, for it's a confusing
idea. Maybe somebody can sort it out faster than I.
David MOERY
>
> But you are also making the assumption that John Q. Public
> and Joe SixPack ALSO make this distinction, and even worse The Kids are
Gosh, Bob, is Montgomery Burns your idol?
As a religious watcher of Kids In The Hall, all I can say is it's
obvious you haven't ever seen it, and your criticisms are wildly
off the mark. You can count on two fingers the number of openly
and positively gay characters on regularly-scheduled TV (if, god
willing, Doctor, Doctor comes back). It has to start somewhere.
Besides, if your "Joe SixPack*" is adventurous enough to watch
TKITH (ALL the humor is bent and off the wall) in the first place,
Thompson's pieces will (IMHO) be a positive influence.
David Moery
Laura Creighton
and beautiful. Most stereotypes arise out of ignorance. When the
ignorant tells an ingnorant joke, he is promoting prejudice. However,
when a member of the in-group uses the same joke, the whole scene changes.
How many of you know Gaypeople who are only able to act their outrageous
selves when in leather or when in drag? Lots of you I bet. When these
people tell such a joke, it brings us back to our common expreiences
with them, when dressing outrageously was a way to get into acting outrageously,
which was far closer to acting like ourselves than we ever could without the
costume. So the same lines hit different places. Rather than bringing
out the ignorant stereotype, they bring up warm images of five lesbians
in the kitchen trying to find enough leather so they all could wear
enough. Or five Gay guys ctritiquing each other's drag. Or a house
with both (I was fortunate to live in one) with everybody criticising
everybody's costume and makeup, until the fateful moment when we went
to bars with bands and restaurants.
Now, those of you who never lived those days, I can well see that all
you see is a hurtful stereotype, hurtful no matter who says it. But
for me it brings me back to when I was just coming out, and the
community I did it in, and what was fun for us to dress up and act out.
I can read malicious Gay-bashing fag and lesbian jokes from wonderful
ingroup fag and dike jokes a mile away. I do not know how I do it.
I get enraged when the prejudices take pot shots at us, but I enjoy
a great deal us making fun of us, especially us at a younger age.
The difference is totally important.
A jerk making fun of me -- I want to wipe the smile from her face.
A friend making fun of how outlandish we once were or still are -- I
laugh myself silly. And feel somehow ``empowered'' (if that is
the newspeak word) by being able to laugh at myself.
Laura
--
Well, i figure, one person can change the world, but most of the time they
shouldn't -- Madge Simpson
Laura Creighton
uunet!hoptoad!laura utzoo!hoptoad!laura sun!hoptoad!laura to...@toad.com
Jess Anderson
In article <1991Jan9.0...@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US>
r...@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US (Rob Bernardo) writes:
>In article <1991Jan8.0...@macc.wisc.edu>
>ande...@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
[queer jokes]
>>The humor does at least two things: it releases our anger
>>and it skewers them.
>But it can do other things, bad things, depending upon how
>it's done and how it's taken: it can lead the naive into
>accepting the stereotype as something they must live up to
>in order to be gay or lesbian. It can lead us to buy into
>restrictive or simply negative self-images.
This does not say the stereotypes *are* bad; it says we have
lead the naive better than we do. No need to sanitize the
environment to accomplish the task.
>>There is absolutely (absolutely!) nothing wrong with what we
>>are pleased to call stereotypical behaviors. *Great*
>>numbers of *us* do not believe that, however.
>I don't believe that all parts of the gay and lesbian
>stereotypes are not bad. What about the part of the gay
>stereotype that says gay men lead lonely, unhappy lives (a
>la Boys in the Band).
It isn't that stereotype that's bad. After all, like most
stereotypes, *some* gay men *do* lead lonely lives (leaving
BITB to one side). It isn't the stereotypes that make them
lonely; by and large, it's other gay men who do that.
>>And when we find ourselves (as we have throughout this
>>discussion) time and again examining our own behaviors for
>>putative flaws in our presentation, we are complicit with
>>the oppressors. We must *not* do this.
>On the other hand, my belief is that a lot of the
>stereotypes come from the society at large, from a fictional
>view of gays and lesbians, and that many gay and lesbians
>adopt stereotypical behavior, in compliance with our
>oppressors' view of gays and lesbians, as part of their
>self-identification as gay/lesbian (often unconsciously at a
>young age prior to actually coming contact with "the gay
>community").
I think you're right that this is a significant element.
Here too, it isn't the behavior that's responsible, but
rather the skewed reactions to it.
>>Why do so many LGBO people dislike and distrust effeminacy
>>in men and masculinity in women, campiness, limp-wristedness
>>or truckdriverness, and all the rest of it? You know very
>>well why: that stuff tells the whole wide world that *here*
>>is a living, breathing faggot or dyke, and quite often the
>>shit then starts flying. Why do so many of our own people
>>hate that? Simple: they don't want to get it *on* them.
>Not so if someone believes that at least some parts of the
>stereotype are actually bad in a way that is independent of
>it being a identificatory of being gay/lesbian.
Fortunately, everybody has *some* learning capacity! :-)
>Sorry, I don't see why the all parts of the stereotype
>should be upheld as good. Why should we view gay and
>lesbians stereotypes any differently from ethnic
>stereotypes?
We're faced again here with a breakdown of the distinction
between the behaviors and the attitudes about them. It isn't
the ethnic behaviors that are at fault.
More generally, we urgently need to free ourselves from the
notion that the oppressors are to some extent right when
they put us down because we're screaming queens or bull
dykes. Each of us needs to examine our own attitudes and
try to root out the negativity we've incorporated about
these behaviors. Even the old saw "Gay is good" derives
from that. Loathing and repugnance (homohatreds) are,
unfortunately, infectious, with a long latency period (note
well the word latency).
>>The real reason, I think, for celebrating and proudly
>>presenting the so-called stereotypes, is that it is
>>fundamentally radical and activist.
>On the other hand, one could view the stereotype as a
>conforming to mainstream society's negative expectations of
>gays and lesbians.
I think that's on the *same* hand; all the more reason
to celebrate fairydom.
<> What you give comes back in the same form. If you plant
<> barley, don't expect to harvest wheat. -- Rumi
--
Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin
Internet: ande...@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson
NeXTmail w/attachments: ande...@yak.macc.wisc.edu Bitnet: anderson@wiscmacc
Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888