the gay and the gaga

Everyone still talks about Glee. I decided to give it one more chance. A Lady Gaga chance. And it was so, sooooooo awful. So awful. And there wasn't any real Lady Gaga, so what was the point?

Two gay plots, both ridiculous and awful and really horribly offensive. Best line: "My dads can't sew; I really need a mom right now. Can you help?" What absolute bullshit. If the gay plots were decent, I'd be willing to let that go as character development of Rachel, but as it is? Jesus fucking Christ, no! *silent scream*

There was more than the bullshit regular Glee awfulness, though. It went beyond the terrible, unrepresentative gay representation and the pregnant girl who looks like she aborted 6 months ago even though that word will never pass through anyone's lips, ever, and Schuster taking on an inappropriate father's role in apparently all of their lives, and all that other normal Glee crap.

They decided to include this (no spoilers; 1.20):


At first, my inner femslasher squeed like mad -- Rachel's mommy is a lesbo and her dads are fags! How perfect! (While thinking: there's no way they did this on purpose, or it wouldn't be so understated and inoffensive.)

Then the newly reunited mother/daughter pair started singing together, looking deeply into each other's eyes, singing from the soul, and grinning goofily. Rachel even provides an O-face.

OBSCENE. My jaw was on the floor. Did the authors not realize that that particular song just screams "LESBIAN SEX!!!!"? (And the genetic sexual attraction bit makes it all the better....) The right fan communities (read: not like the 99% of Glee fans who are homophobes and don't even know it) must be having a field day with this.

reverse discrimination

I work with a scholarship committee. Recently there was some confusion regarding the barely-gendered language in one of the eligibility documents: the language seemed to indicate that men were eligible for a scholarship, but the scholarship was clearly intended by and for women. Someone else responded with an explanation for how it was phrased:

It was always the intention that the award(s) go to a female applicant(s). But back when we first starting administering the scholarship, the powers-to-be were afraid that making it a "females only" award might lead to some sort of legal proceeding against us, as a body or as individuals. So it was decided to make both females and males "eligible" with female applicants receiving preference. Some time later on, people wanted us to tip the scales in favor of female applicants studying [XXX]. So the maximum preference was always given to females studying [XXX]. We have never seriously considered male applicants studying [XXX].

Because having "females only" awards is so uncommon, and so very likely to induce a suit! If that's what really went down, it absolutely reeks of faith in the reality of reverse discrimination....

I see two possible explanations for the original committee's desire to publicly cast the award as open to everyone:

1. The committee was unable to distinguish between "appropriate" and "inappropriate" groups to institutionally advantage/give a chance to. (I find this unlikely since the categorization is so much a part of the fabric of our culture today; everyone can rattle off the common "protected" categories, regardless of their rhetorical purpose in doing so.)
2. The committee wanted to register a protest against (or at least was unwilling to kowtow to) affirmative action programs -- specifically against the idea that women must be explicitly advantaged in certain cases because men are unexplicitly advantaged in all cases. (This seems much more likely to me, but I'm not sure how to further unpack it except to say: ick.)
   

Their fear of being explicit with a "females only" requirement implies something else as well: The original committee believed there would be male applicants who were so entrenched in the idea that intending to fund only women is "reverse discrimination" that those applicants would actually bring a suit. That potential outcome never even crossed my mind (presumably because of the naturalness in my mind of supporting institutionally-disadvantaged groups in equally institutional ways). I think this given explanation is the most likely motivator for the current phrasing, but the reverse discrimination aspect is an interesting, more fundamental motivator.

I keep churning over this last aspect in particular in my mind.... Huh. Fascinating insights into the manifestations of socially conservative thinking.

can we stop desexualizing teh gheys yet?

I love Modern Family -- it's the best sitcom on TV right now by far. I don't think I've ever watched an episode where I didn't have to actually guffaw at something, and I've never, ever shouted at the TV or hit my couch in uber-frustration (unlike Glee, V, and all the rest).

The cherry on top is that two of the main characters are gay fathers (it's not why I order the dessert, but it makes the experience ever so more delightful). The show manages to give both men well-developed personalities, and it puts forward a very solid portrayal of the stereotypes that gay people/couples face without ever caving in to those stereotypes. I'm very happy with the show.

So, this was disappointing (8 seconds at end of episode 1.22; slight spoiler):



I don't blame ABC, not really, not after all they're giving me with this show. But it's kinda like the lasertag place -- a tragic flaw in the midst of something that could have been perfect. I'm just so grateful that anything exists that I'm willing to forgive that which under other, better circumstances would be unforgiveable.

Namely: the gay couple is sexless, not even allowed to kiss when deliberately set up in a precise visual and content parallel to the straight couple. The gay men's story revolves around their child and social life and work lives. The two straight couples, on the other hand, are characterized with references to sex with each other in addition to their lives -- this particular episode ends with references to "alone time" and a "topless beach" between one straight couple, and the previous episode had involved a flashy bra and "catching her in a good mood for Something Else" between the other straight couple.

Now, maybe I just can't remember the gay sex references right now.... But I'm pretty sure the gay in this show has been mostly neutralized to "flamboyantly happy", a "safe" characteristic that avoids the fact that not being straight is actually defined by who you want to have sex with. Damn white-washers. Accept the whole damn gay person. Don't focus only on the parts that have no bearing whatsoever on sexual desire (which is the category you problematized in the first place, Mr. Straight Person).

But hey, two steps forward, one step back is better than the reverse.

juxtaposition love!

God, how I love displays of conservative consumerism in the States: disrespect toward female sexual autonomy at the right hand of Christianity.


The best part of these displays? When you go to the register and buy the stuff they only ever intended for teh mens. Neutralizes some of the offensiveness that way, you know. (At least up until the high-water mark of a "free breast exams here" cap. Nothing can neutralize that one.)

trany plugs

I do not understand this sign:


I do not think it means the same thing in my world as in theirs.... In fact, I am not at all sure what it means in their world. (Any help for the weirded-out?)

so I wasn't really baited....

And I'm really loathe to drop lasertag from the "most recent post" position... But this may actually cause some eventual 'bating:

Is this garage hot, or what?

lasertag

So I went to lasertag recently and the place exhibited a really strange juxtaposition. It was crazy-inclusive, such that the header image on the website/the safety briefings/the paintings on the walls all featured people of all genders and colors and body types....

main banner on website

So yay, applause!

The scoreboard inside occasionally advertised "Ladies' Night" on Thursdays from 7-10 pm, with half price games for women. Again, yay, applause! They are encouraging and enabling women to run around and play with guns!

And then a few minutes later, I saw the fine print beneath the advert: "Ladies in groups not eligible."

WTF.

Skeeved. Out.

So now it all sorta comes off like ... some big trap. It seems just as predatory as ladies' nights at bars, which are designed to over-serve women and under-serve men (thereby facilitating impossibly-consensual sexual activities). The lasertag goal seems to be "increase the number of women without any support structure who come to a dark, male-dominated, testosterone-fueled environment, and make them feel comfortable in doing so, in such a way that the men know which day to go to have their choice of women to hit on."

I want to love this place, I really do, but, wow. With that one condition, they managed to twist all their fabulous female empowerment into male empowerment instead.