Double standards...

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The View Askew WWWBoard ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by TPS_report at on August 07, 2001 at 15:18:00:

In Reply to: My impression of GLAAD's letter to Kevin was... posted by Isis on August 07, 2001 at 11:46:57:

But isnít the point to change societal behaviors? If the end goal of GLAAD is to have gays and lesbians accepted into mainstream society without prejudice, then why wouldn't they target the biggest audience with arguably the more homophobic audience?

Intellectual, liberal and artistic status(es? i? what is the plural?) should not enter into the equation of who is publicly reprimanded for gaybashing. Something is or is not bigoted, and does or does not promote fear and anger against homosexuals. WHO is saying it is not really germane to the situation, is it? -should it be? Are the producers of RH2 to be excused because they produce fluff and Kevin punished because he "should know better"?

I believe that discrimination because of race, sexual preference or gender is the product of ignorance and fear. How does GLAAD (or anyone) reckon that censuring an ally is reducing fear, ignorance or discrimination?

The point I'm trying to make is that if the REAL goal is love for all, and an end to "defamation" than why pick on a friend? Discussion of Gays and gay lifestyles is a GOOD thing- even for young male testosterone-driven frat boys. Implying that "gay" is bad is not a good thing, but it is far better than implying violence against someone who is perceived as gay.

"nothing but love for ya baby"

: That they were not concerned about a single joke (and his other films have contained plenty of "gay" remarks here and there) but the general, overall use of homophobic language that carries throughout the film.

: I'm feeling that they don't care to spend too much time and energy calling attention to a single joke within a big film (and there are plenty of jokes/pieces of action in pretty much every major film that could be considered homophobic) than the consistent and repeated use of the word "gay" to mean bad throughout J&SBSB.

: In other words I think it's a matter of context.

: Also, wouldn't GLAAD be considered MORE money-grubbing and target-seeking if they went after the larger, bigger-budgeted picture than the one they feel will do more overall harm? What's wrong with them paying attention to the people they feel are intelligent and sympathetic to their cause? I don't come here for the benefit of Stormin' Norman, there are some things that are a waste of time.

: Rush Hour 2 is a stupid movie made by stupid people, with a single homophobic joke in it. I may be going way out on a limb but I'll warrant there is more than one gay joke in J&SBSB. Kevin is many things, but he ain't stupid, and I think the point of GLAAD directing its attention to him is to try to combat the notion that just because a writer happens to be smart and satirical and liberal, it doesn't exempt him from the same responsibilities everyone else has. It gives him more responsibility in my book but perhaps I'm attributing too much. I don't know, I'm not trying to throw stones, I'm just pointing out a certain perspective.

: -- i

: : Isis, I generally love your posts, but you are WEAAAY off the mark on this one.

: : IF the real goal of GLAAD is to improve the media treatment given to homosexuals, then why would JSBSB be a bigger "target" than Rush Hour 2? Why target a film by an openly pro-gay filmmaker that should gross about 50-60 million dollars when Rush Hour 2 is prolly gonna do twice that? As far as visibility is concerned, wouldn't it make sense to go after the bigger picture?

: : Is it about words? Using the word "gay" and euphemisms to that effect to denote something that's *ahem* less-than-desirable is not really progressive, but Homophobic behaviour that threatens violence against a gay man being close- as if the "gayness" will rub off- is Neanderthal and really offensive.

: : : Firstly, Rush Hour 2 isn't being marketed (somewhat) exclusively to teen males.

: : Who else watches Jackie Chan Movies? 45-60 year old Females? This comment is ludicrous.

: : : Secondly, I do think that GLAAD has approved of Kevin's shit in the past even when there were gay jokes or whatever in it. Seomin doesn't think he's actually homophobic. I think they see the larger amount of "gay" comments in J&SBSB as disappointing.

: : -And what better way to show your disappointment than to attempt to publicly censure a supporter of the cause you represent? If Mr. Seomin is convinced that Kevin Smith is NOT a homophobe then WHY is he publicly attacking his film?

: : : I mean, what do you expect from the shmuck(s) who wrote/directed Rush Hour 2, that classic gem? For better or worse Kevin has created higher expectations for himself; it may not be fair when he gets the short end of the stick but no one complains when he gets positive attention.

: : "Higher expectations" my ass. You are implying that his crime is to be first a supporter of gays and lesbians, and then to use non-approved terms to refer to them? Does his support of the gay community make him more culpable for a perceived slight now? The Kev-Meister took PLENTY of shit for Chasing Amy from ALL sides.

: : : I do see your point however; "Rush Hour 2" just isn't as hot of a target.

: : No, it ISN'T as "hot" a target, and I'll tell you the REAL reason why J&SBSB is the target and Rush Hour 2 is not. Kevin is a smart, liberal filmmaker with a reputation for making thought-provoking films (that prominently feature dick and fart jokes). He A) cares about gays and how he is perceived by the gay community and B) is catholic enough to publicly "blink" in self doubt in the face of a public staring contest re: his support for gays and lesbians.

: : Rush Hour 2 is NOT thought provoking and is geared for anyone who wants an entertaining, violent 90 minutes of no-brain-required "fun". J&SBSB may also fit this mold, but Kevin has a cadre of movies that do not. Does that make RH2 less homophobic or less offensive? If you have a shred of intellectual honesty the answer must be a resounding "no".

: : Let's call a spade a spade and admit that GLAAD has a political agenda to advance as well as financial motives to enhance, and it seems willing to "eat one of it's own" to get attention and money.

: : I LIKE gay people (although that's like saying I like Canadians, it's a broad, sweeping generality with a basis only in the few that I've known). The agenda and political clout held by the groups that proport to support them scares me. I swear to god I'm frightened of ANY political group of more than 2 people. Agendas are terrifying things requiring the occasional human sacrifice to advance. Ergo, Kevin under the wheels of the bus.

: : --Ben
: : "I hope some day you'll join us, and the world will live as one"

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The View Askew WWWBoard ] [ FAQ ]