The Glee Gay agenda

Richard Dower

Kepp it off our screens Mr. Murphy....i know you're gay and all gay rights, but Glee is for entertainment, not pushing a personal agenda.

But i'm all for anti bullying as it effects alot of people.

Chuchoter

Whats this agenda? I'm gay, I obviously didn't get the memo.

SugarHigh

The same way male characters are over represented in films because the majority of directors and script writers are men I think gay people also get over represented. Every group of friends on tv seem to have a gay one.

Chuchoter

The rest of the group is made up straight people though don't forget....

The gay character within a show is generally celibate, an outsider and laughed at. Few shows will have them on the same level as everyone else.

SugarHigh

crayolastereo wrote: »

The rest of the group is made up straight people though don't forget....

The gay character within a show is generally celibate, an outsider and laughed at. Few shows will have them on the same level as everyone else.

In what way would they not be on the same level just because they get laughed at?

There is a tubby guy in our group if friends who get a crap lid of abuse but I don't anyone considers him below us.

Chuchoter

SugarHigh wrote: »

In what way would they not be on the same level just because they get laughed at?

There is a tubby guy in our group if friends who get a crap lid of abuse but I don't anyone considers him below us.

The token gay is generally like a pet poodle in many TV shows.

SugarHigh

crayolastereo wrote: »

The token gay is generally like a pet poodle in many TV shows.

I don't know what you mean?

Chuchoter

http://current.com/shows/infomania/92456745_thats-gay-salutes-sex-and-the-city-2.htm
http://current.com/shows/infomania/90152648_tvs-gay-friend-obsession.htm

If nothing else, he's funny, especially the second one.

SugarHigh

I don't see the bug deal if they want to rely on sterotypes, if they just wanted a non camp normal guy why not just use a straight guy. The default character for any tv show is an American White male the only reason to make them say Indian or gay is for cheap laughs or to tackle some over done issues about racism or homophobia.

Hollywood has no responsiblity to represent everyone. Hollywood is mostly American White makes so that's what you mostly see.

Chuchoter

I suppose you're right. I mean, when have stereotypical, demeaning portrayals of minorities ever done anything bad before?

Oh thats right. All through history.

http://black-face.com/
http://darrylhattenhauer.com/h8/19/index.htm

Th media wields a great power over our lives. If LGBT people were portrayed as people and not as caricatures on TV most of the time maybe we would live in a less homophobic environment. Take Family Guy for instance, a show incredibly popular among 13-18 year old boys, has some really incredibly homophobic and transphobic episodes. You think that has no effect?

hotmail.com

Richard Dower wrote: »

Kepp it off our screens Mr. Murphy....i know you're gay and all gay rights, but Glee is for entertainment, not pushing a personal agenda.

But i'm all for anti bullying as it effects alot of people.

Do you have issues with homosexuality or homosexuality on the television?

Most of the audience of Glee couldn't care less that there's gay characters.

Anyway, what's a person watching one of the campest programmes in tv history if you don't want to see gay people in it?

*I'm not sure if the OP is just trolling because it just seems so unbelivably stupid.

hotmail.com

SugarHigh wrote: »

The same way male characters are over represented in films because the majority of directors and script writers are men I think gay people also get over represented. Every group of friends on tv seem to have a gay one.

Welcome to 1993.

I think straight white people are over represented as well in films.

SugarHigh

crayolastereo wrote: »

You think that has no effect?

The effect it has is of absolutely no concern to me. If gay people don't like how they are portrayed then how about they step up and start making films themselves... Oh wait they do "sex and the city 2". I don't see why it should be a straight White males task to make sure gay people come across well on tv. The same way they don't put any effort into promoting Yemen, why the fûck would they?

SugarHigh

hotmail.com wrote: »

Welcome to 1993.

I think straight white people are over represented as well in films.

And why is that?

Has it anything to do with fact it's straight White males making all these films?

Straight White males dominate almost everything, why should they feel guilty about it and help anyone else up?

Chuchoter

SugarHigh wrote: »

The effect it has is of absolutely no concern to me. If gay people don't like how they are portrayed then how about they step up and start making films themselves... Oh wait they do "sex and the city 2". I don't see why it should be a straight White males task to make sure gay people come across well on tv. The same way they don't put any effort into promoting Yemen, why the fûck would they?

Because they have power of hundreds of millions of people and they are responsible for the values they instill. Also, there are hundreds of gay films which are incredibly good, accurate portrayals of life as a gay person. But they don't have the money or the social standing of straight white man, so no-one cares. The same thing happens to women, our stories are irrelevant. Look up the bechdel test. Very few things pass it.

Would it be alright with you if black-face cartoons came back? I mean, straight white male isn't affected, so why should anyone care?

Zillah

Richard Dower wrote: »

Kepp it off our screens Mr. Murphy....i know you're gay and all gay rights, but Glee is for entertainment, not pushing a personal agenda.

Yeah! In entertainment shows we should...er...pretend that gay people don't exist?

SugarHigh

crayolastereo wrote: »

Because they have power of hundreds of millions of people and they are responsible for the values they instill. Also, there are hundreds of gay films which are incredibly good, accurate portrayals of life as a gay person. But they don't have the money or the social standing of straight white man, so no-one cares. The same thing happens to women, our stories are irrelevant. Look up the bechdel test. Very few things pass it.

Would it be alright with you if black-face cartoons came back? I mean, straight white male isn't affected, so why should anyone care?

Why do they have this power over sonmany people? Because they Fûcking earned it. Your point about gay films not making any money just gives a good reason to not make gay films, why would a business lose money on purpose just to make some gay people happy?

I couldn't care less if blackface cartoons came back and I couldn't care if someone made a film about young Irish males being morons, why shouldn't people have the right to make what they want just because it doesn't suit me?

_Whimsical_

Richard Dower wrote: »

Kepp it off our screens Mr. Murphy....i know you're gay and all gay rights, but Glee is for entertainment, not pushing a personal agenda.

But i'm all for anti bullying as it effects alot of people.

Why do think theres specifically a gay agenda? I watch Glee I have never thought there was any gay agenda at play. I think the shows greatest strength is that includes such a variety of characters. Is having Artie in it pushing a disabled related agenda?

As for it pushing sterotypes it's a TV comedy about high school sterotypes! Despite Glees characterisation we all know that all blondes aren't bimbos and sluts, all brunettes aren't uptight and nerdy, all fat black girls aren't full of full of gusto,down to earth divas and that equally all gays aren't camp. Every character in it is a stereotype that is exagerated for dramatic effect.
Kirk is actually my favourite character. They show he's alot deeper than the front he puts on.

SugarHigh wrote: »

And why is that?

Has it anything to do with fact it's straight White males making all these films?

Straight White males dominate almost everything, why should they feel guilty about it and help anyone else up?

God, please rethink this. If this attitude prevailed we'd all still be living in the 1950s.

hotmail.com

SugarHigh wrote: »

And why is that?

Has it anything to do with fact it's straight White males making all these films?

Straight White males dominate almost everything, why should they feel guilty about it and help anyone else up?

I think you're missing the point.

Chuchoter

SugarHigh wrote: »

Why do they have this power over sonmany people? Because they Fûcking earned it. Your point about gay films not making any money just gives a good reason to not make gay films, why would a business lose money on purpose just to make some gay people happy?

I couldn't care less if blackface cartoons came back and I couldn't care if someone made a film about young Irish males being morons, why shouldn't people have the right to make what they want just because it doesn't suit me?

Yes. Straight white man fought for his privileges. He's had such a hard time throughout history, people depriving him of his freedom/suffrage/education/talents/so on and so forth because of his gender,race or sexuality. You just keep telling yourself he 'earned' those privileges.

Representation matters. If you were nowhere/constantly ridiculed in the force that dictates what is acceptable and what was not, you would care too. Media has been used as a weapon all throughout history, so if its being used to attack people, yes it DOES matter if it doesn't suit me.

SugarHigh

crayolastereo wrote: »

Yes. Straight white man fought for his privileges. He's had such a hard time throughout history, people depriving him of his freedom/suffrage/education/talents/so on and so forth because of his gender,race or sexuality. You just keep telling yourself he 'earned' those privileges.

Representation matters. If you were nowhere/constantly ridiculed in the force that dictates what is acceptable and what was not, you would care too. Media has been used as a weapon all throughout history, so if its being used to attack people, yes it DOES matter if it doesn't suit me.

Lol were did I say white males were ever persecuted?

if its being used to attack people, yes it DOES matter if it doesn't suit me

It's up to you to make a counter movie, not to censor someone else's views.

SugarHigh

If someone wanted to make a racist movie why shouldn't they be able to?
It probably wouldn't make them any money but why should there views be censored just because you agree with them?

On the same side if people don't want to make films about gay characters why should they be forced to just because you want them to?

Chuchoter

SugarHigh wrote: »

Lol were did I say white males were ever persecuted?

You said they earned their privileges, they didn't. They are the least prejudiced against group we have going. They were all born with silver spoons.

It's up to you to make a counter movie, not to censor someone else's views.

You can make as many counter movies as you want. I can't fight giant multi-million dollar international movie or tv show. You need money and power before anyone will listen to you. So we rely on the majority to at least attempt to play ball.

If someone wanted to make a racist movie why shouldn't they be able to?

Rwandan Genocide and the holocaust are the two examples that come to mind when I think of reasons not to allow racism in the media.

It probably wouldn't make them any money but why should there views be censored just because you agree with them?

Because my views generally don't involve hating people. I don't care if we disagree, if you can back up your points with logical, non-inflammatory arguments you can say whatever you want.

On the same side if people don't want to make films about gay characters why should they be forced to just because you want them to?

I'm not forcing anyone to make films. I'm asking for them not to lie about a group of millions.

SugarHigh

A great film was actually released this year "The Kids Are All Right" it shows a lesbian couple just a regular everyday couple no stereotypes or gimmicks. It was made simply because that's the film they wanted to make it didn't have an agenda. I have no problem with people making films about gay people I just see why people should feel obligated to throw in a gay character if that's not how they wanted the story to be told.

jill_valentine

Sugarhigh, have you ever actually seen this show or are you just trying to find a way to -ironically enough - push your agenda?

Your arguments don't make much sense in relation to this show, and you're not really getting the points other people are making at all.

SugarHigh

crayolastereo wrote: »

You said they earned their privileges, they didn't. They are the least prejudiced against group we have going. They were all born with silver spoons.

If white people didn't earn their place on the top then how the fúck did they get there?

So we rely on the majority to at least attempt to play ball.

Why should the majority have to play ball with your agenda? If they don't want to watch gay movies then that's really tough **** for you isn't it?

Say I really like fish flavored ice cream but the local ice cream man doesn't sell it, should he be forced to cater to me and supply a product that no one else wants and will just lose him money?

If I want to set up my own business then fair enough but why she he be obliged to serve me?

Hollywood is a business their only obligations are to their shareholders not to make gay people more secure about sexuality by reaffirming to them that there are others like them.

pwd

crayolastereo wrote: »

I suppose you're right. I mean, when have stereotypical, demeaning portrayals of minorities ever done anything bad before?

Oh thats right. All through history.

http://black-face.com/
http://darrylhattenhauer.com/h8/19/index.htm

Th media wields a great power over our lives. If LGBT people were portrayed as people and not as caricatures on TV most of the time maybe we would live in a less homophobic environment. Take Family Guy for instance, a show incredibly popular among 13-18 year old boys, has some really incredibly homophobic and transphobic episodes. You think that has no effect?

Family Guy takes the p!ss out of everything though. Do you think it's making lots of teenage boys anti-Jewish, anti-fat, anti-English, anti-Irish, anti-black, anti-rich, anti-poor...anti-everything really..?

Nobody could be imbued with racist or nationalist sentiment by family guy because it makes fun of everything in an obviously completely OTT manner.

jill_valentine

SugarHigh wrote: »

If white people didn't earn their place on the top then how the fúck did they get there?

Quoting this for posterity. Let's all just take a moment to enjoy it.

Chuchoter

SugarHigh wrote: »

If white people didn't earn their place on the top then how the fúck did they get there?

Why should the majority have to play ball with your agenda? If they don't want to watch gay movies then that's really tough **** for you isn't it?

Say I really like fish flavored ice cream but the local ice cream man doesn't sell it, should he be forced to cater to me and supply a product that no one else wants and will just lose him money?

If I want to set up my own business then fair enough but why she he be obliged to serve me?

Hollywood is a business their only obligations are to their shareholders not to make gay people more secure about sexuality by reaffirming to them that there are others like them.

Wow. Just wow.

SugarHigh

jill_valentine wrote: »

Sugarhigh, have you ever actually seen this show or are you just trying to find a way to -ironically enough - push your agenda?

Your arguments don't make much sense in relation to this show, and you're not really getting the points other people are making at all.

My only agenda is that Business be allowed to produce what the consumer wants. If there is a big enough demand for normal gay characters then fair enough but why should they have to throw them in just to suit you?

Say I'm a massive fan of tiddlywinks then should they have to make a film to suit me?

I agree that the perceptions of gay people given off by movies can be damaging but I just don't see how that's Hollywood's problem or why they should give a ****.

SugarHigh

crayolastereo wrote: »

Wow. Just wow.

Seriously answer the question?

Most of the important people in history are white men and to the ones that aren't well fair play to them they earned their right in history as well. Fill me in on the controversial bit?

SugarHigh

jill_valentine wrote: »

Quoting this for posterity. Let's all just take a moment to enjoy it.

So are you disagreeing that throughout history white males have been on top and even today are the most privileged in the world?

If I say America is better and more influential than Yemen is that also controversial?

Chuchoter

pwd wrote: »

Family Guy takes the p!ss out of everything though. Do you think it's making lots of teenage boys anti-Jewish, anti-fat, anti-English, anti-Irish, anti-black, anti-rich, anti-poor...anti-everything really..?

Nobody could be imbued with racist or nationalist sentiment by family guy because it makes fun of everything in an obviously completely OTT manner.

I accept that, however I don't know if you've seen the episode of Family Guy where Quagmires dad came out as trans. The entire episode was literally holy **** transpeople are the most disgusting creatures to ever walk the earth. It was truly shocking, none of it was funny, and I'm saying that as a fan of the show. They know they wield massive power over teenage boys, and they use that power to say that kind of thing in such a way that it wasn't even ironic or funny.

SugarHigh

crayolastereo wrote: »

Because my views generally don't involve hating people. I don't care if we disagree, if you can back up your points with logical, non-inflammatory arguments you can say whatever you want.

I'm not forcing anyone to make films. I'm asking for them not to lie about a group of millions.

Why should anyone else give a crap about your requirements?

So if I want to make where that states space monkeys came down and built the pyramids I'm not allowed to because you decided so?

You seem to be of the opinion that I want homophobic films to be made, that isn't true I just think people should be allowed to make whatever films they want and not have to conform to criteria set out by you?

Why should you decide?

Chuchoter

SugarHigh wrote: »

Seriously answer the question?

Most of the important people in history are white men and to the ones that aren't well fair play to them they earned their right in history as well. Fill me in on the controversial bit?

Wouldn't be anything to do with the reducing of women to property, removing their status as human beings? Maybe a religion run by white men saying gay people are monstrosities for the last few hundred years? Maybe white men waltzing into countries they never belonged in, infecting the half the country with European diseases and attacking all the rest with weapons? That might have something to do with it.

Also, I don't set the requirements. Civilized society sets them.

ixoy

SugarHigh wrote: »

My only agenda is that Business be allowed to produce what the consumer wants. If there is a big enough demand for normal gay characters then fair enough but why should they have to throw them in just to suit you?

I'm confused now - clearly not many, bar a couple here, has problems with "Glee" producing a gay character and some gay topics. They're not there then to suit everyone - they're just there. Or should every group be assigned equally demographically?

I agree that the perceptions of gay people given off by movies can be damaging but I just don't see how that's Hollywood's problem or why they should give a ****.

Not every single aspect about Hollywood is money in the end. There is some room for creativity and being able to express a viewpoint too.

SugarHigh

jill_valentine wrote: »

Sugarhigh, have you ever actually seen this show or are you just trying to find a way to -ironically enough - push your agenda?

Your arguments don't make much sense in relation to this show, and you're not really getting the points other people are making at all.

I actually forgot to answer this question, yes I've seen glee but only the first few episodes.

Your arguments don't make much sense in relation to this show, and you're not really getting the points other people are making at all.

I genuinely can see where other people are coming from. A film that portrays gays in a bad light can have negative consequences for them. Crayola would watch that film, get offended and demand it be banned. I'd watch the film and think "wow that was a pile of ****" but I wouldn't have the cheek to tell someone they can't make a film because it didn't conform to my taste.

Chuchoter

SugarHigh wrote: »

I actually forgot to answer this question, yes I've seen glee but only the first few episodes.

I genuinely can see where other people are coming from. A film that portrays gays in a bad light can have negative consequences for them. Crayola would watch that film, get offended and demand it be banned. I'd watch the film and think "wow that was a pile of ****" but I wouldn't have the cheek to tell someone they can't make a film because it didn't conform to my taste.

If you were gay, and they made a film about killing gay people and everyone loved it, would you be worried too?

You obviously have never seen an image of yourself attacked in front of millions and everyone laughs.

Nevyn

hotmail.com wrote: »

I think you're missing the point.

They do that a lot, it's called shít string, I would suggest that people just report the posts and dont' feed the troll.

Given the big push in parts of media in the usa with the it gets better campaign and the recent stats on gay teens killing themselves I can understand the show focusing on this story. Sure last season there was heaps about one of the most common hetro storylines the expected teen pregnancy.

super_furry

There are gay people involved in musicals?!?!?!?

SugarHigh

ixoy wrote: »

I'm confused now - clearly not many, bar a couple here, has problems with "Glee" producing a gay character and some gay topics. They're not there then to suit everyone - they're just there. Or should every group be assigned equally demographically?


Not every single aspect about Hollywood is money in the end. There is some room for creativity and being able to express a viewpoint too.

I'm confused now - clearly not many, bar a couple here, has problems with "Glee" producing a gay character and some gay topics. They're not there then to suit everyone - they're just there. Or should every group be assigned equally demographically?

I don't have a problem with Glee having gay characters and no I don't think every demographic has to be assigned equally that is actually the point I'm trying to make. Demographics only have to be assigned based on what the people who actually make the show decide because why should I tell them what sexuality their characters should be?

Not every single aspect about Hollywood is money in the end. There is some room for creativity and being able to express a viewpoint too.

Yea fair enough but if those creating the movies decide not to include gay characters then it's up to them? Why should they be forced to include a certain type of gay character just because crayola says so?
They should be allowed to make whatever film they want.

SugarHigh

crayolastereo wrote: »

If you were gay, and they made a film about killing gay people and everyone loved it, would you be worried too?

You obviously have never seen an image of yourself attacked in front of millions and everyone laughs.

Yes I'd **** bricks actually. This still doesn't change the fact it really shouldn't be up to me if they make that film or not.

muffy

SugarHigh wrote: »

My only agenda is that Business be allowed to produce what the consumer wants. If there is a big enough demand for normal gay characters then fair enough but why should they have to throw them in just to suit you?

Say I'm a massive fan of tiddlywinks then should they have to make a film to suit me?

I agree that the perceptions of gay people given off by movies can be damaging but I just don't see how that's Hollywood's problem or why they should give a ****.

Educate yourself:

http://www.theory.org.uk/ctr-rol6.htm


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Hall_%28cultural_theorist%29



also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_hegemony#Cultural_Hegemony:_Gramsci.E2.80.99s_theory

Chuchoter

SugarHigh wrote: »

I don't have a problem with Glee having gay characters and no I don't think every demographic has to be assigned equally that is actually the point I'm trying to make. Demographics only have to be assigned based on what the people who actually make the show decide because why should I tell them what sexuality their characters should be?
Yea fair enough but if those creating the movies decide not to include gay characters then it's up to them? Why should they be forced to include a certain type of gay character just because crayola says so?
They should be allowed to make whatever film they want.

Why do you have such a problem with putting LGBT characters in a few films? Why is that so offensive?

Yes I'd **** bricks actually. This still doesn't change the fact it really shouldn't be up to me if they make that film or not.

I'm tempted to quote first they came at you.

ixoy

SugarHigh wrote: »

Yea fair enough but if those creating the movies decide not to include gay characters then it's up to them? Why should they be forced to include a certain type of gay character just because crayola says so?
They should be allowed to make whatever film they want.

Where is anyone demanding gay characters in every piece of entertainment? Nobody's asking for that here. I long for the time when the character's sexuality in a show isn't such a focal point.

SugarHigh

crayolastereo wrote: »

Why do you have such a problem with putting LGBT characters in a few films? Why is that so offensive?

Christ did you even read any of my posts?

I don't have a problem with gay characters in films in fact in every film released for the next ten years only had gay characters I would not give a ****. My problem is that you are trying to tell people how they should be making there films.

Like I already said one of the best films of the year was "The Kids Are All Right"

SugarHigh

ixoy wrote: »

Where is anyone demanding gay characters in every piece of entertainment? Nobody's asking for that here. I long for the time when the character's sexuality in a show isn't such a focal point.

I never said they were?

All I'm saying is that people who don't make films should have no say in how other people decide to make theirs.

muffy

I've written a small bit about this in college, in my opinion, Glee is completely subversive in its use of stereotypes. Almost every character in that show is an extreme for a stereotype- let's look at Rachel for example:
Prissy Jewish Princess, the adopted daughter of two gay dads, who dreams of being big Broadway star. She's about 10 stereotypes in one! Then there is Mercedes, the larger black girl with the big voice, diva attitude and blinging name. Puck, alpha-male, Brittany, idiot cheerleader. The Glee Club is in fact a collection of "tokens"- token jocks, token wheelchair user, token gay kid. All they have in common IS Glee Club. What it does show is that these extremely stereotypical characters can in fact work together in a cohesive group. I love Glee for its utter over the top-ness, the stereotyping actaully brings out the characters' and the storylines best in terms of comedy and occasionally, drama. The characters are dangerously stereotypical though, in my opinion.

SugarHigh

muffy wrote: »

I've written a small bit about this in college, in my opinion, Glee is completely subversive in its use of stereotypes. Almost every character in that show is an extreme for a stereotype- let's look at Rachel for example:
Prissy Jewish Princess, the adopted daughter of two gay dads, who dreams of being big Broadway star. She's about 10 stereotypes in one! Then there is Mercedes, the larger black girl with the big voice, diva attitude and blinging name. Puck, alpha-male, Brittany, idiot cheerleader. The Glee Club is in fact a collection of "tokens"- token jocks, token wheelchair user, token gay kid. All they have in common IS Glee Club. What it does show is that these extremely stereotypical characters can in fact work together in a cohesive group. I love Glee for its utter over the top-ness, the stereotyping actaully brings out the characters' and the storylines best in terms of comedy and occasionally, drama. The characters are dangerously stereotypical though, in my opinion.

If crayola had her way she probably would have axed half of those characters, because you know it should be up to her what everyone else watches.:D

Chuchoter

Captain Backtrack backtracks on his argument.

You're original argument was that straight white men shouldn't care/make films about anyone other than themselves because they are in the majority and said that this action did not affect anyone. Now you are saying that you don't care as long as long as no-one is forcing anyone to do anything, implying that we are forcing people do to things. In your very next post you say you never said we wanted people to put LGBT characters in everything, but you put forward the fish ice-cream thing! We're not asking for everyone to sell fish ice-cream, you said that!

Also I have said several times in other threads that Kurt is a stereotypical character, but he is considerably better than most out there.

muffy

SugarHigh wrote: »

If crayola had her way she probably would have axed half of those characters, because you know it should be up to her what everyone else watches.:D

I think you might have completely missed my point.
Have you read any of the links I suggested to you on the previous page?