Some are asking why the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) is targeting gay (and white) comedian/drag performer Charles Knipp, who performs as a black woman on welfare, with too many kids, named Shirley Q. Liquor. Here's Shirley's take on Kwaanza, and here's her skewed commentary on "homosexicals."
Knipp also portrays other large female characters with irreverence, including North Dakota Marge and Betty Butterfield.
The Washington Blade reports that GLAAD's critics, including some still upset over the organization's silence during last year's congressional page scandal (when those making partisan hay over GOP Rep. Mark Foley's interest in former teenage congressional pages freely invoked stereotypes that confused homosexuality and pedophilia), have called into question GLAAD's targeting of Knipp. However:
"We very clearly recognized," [GLAAD head Neil Giuliano] said, "that what we were doing in that case was standing with those organizations and individuals in the African-American community that asked us to take a stand against that racism."...
Giuliano said GLAAD took action this month against the Shirley Q. Liquor routine-an act that's been running for years-partly because he and other gay leaders recently attended a seminar on racism. "The outcome of which made me much more sensitive to when there is an opportunity to stand up against racism, it's important to do so," he said, "even when it may not be the core scope of your work day in and day out."
One can certainly argue whether Knipp's routine is "racist" or whether certain underclass cultural dysfunctions are a fair target for comedy. One might also raise the issue of whether when black comedians Tyler Perry or the often homophobic Eddie Murphy dress up as large black women this, too, is "defamatory." But the larger issue is that GLAAD seems to think that it needs to score points with fellow progressives by using its limited time and resources to attack gays for being "racist," rather than, oh, say, maybe for instance, taking on homophobia in the African-American community (which would, no doubt, run the risk of those progressives labeling GLAAD as "racist").
53 Comments for “GLAAD’s Very Racially Sensitive Mission Creep.”
posted by Carl on
-One can certainly argue whether Knipp’s routine is “racist” or whether certain underclass cultural dysfunctions are a fair target for comedy.-
In 2007, I don’t think white people wearing blackface and doing what they think is an impersonation of a black woman is all that justifiable. If gays are going to complain about homophobia in comedy (and there is plenty of it, which sadly we often give a free pass to), then we shouldn’t condone Knipp. Like it or not, there is a difference when a black man makes fun of his race and a white man makes fun of blacks. Just as there’s a difference when a gay man makes fun of gays.
I don’t see the big deal here. I may or may not agree with GLAAD getting involved in this, but it’s not like they are going on an expensive campaign against Knipp. They issued a press release. This isn’t wasting their time or resources. If they want to put down someone who embarrasses the gay community and makes gays look like racists, then I won’t complain. That’s more proactive than yet another awards show dinner.
I also find it kind of hilarious that for all this talk of GLAAD being too progressive or liberal or PC or whatever else, they are run by a lifelong Republican, Neil Guillano.
posted by James on
Wait a minute here! I thought “fem” was “gay!” I thought we had to support everyone who dresses in drag! I thought the gay community included the fem/drag community! What’s up?
Or, could it be–
Gay is not fem.
Gay is not drag.
Gay is not fem.
Gay is not drag.
If I don’t have to like these guys when they dress up as women and do outrageous things because I think it’s destructive to society, why do I have to like anyone who does it? Hmmm?
Why is drag/fem bad in this case but good in Pride parades?
posted by Casey on
Because, James, you don’t have to like it – but you should like the fact that they have the freedom to do so. If somebody is free to behave in ways you consider outrageous, then you are free to behave basically however you would want. Besides, I’ve never yet understood what exactly is considered so dangerous about laughter – as a woman, sometimes I find drag to be insightful of how women are perceived, and our particular idiosyncracies, and I’d imagine that men could find similar insights if they so desired. How better to understand the self than to attempt to be the other? It’s part of the examined life, and while some drag may just be irritating and stupid, I’m not about to say it should be ended because I may not always see the value in it.
posted by John on
James makes a good point without sounding like a hateful bigot. I’m pleasantly suprised and hope to see more of this constructive posting style. /clap!
posted by Ray on
I laughed my head off at the Kwaanza routine. I thank the pc bluenoses at GLAAD for directing my attention to Knipp.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Because gay leftists are hypocritical, James.
If you aren’t allowed to make fun of a race different than yours, then I expect that people would be screaming bloody murder over movies like White Chicks…..and yet, they are not.
What this boils down to is black racists figuring out how much power is to be gained by manipulating white liberal guilt…..and then doing so.
Such as Jasmyne Cannick, who actually started this whole bitching fest over Shirley Q. Liquor, who, as it turns out, is not only a pissed-off former GLAAD employee, but, if you look at the sidebar, is the LA media consultant for the Reverend Jesse Jackson, Jr., and an official blogger for the Stonewall Democrats.
But if you look, none of those people, or even any gay organizations, had anything to say about Louis Farrakhan’s lovely remarks last March, or the fact that his Minister of Protocol refused to disown or disagree with them marks, or that said Minister of Protocol was a Democrat appointee to the Illinois State anti-discrimination panel — because, well, you know, even though these people are vehemently anti-gay, against interracial mixing, and proponents of black separatism, they also control an immense amount of votes in Chicago and in other black communities, and their support is necessary to get Democrats elected, especially Barack Obama and Jesse Jackson, Jr., so………
And where was GLAAD? Oh, that’s right, throwing a hissy fit because Brokeback Mountain didn’t win the right Oscar.
And as for Neil Giuliano, I frankly have no idea what he’s smoking — although my guess is that he’s finally come to the realization that gay organizations that prioritize gay issues over being money-laundering and free publicity organizations for Democrat causes are unfunded and mocked gay organizations.
posted by James on
What it comes down to is this–if a comedian dresses up in drag so he can make outrageous statements and shock us with amoral, flamboyant behavior which attempts to overthrow entrenched stereotypes, we are supposed to be ANGRY.
If a gay man dresses up in drag so he can make outrageous statements and shock us with amoral and flamboyant behavior which attempts to overthrow entrenched stereotypes, we are supposed to be EMPOWERED.
For comedians, fem/drag is a CHOICE. For gays, fem/drag is GENETIC and IMMUTABLE.
RuPaul is a genius. Tyler Perry is a bigot. Jake Shears is a model human being. Eddie Murphy is a homophobe.
I think I get it. I’m supposed to like and support fem/drag except when I’m not supposed to.
I’m not talking about taking away anyone’s freedom. Go ahead, do what you want, and I’ll be over here, avoiding you. I don’t wish anyone any harm–I just want the freedom not to hang around you if I don’t like you.
I want to support gay men’s right to marry and adopt children, and to have lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships honored by society at large. That’s it. I don’t want to offer any support to the drag/fem movement, whether straight or gay. Nor do I support gays (or straights) in non-traditional or open relationships.
Gay is not fem.
Gay is not drag.
Gay is not open relationships.
Gay is not AIDS.
Gay is not meth.
Gay is men who are attracted to other men, and the best form of sexual expression for a gay man is in a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship.
If you think the fem/drag behavior in the above article is damaging to society, why don’t you condemn the same behavior in the gay community, when it is clear that behavior is creating a backlash that limits our ability to get married and adopt children?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I would probably express it like this, James.
Part of that backlash is due to people who just plain don’t like gays. That is something we can’t control, nor should we try to control.
Meanwhile, there are several drag performers — here in San Francisco, Donna Sachet comes immediately to mind — who are classy, talented performers and do drag because it’s an art form. I have no qualms whatsoever about sending people to things like Harry Denton’s Starlight Room, because it’s fun and tastefully-done — and by being so, creates an enormous amount of goodwill for our community.
However, on the flip side of that, there are also far too many drag performers whose whole point is to shock people and to stick fingers into eyes. To a great extent, those are the people who man the pride parades in drag fishnet outfits, etc.; they care less about the performance than they do getting a rise out of others.
Unfortunately, the toxic mix of the first and last is what creates our problem — and it IS a problem, because we have not been good about dealing with those who do use Pride and other events as their chance to piss off straight people, and hide shock routines under the guise of “showing all aspects of the community”.
Meanwhile, people like Donna, who NEVER appears in public in anything that isn’t classy or professional (or, at least, as professional as drag queens get), get tarred with the same bad brush as the shock artists who deserve it.
So there are three ways to deal with it.
1. Ignore the people who hate gays and can find fault with anything we do
2. Support the performers like Donna who understand the responsibility of being a very visible part of our public image and act accordingly
3. Let the others know that they are as free to “artistically express” themselves as they wish — in someone else’s name, not ours.
The third is the biggest issue. I’m all for inclusion and diversity, but there are people out there who frankly are using our good name as an excuse for antisocial behavior — and it needs to stop, NOW.
posted by thom on
I agree that GLAAD should be focusing its resources elsewhere. This is misguided effort.
posted by James on
There are many performers, like your Donna Sachet, who perform as the other sex for artistic purposes–such as, say Lily Tomlin. Even such great writers as George Eliot and George Sand adopted a masculine persona. That’s not what I’m talking about. Donna Sachet is no different than Alice Cooper or Marilyn Manson in that her orientation has nothing to do with her artistic choice to present herself as a woman. Straight men do the same thing. That’s fine. That’s an artistic choice.
The black comedians here are using drag as a way to make outrageous statements and attack perceptions–and when those statements and attacks are against the gay community, it’s called “homophobic”–but when the gay community uses those same tactics against straight society, it’s called “liberating.”
Also, the decision to adopt a feminine persona in order to shock is considered a “choice” for these black comedians, but for gays, it’s “innate.” If I attack gays for choosing to express themselves with fem/drag, I am berated, but if I attack black comedians for choosing to express themselves with fem/drag, I am a voice for tolerance.
I don’t have to like black comedians who dress up like women to shock people, and I don’t have to like gays who dress up like women to shock people. I don’t think that either one works. I suspect there are many in the black community, Bill Cosby comes to mind, who think that outrageous behavior on the part of some blacks does a disservice to the whole community. I feel the same way about the outrageous behavior of gays doing a disservice to the whole community.
Don’t attack the black comedians who dress up as women unless you are going to use the same standard at the next Pride parade.
posted by ETJB on
I have not seen the skit or even heard of the comedian. So I would like to see it and hear from other people before I comment on it.
If its a white guy putting on black face paint then it is almost always going to be racist.
No one should defend Congress Mark Foley. He did more then just send dirty emails to a former (barley legal) page. Although that alone is morally and legally questionable.
You seem to enjoy spending time bashing gay progressives and Democrats, while turning a blind eye to such things as the plight of gay Iraqis or working class gay people.
GLAAD is not perfect. No organization is, but it has done plently of good work in changing how the mass media treats LGBT people and popular culture does play a role in how we see ourselves and other people (see Celluloid Closet).
Yes, their is homophobia in the straight black community. Their is homophobia in the straight white community. Just like their is racism in the white community; gay and straight.
To say that all black Americans are more homophobic then white Ameicans is making a rather bold leap.
I suspect that black and white Americans who dont have a college degree, did not grow up with openly gay people are going to be more homophobic and sexist.
I would suggest that people go through a good anti-racism training program and go through ones on homophobia.
posted by James on
How can drag be homophobic? Drag/fem is the essence of being gay, isn’t it? Shouldn’t we be celebrating their diversity instead of condemning them?
Unless, you know, maybe, drag/fem is just what immature people do for shock value. Ya think?
posted by Carl on
-Drag/fem is the essence of being gay, isn’t it?-
No. And neither is blackface, which is the main objection to this guy.
Believe it or not, James, not everything involving gays revolves around whether or not something is fem.
posted by kittynboi on
James, your replies are only marginally related to the post.
posted by James on
My posts are exactly on topic. When a black comedian dresses as a woman and uses flamboyant, outrageous behavior to make a point, he’s HOMOPHOBIC and we’re ANGRY.
When a gay man does the exact same thing, he’s a GENIUS and we’re EMPOWERED.
Also, it’s odd that even though these black comedians dress in drag, being fem is not considered part of the black experience. Yet, when gays dress in drag or act effeminate, that is considered part of what it means to be gay.
What topic are you discussing? The fact that your stance is hypocritical?
posted by thom on
I’m a bit confused. Isn’t Charles Knipp a white male, dressing up like a black women?
posted by thom on
Okay, so I’ve answered my own question about whether Knipp is white or black — he’s white, doing a “blackface” comedy routine for gay crowds. (See here and here .)
Therefore, James, I think this dispute is about racism, but homophobia. GLAAD, whose mission is devoted to the defamation of homosexuals, has stepped into a debate about racism. That is what I think is misguided. (I express no opinion, one way or the other, about whether Mr. Knight’s performances as Shirley Q. Liquor are racist, and deserving of censure.)
I’m not sure if Mr. Knight is gay or not, but my research suggests says that he often plays to gay audiences, especially in the South. Therefore, James, while I understand your frustration with outrageous gay drag performers (but do not necessarily agree with you), I’m not sure that this situation proper presents the lauching point for your complaints about drag performers and their representation of homosexuals as a whole.
posted by thom on
I meant, “this dispute is about racism, not homophobia.”
And also, that “this situation properly presents the lauching point…”
Sorry, I should have proofed more closely.
posted by James on
We have a guy dressing up as a woman making outrageous comments in order to shock society. How is that not drag?
posted by PCT on
James
I agree with you about drag. I don’t like it in any situation. But it seems to me there’s a problem with your concern about it. I won’t copy and paste your comments, then interpret them, like some other people do, but it seems to me that if you want the freedom to be gay, then you have to allow other gay guys to be gay in their own way. You just can’t have it both ways – freedom for me, but not for you, because I don’t like your expression of that freedom.
You’re saying that if only all gay guys were masculine that society would have no problem with us. I just don’t see that. The rancher in Scotts Bluff who dislikes gay guys is not concerned, I think, about whether or not you’re effeminate, although that might make his perception worse. What he dislikes is what you do in bed with another guy. No matter how masculine you are, the “ick” factor is going to kick in and cause him to dislike you.
Trust me, I mostly agree with you – we’d all be better off if there were no effeminate flamboyant gay guys. But I honestly don’t think the guy on the street in Valentine, Nebraska, cares.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
I’ve had enough of the constant Anti-Fem flaming that plagues this board but PCT’s comment here, “Trust me, I mostly agree with you – we’d all be better off if there were no effeminate flamboyant gay guys,” is very scary. Just what exactly do you propose we do with these men? Install them in work camps? Shoot them into the sun? Stone them? Scary stuff on this board. How come noone here is all up in arms about Yucko the Clown?
posted by kittynboi on
James, the post was about whether or not gay groups should spent their time doing all the work for anti-racist groups, whether we should be attacking people for being “racially insensitive” even if the situation in question has nothing to do with being gay.
It even says so at the end.
“”But the larger issue is that GLAAD seems to think that it needs to score points with fellow progressives by using its limited time and resources to attack gays for being “racist,” rather than, oh, say, maybe for instance, taking on homophobia in the African-American community (which would, no doubt, run the risk of those progressives labeling GLAAD as “racist”).””
Did you even read that far?
This article is about the concern that too many groups these days are easily pressured by anti racist groups in to attacking supposed “racism” on the part of their own members of the people they advocate for.
This isn’t about fem or drag or anything like that, all those things are incidental to the larger issue of how much we should bow to anti-racist groups who want us to go along with anything they want under threat of them accusing us of racism if we don’t.
In other words, the article is asking if we should be at the call of anti-racist groups when we have other things to do?
posted by James on
Anti-fem is not anti-gay!
I don’t care what fem guys do, whether it’s Tyler Perry or Jake Shears or Zach Braff or Dame Edna or Prince. You can be fem and be straight (Marilyn Manson). You can be fem and be gay (Jake Shears).
My point is, I don’t have to like fem, or side with fem, or include fem, or support fem, just because I’m gay.
Here’s one you might understand–most gays are liberal. Liberal is not gay. The fact that many gays choose to be liberal does not make being liberal intrinsic to being gay. IN THE SAME WAY, (Please try and follow me here!), being fem is not intrinsic to being gay.
I don’t want anything to happen to fems. I don’t care what happens to fems. I don’t want to shoot them in the sun, stone them, send them to work camps, or anything. I want to avoid them!
I want my coming out process to be fem-free. The fact that I am attracted to men does not mean I suddenly want to be surrounded by a bunch of guys in wigs and thongs, any more than your coming out process means that you want to be surrounded by a bunch of Democrats or Christians!
Fems are not part of my community. They are not a stripe on my rainbow flag. We are not family. In the same way you have the right to choose to avoid born-again Christians, straight or gay, I have the right to avoid fems, straight or gay.
Is that clear enough?
posted by Alex on
A: The furor over Charles Knipp’s act has had the unintended consequence of bringing him to the attention of more people than ever before. Proving there is no such thing as bad publicity. (“The only thing worse that being talked about is not being talked about.” -Oscar Wilde)
B: I haven’t seen more than a scene or two of the movie White Chicksand have seen none of Mr. Knipp’s performance…too slow @ home, and not appropriate to work…but I would suggest that context is important.
Certainly if a black comedian puts on whiteface just to rip on white folks that would qualify, for me, to be bigotry.
But that’s not the case in White Chicks. The story is about a couple of undercover officers chasing “bad guys.” An arguement could possibly be made that the movie has something to say about people being able to get along despite differences.
posted by Brian Miller on
Why is this an issue for a gay organization to spend beaucoup bucks on?
If Knipp is racist (I have no idea, I’m not aware of his schtick and not very interested in it), then there are plenty of racial tolerance groups who can point out what’s wrong with his act.
GLAAD commenting on racism is a bit like the NAACP taking on Bush over homophobia — a bit straying from mission.
Although, I don’t see the point to GLAAD and other similar groups to begin with. It’s not as though homophobia in the media or elsewhere goes unnoticed (or uncommented upon) — it’s not as though it needs a multi-million-dollar organization to call it out these days.
It seems a bit like an organization in need of a purpose from my POV.
posted by PCT on
Colorado I guess it was silly of me to expect anyone to actually read the whole post – I was defending the right of anyone to live as they see fit. I may not like it, but that doesn’t give me the right to prohibit them or anyone from living anyway they wish.
Geeze, can you read?
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
Of course I read your post, how could I have responded to your poorly written ripost at the end if I hadn’t? I could understand most of what you had written (and agree with you for the most part) but, please, explain to me what you meant by “we’d all be better off if there were no effeminate flamboyant gay guys.” That quote doesn’t seem to gibe with your live-and-let-live attitude. In fact, it seems to fly in the face of it. Next time try answering my question instead of getting all uppity. So I’ll ask again…if we’d be better off without fem men what are we supposed to do with all of them?
posted by James on
I have never said that the world would be better off without fems. I really don’t care. I said that the gay community would be better off if effeminate guys were not the most visible, and hence the default image, of what it means to be gay. Gay and fem have nothing in common any more that gay and liberal.
In any case, my reason for bringing fem/drag up in this topic is that a lot of straight men use fem/drag to get attention and make shocking, outrageous comments. Dressing in drag is not a gay thing–straights do it, too.
If we don’t like it when drag is used against us, when a comedian dresses up as a woman in order to get attention for his homophobic comments, why do we think that drag is a good tactic for us to use? If we don’t like what this comedian says when he dresses as a woman, why should we like what RuPaul says when he dresses like a woman?
I would bet that the black community doesn’t want Medea or Norbit or Geraldine to be people’s default image of what it means to be black–why do we want Jake Shears to be the gay community’s default image?
posted by Brian Miller on
I said that the gay community would be better off if effeminate guys were not the most visible, and hence the default image, of what it means to be gay.
As I said in earlier threads, the vast majority of people I know who make these sorts of claims are themselves a bit light in the loafers when the alcohol seeps through their butch drag.
But a big question here — what’s stopping butch men, in drag or legitimately so, from being “more visible?”
It seems to me that “femme” men are more visible because the gay men who have issues about perceived gender roles (and thus make a huge issue of butchness/fem-ness) are all closet cases.
Speaking from experience, the same gay guys who complain ceaselessly about campy queens will stammer, blush and thunder with rage if someone points out, in mixed company, that they’re gay themselves. They usually say something about “why not say it so the whole neighborhood hears it?” or “that’s none of your business.”
Well, if you’re going to live in the closet, or aren’t willing to live an out-and-proud existence, then you cannot really complain when folks who choose to be visible — who are often campy — are the archetype.
You’ve got two choices. If you’re like the typical fellow who is butch-obsessed, drop the act, let our your inner queen, and enjoy life. If you’re the rare butch guy who is generally aggrevated by camp men (not that I’ve known that many, most truly butch guys are secure in their identity and don’t need to point out others’ flaws), then make a point of telling people you’re gay,
Tell your boss and your coworkers. Tell your customers, and your church. Tell your neighbors and your city councilman and your trash collector. Tell your mailman. Tell the world, tell them often, and tell them loudly. That way, you can ensure that you’re equally represented, rather than peering out from the closet and complaining that you don’t see yourself represented.
posted by James on
Again, you miss the point. I’ll say it again:
Gay is not fem.
Gay is not fem.
Gay is not fem.
As the article proves, there are men both gay and straight who dress up as women in order to shock people and say outrageous things.
It is wrong, it is a category mistake, to equate fem/drag with gay. They are nothing alike, they are separate things.
That is the point I want to make. I’m not sure I can find simpler language.
My response to this article is that gays don’t like it when men dress up as women and attack them–therefore, maybe gays should recognize that dressing up as women is not an effective strategy.
posted by GG on
I said that the gay community would be better off if effeminate guys were not the most visible, and hence the default image, of what it means to be gay.
Then fight the image by putting yourself out there. Come out to your straight friends and acquaintances and simultaneously denounce the image you so despise. Coming here to spout your “Gay is not fem” mantra isn’t going to change a damn thing; virtually all the readers here are gays and lesbians. We are already aware that “Gay does not equal fem” and “People like Portia deRossi are lesbians.”
Please.
To change the stereotype, start with yourself. Go out and prove to people that you are GAY and NOT FEM, okay? For this to work, you need to be out. People need to know you’re gay, and at the same time, you should also be the most masculine you can possibly be.
Now if you say “Gay is not fem” one more time, I’m going to refer to you as Rain Man.
posted by James on
FWIW, on another thread,I posted my reasons for believing that visibility is a scam perpetrated by the gay community. Please refer to that thread as a response to your silly idea that I need to go and prove things to people.
My question on this thread’s topic still remains unanswered–why do we get mad when black comedians dress up as women for the shock value and say outrageous things, but don’t get mad when gays do the same thing? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
posted by thom on
James ~ Do you believe that Charles Knipp is black?
posted by kittynboi on
“”””My question on this thread’s topic still remains unanswered–why do we get mad when black comedians dress up as women for the shock value and say outrageous things, but don’t get mad when gays do the same thing? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?””””
Thats not the topic of this article and should not be the topic of this thread.
The topic of this article is whether or not GLAAD should be going out of its way to be as racially sensitive and ready to pounce on anything labeled “racist” as anti racist groups are.
posted by GG on
FWIW, on another thread,I posted my reasons for believing that visibility is a scam perpetrated by the gay community. Please refer to that thread as a response to your silly idea that I need to go and prove things to people.
See, you can’t have it both ways. You complain that the “fems” are the predominant queer archetype. But if you don’t do anything to counteract it, then you’ve allowed the proliferation of that archetype to go unchecked. And the only way to counteract it is with counterspeech – yes “proving” to others that “those silly queens” aren’t representative of gays. Isn’t that what you’re after? On one hand, if you just sit around and gnash your teeth, nothing will change. But if you go out there and prove them all wrong, – GASP! – you’re being “visible.” Oh what are you to do?
Answer: Sh*t or get off the pot.
posted by James on
“One might also raise the issue of whether when black comedians Tyler Perry or the often homophobic Eddie Murphy dress up as large black women this, too, is ‘defamatory.’ ”
This is the topic I’m discussing, kittyboi. Which one are you discussing?
So, to remind you of my question–My question on this thread’s topic still remains unanswered–why do we get mad when black comedians dress up as women for the shock value and say outrageous things, but don’t get mad when gays do the same thing? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
P.S. to GG–As I’ve said previously, coming out should be a process which involves mutual vulnerabity and visibility between men. I will disclose where I’m at on the Kinsey scale when another man discloses where he is at. We both have to be at a level of intimacy where we can risk that truth about ourselves. Our society would be a lot healthier if all men, straight and gay, had to come out and reveal their range of sexual response.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
James, your ability to completely miss the point of the featured articles is uncanny. “My question on this thread’s topic still remains unanswered–why do we get mad when black comedians dress up as women for the shock value and say outrageous things, but don’t get mad when gays do the same thing?” Answer: The fact that people got upset at a gay man who donned women’s clothes to insult others is the point of the article. How dense are you?
posted by kittynboi on
“”””So, to remind you of my question–My question on this thread’s topic still remains unanswered–why do we get mad when black comedians dress up as women for the shock value and say outrageous things, but don’t get mad when gays do the same thing? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?””””
The comedian this article is talking about is NOT black.
And the thing about Eddie Murphy is about double standards; why is it so horrible for Knipp to do his routine (which is described as racist) but its okay for someone like Eddie Murphy to engage in his own form of “defamatory” comedy.
Its about that old double standard that exists on the left in regards to blacks acting in a prejudiced manner, and it being overlooked, ignored, or excused, while if anyone else does something similar, its derided and the person is visited with scorn.
posted by alex on
Part of the apparent double standard is that it’s okay for a person to poke fun (or rip on) their own identity group but not at others. I don’t recall Eddie Murphy doing a white red-neck character (but then I don’t really follow him to begin with). I’m not sure that he could perform a patently offensive white stereotype with impunity.
posted by James on
Let me parse this out for you, ColoradoPatriot. Let’s see if you can follow along:
PART I
“Why do we get mad when black comedians dress up as women for the shock value and say outrageous things”
This part refers to Tyler Perry, Eddie Murphy, et. al.
“but don’t get mad when gays do the same thing?”
This part of the question refers to Charles Knipp, RuPaul, et. al.
My question is an attempt to get at what the heart of the article is about–we let gay performers get away with a level of outrageousness and offensiveness that we don’t let other performers, say black comedians, get away with. One wonders what GLAAD would have done had Michael Richards used “faggot” instead the “n” word.
So, here’s my question in full, as yet unanswered:
Why do we get mad when black comedians dress up as women for the shock value and say outrageous things, but don’t get mad when gays do the same thing?
(crickets chirping)
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
Why are you so obtuse, dude? The article is the answer to your question. People ARE mad when gays dress up as women and perform offensive material…this isn’t hard.
posted by James on
Why don’t gays get mad at other gays for dressing up as women and saying outrageous things? If it’s not a good strategy for other minorities, why do we think it will work for gays?
posted by kittynboi on
James, you have ventured in to the area of deliberate trolling. You are just a step away from claiming the sky is green.
posted by emily2 on
James, you have ventured in to the area of deliberate trolling.
i’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. call it “reckless disregard” – not deliberate.
posted by kittynboi on
Emily, that would apply if this were a first or second offense, but he’s been doing this for a long time now.
posted by James on
Ad hominem attacks instead of answers to my question. Hmm. Interesting strategy.
Just so we don’t forget–
Why don’t gays get mad at other gays for dressing up as women and saying outrageous things? If it’s not a good strategy for other minorities, why do we think it will work for gays?
posted by thom on
Why don’t gays get mad at other gays for dressing up as women and saying outrageous things? If it’s not a good strategy for other minorities, why do we think it will work for gays?
I’m gay, so I’m apparently qualified to answer this question for all gays, or “we.” (By the way, I’m apparently a “conversative” (so say my lesbian friends) and a “leftist liberal” (so says North Dallas Thirty). Here’s my answer on behalf of all gays:
I do not “get mad” with men of racial minorities dressing up as women, and saying “outrageous things.” If the “outrageous things” they say include satirical imitations of women and/or lewd and sexual comments, I do not “get mad.” If the “outrageous things” include statements impugning a racial group different than the man making the comment, I believe that his speech should be held to the same standard of conduct that would be applied if he was making the statement as a man. Therefore, if the statement crosses over into racism, then being in drag does not make it any less so.
I do not “get mad” with men of racial minorities dressing up as women, and saying “outrageous things.” If the “outrageous things” they say include satirical imitations of women and/or lewd and sexual comments, I do not “get mad.” If the “outrageous things” include statements impugning a different racial group than the man making the comment, I believe that he should be held to the same standard of conduct that would be applied if he was making the statement as a man. If the comment crosses over into racism, then being in drag does not make it any less so.
I do not “get mad” with men of racial minorities dressing up as women, and saying “outrageous things.” If the “outrageous things” they say include satirical imitations of women and/or lewd and sexual comments, I do not “get mad.” If the “outrageous things” include statements impugning a racial group different than the man making the comment, I may “get mad.” I believe that his speech should be held to the same standard of conduct that would be applied if he was making the statement as a man. If the statement crosses over into racism, then being in drag does not make it any less so.
I do not “get mad” with gay men dressing up as women, and saying “outrageous things.” If the “outrageous things” they say include satirical imitations of women and/or lewd and sexual comments, I do not “get mad.” If the “outrageous things” include statements impugning a racial group different than the man making the comment, I may “get mad.” I believe that he should be held to the same standard of conduct that would be applied if he was making the statement as a man. If the comment crosses over into racism, then being in drag does not make it any less so.
posted by kittynboi on
James continues to lie and obfuscate because he feels stupid for not reading the article and grasping its meaning.
posted by thom on
I have no idea why my post included paragraphs I had edited. Skip the first two “I do not…” paragraphs.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
James: “Why don’t gays get mad at other gays for dressing up as women and saying outrageous things?
ANSWER: GLAAD got “mad” at Knipp for dressing up as a woman and performing what some would call offensive material. Your question makes no sense in light of this fact. Please read the featured article for more information. Please read the featured article before you post silly questions that are directly answered in the featured article.
James: “If it’s not a good strategy for other minorities, why do we think it will work for gays?”
ANSWER: I honestly have no idea what you are asking here but I’d be willing to bet that the answer is explicitly stated in the featured article.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
James, you’re missing the point. People who wear drag are being criticized for their racist or homophobic statements not because they’re wearing drag. It does not matter that Shirley Q. Liquour is a guy in drag, it matters that his act is allegedly racist (I’m on dial up so I couldn’t see it). The problem is not the drag, its the content of the performance, can’t you see that?! I think your so obsessed with criticizing fems and drag you miss the obvious.
As far as I’m concerned it is appropriate for GLAAD to criticize Knipp’s allegedly racist performance because Knipp is gay. He’s a part of our community and it behooves us to point out that he’s out of line.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass responded to me on an old thread while I was away:
I had said sarcasticaly in reference to Northdallass’s stupid assertion “Its gays fault religionists don’t like them, but its not religion’s fault that gays don’t like religion, snort! Like Dew said, talk about putting the cart before the horse.”
Northdallass said “Like shooting fish in a barrel.” and quoted me from a yet ealier thread saying “If it makes you feel better James, some Christians I’ve known I liked very much. In fact two of them, one man and one woman I loved very deeply. I wanted very much to have permanent relationships with them, alas, one was married and the other was conflicted over my bisexuality and disbelief in god.”.
Northdallass then said “So in other words, Randi, Christians don’t seem to have problems with you being gay; they have problems with you being an antireligious bigot and blaming it on the fact that you’re gay.”.
LOL, Northdallass, you are in serious denial. What part of “she was conflicted with my bisexuality” didn’t you get?! And the man never new I was LGBT, as far as he knew I was straight. Ironically in direct opposition to your BS it was me who didn’t have a problem with their religion and she who had a problem with my being LGBT, which she said was because of her religion. And I don’t blame my being anti-religious on my being an LGBT, I’m anti-relgious because religion is anti-LGBT. No one believes the mere state of being gay makes them anti-religious, with the possible exception of a loon like you.
posted by ETJB on
(1) “fem” does not equal gay. One is about gender and the other is about affinity orientation.
(2) We should support the human rights of transgender Americans. Drag (often refers to entertainment) is a very different thing then a white person putting on black makeup.
(3) It is not about “liking” people. It is about treating people with the dignity and respect that they are entitled to.
(4) I doubt that people will get too upset over a gay man doing drag for laughs.
Yet, their is a difference in a man posing as a woman and a white man ‘posing’ as a black person.