That's fucking stupid

Posts Tagged ‘gay’

Oh noes! The American gay movement doesn’t like new Sacha Baron Cohen film Brüno because they claim it enforces gay stereotypes and will actually confirm and entrench the prejudices of those who think gays ought to die a fiery death morally object to man-love (because let’s face it, it’s never the lesbians people have problems with, is it?).

Maybe. But then what do you think these people do?

Scary Mary!

And these people:

Holy Homo, Batman!

And these people:

I don't even fucking know.

Why?

Quite frankly (and yes, for those of you who are interested, I am queer), they’re fookin’ wierd looking. Now, I’m a veteran of a fair few British Pride events; I’ve marshalled at a few, been in the parades of a few, and run a fetish stall at most. So I’m pretty broad minded and can appreciate, even embrace, the variety of the queer identity.  I love the identity in all its forms. But others don’t and no amount of wishful thinking is going to change that.

It isn’t films like Brüno that reinforce the stereotypes and prejudices of the homophobes out there; it isn’t even the sheer aggressiveness of the bolder elements of the queer identity; it’s the fact that this aggressive and colourful edge of homosexuality is the one that is most visible to society.  It’s the only slice of queer life that the homophobes see, because everyday, workaday gay couples living a life together in quiet harmony just isn’t exciting enough to be celebrated, apparently.

If all a born-again homophobe sees of the gay culture are examples such as the pictures above, is it any wonder they back away in horror? The only time they come into even remote contact with the queer lifestyle, they’re having sex, S&M and transvestism pushed in their faces.

Now I like all 3 of those things, but that doesn’t mean I want it (metaphorically) shoved down my throat. Brüno not only sends up the prejudices and outright nasty attitudes of homophobes in America, but also the prevailing attitudes of the queer community. We can be camp, gauche, shallow, effeminate, and obsess over our hair and nails. There are gay people out there who embody the character that Brüno mocks.

When Kathy Burke as Waynetta Slob declared that she wanted a brown baby just like all the other mums on the estate, was anyone up in arms at the implications of someone wanting a brown baby? No. Why? Because it was funny; it played off against the stereotypes of “broken” families with absent black fathers. It sent up the women idiotic enough to say “I want a brown baby”. It mocked the serious underlying political situation as much as it did the people causing it. That’s what satire is, people; at least try and remember that.

True, we’re not all like Brüno; but some of us are, and we’re fucking hilarious, quite frankly.

Oh, and see this site for genuine gayby accessories.  Brüno didn’t make it up – the gay community did, and Baron Cohen is sending us up.

Brüno just plays off an already-existing culture and vocabulary. So don’t blame a satire for poking fun at a culture already notorious for its camp, flamboyant, effeminate, gauche, appearance-obsessed members.

If you think that such stereotyping is harming the gay agenda (which as everyone knows is 1. be allowed to marry and 2. have fabulous hair), then take a good long look at the people in the queer community who are propagating such an image.

Blaming a film for an already existing culture is cowardly and pointless. Just because gays are in the news for gay marriage and gay adoption and general gay rights doesn’t give us automatic privilege to be offended just because someone makes a joke involving our lifestyle.

Relax, fellow gays – be fabulous.

Ah, the Independent. At once my news source of choice because it’s one of the last bastions of common sense thinking and simultaneously the producer of such stupid and silly articles as this one.

And I tell you what’s shocking: It’s not the conclusion that the scientists have reached – which is that a straight man who views a woman wearing a bikini as being a sexual object – bear in mind that this is the University of the Bleedin’ Obvious article – what is truly shocking is the incredible and unsubstantiated leap they make immediately afterwards:

When you have sexualised pictures of women in the workplace, it’s hard not to think of female colleague in those terms. It has a spill-over effect in how you perceive plausible women in the workplace and not treating them as agents but as independent people, and not seeing them as a means to an end.

Now let’s hang on a minute, there. There is a whole bucketload of difference between looking at a scantily-clad woman and flitting off into a sexual fantasy, and coming to the conclusion that the women you work with are only there to fulfil your sexual desires is as ridiculous as it is over-exaggerated. I believe that it does a great disservice to straight men everywhere, and I believe the Independent does itself a great disservice by putting such a sensationalist spin on the findings.

Just where is your proof, data or other such findings which lead you to such a conclusion? Oh, wait:

…that is the interpretation of the data we have so far. It is a preliminary study…

Exactly. So what you’ve done, and what the Independent has reported, is that men subjected to scantily clad women will see all other women as they see the scantily clad variety. Which is nonsense and apparently implies that most men aren’t capable of separating objectifying women in their minds and doing so in reality. Besides which, their test group was a grand total of 21 men. Out of a population of hundreds of thousands. Quite how do you expect your results to be valid or reliable?

In a nutshell, the Independent seems to claim that there are any man with normal, healthy sexual fantasies cannot separate that fantasy from reality; that they don’t see the difference between a sexual fantasy and the women they interact with in the real world; that because they see women in bikinis and think of sex, that they must automatically think of all women in this way.

Well that’s bollocks, quite frankly. I look at women in bikinis and think sexy thoughts – that’s just part of who I am. But I don’t immediately view every woman I encounter as no more than a sexual object for my own gratification. And I highly doubt that every man out there does what the study implies.

Plus, what the gibbering fuck is this about “sexual hostility”? It’s not hostile to think a woman is sexually attractive, any more than it is hostile to ask someone out on a date. As a woman, one does not have the right to feel “invaded” just because a man has expressed interest in her. She has the right to feel uncomfortable if he goes too far in his descriptions of how interested in her he is, but if a guy asks a woman out, that’s not hostile – that’s flattering, if his interest is genuine. I’ve been asked out by guys before, and whilst I don’t do guys at all (in any sense of the word), I’m not so self-absorbed or sufficiently up my own arse not to be flattered if a man asks me out. Nor am I threatened. This is the crux of the problem. Because there are men out there who prey on women – I won’t deny that, because there are, and they ought to be stopped – it seems to have given both population and press the freedom to look at all men as though they are sexually aggressive and likely to jump on and ravage you without a second’s thought.

And it puts men in a decidedly difficult position whereby even the most innocuous comment can be twisted, and he can be accused of being sexually aggressive or predatory at the drop of a hat. To all the men who’ve experienced this – it’s not right. To the women: if you treat a man like an animal, he’s going to behave like one. Try for a little dignity, a “thanks but no thanks” approach. Painting all men as sexual aggressors is going to bite you in the ass in the form of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Don’t then act surprised when someone acts the way you’re determined to treat them. Have some Common Fucking Sense.

When are the press going to learn that putting such a ridiculous spin on preliminary, unreliable and barely-quantifiable statistics is not going to solve anything? That turning every heterosexual man into a sexual predator for no reason other than to sell your newspaper is a discraceful, immoral act? That teaching women to fear heterosexual men because heterosexual men think of sex, is wrong? And combining this with reporting sex as something sordid, seedy and greasy only perpetuates the misinformed and harmful stereotypes that prevent a more integrated and mutually inclusive society?

For shame, you daft bastards.