Gay Patriot Header Image

Gays In America: Victims-R-Us, Heroes-R-Empty

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 6:16 am - February 14, 2006.
Filed under: Gay America,Gay PC Silliness,Gay Politics

I’ve been meaning to post on the annual “American Idol-is-homophobic” rant by the gay community. GLAAD started the bandwagon this year.

“Last week we heard and voiced concerns about the Jan. 18 edition of American Idol — specifically, the producers’ decision to turn a contestant’s gender expression into the butt of a joke. We’ve spoken with Fox and have entered into what we hope will be a productive, ongoing conversation about the show’s representation and discussion of sexual orientation and gender expression.” Damon Romine, Entertainment Media Director, on January 23.

And now San Francisco talk radio host “Karel” takes up the pink torch with this scathing Advocate column trashing American Idol.

Of course it’s homophobic when a judge tells a male contestant that he should shave his face and wear a dress, or when the show previews promote how the gender of one contestant is not readily identifiable and then have a judge simply blurt out, “Are you a girl?” Yes, telling male contestants they look and sound like Sylvester Stallone’s younger sister or the Incredible Hulk in a dress is homophobic. What’s worse, it’s downright mean and not even very good television. But these are not the halls of Congress, where far worse things are done to gays and lesbians, but the airwaves of Fox, where snide patter is par for the course—so why is everyone so surprised?

Frankly, Karel the observations made are NOT homophobic. They are mean, as you say, but they are knee-jerk emotional reactions. In fact, the same type of mean, knee-jerk emotional reactions that most gay men make on a Saturday night when an 60-year old man starts hitting on a 24-year old. After all, “catty” thy home is Gay America. The guy DID look like a female Incredible Hulk, duh!

And of course, it wouldn’t be a gay-themed column without bringing in the Leftist Talking Points Memo.

Never before in our history has it been more chic to be mean, or have the politics of character assassination been more prevalent (on both sides of the political aisles, thank you very much). Nor has propriety ever been at such a low point. In a time when war heroes can be called cowards and spin is accepted for news, anything is possible.

Crushing people has once again become a spectator sport, just as it was in ancient Rome. Except this time the participants are willing. It’s no longer good enough to be better than someone; being better means destroying the competition, not just competing.

Once again this is proof that liberals, especially Gay Lefties, abhor democracy and free enterprise. They want to coddle everyone in a protective bubble — and anything that nicks that bubble is “homophobic.”

Karel — get a grip. Life is tough. Life is especially tough in a cutthroat show business career. That is what American Idol is all about. The problem is Karel takes a defeatist attitude — typical of the American Left. If once we don’t succeed, we have to give up.

America is about second chances, rising beyond expectations, and finding your dreams. One road with obstacles is not the path to victimization and doom. It is but an obstacle leading you to your true dreams and destiny’s path. Our community has got to get a backbone and join reality. The Whoa Is Me/Everyone Hates Me attitude has got to stop.

But just as the Democratic Party needs a hero, so too does Gay America. We don’t need role models who abuse their Congressional seat and run prostitution rings out of their DC townhomes, closeted Governors who pay off their lovers with a high-level state job in charge of security, national gay leaders who praise socialism and deplore free elections, and gutter politics of destruction by the Gay Left looking into the personal lives of each other in order to destroy them.

Folks, those are the heroes that the “mainstream” of Gay America has told us to follow, salute, and honor. Not in my name, sorry!

But we definitely need a hero and good gay American role models. Where art thou?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

38 Comments

  1. It’s true that we need good gay American role models but where might we find them? In the military? Well, they’d get thrown out if they came out. Hollywood? Ian McKellan has a bit to say about that right now? Sports? We get the occasional retired professional athelete and I give them great credit for coming out at all. Still I’d ask you to tell me where you think our much needed role models should emerge from when the dominant culture is not only homophobic but repeatedly attempting to legislate against us?

    Comment by Gamma — February 14, 2006 @ 7:46 am - February 14, 2006

  2. Good comment Gamma.

    Bruce,

    The only thing more disappointing than some liberal Gay leaders are the GOP Gay leaders.

    Some examples,

    The Gay GOP mayor that held very anti-Gay views and promise city jobs to chatroom buddies on Gay.com

    The Closeted, Married, Hideously Anti-Gay GOP Congressman that cruise gay telephone sex lines looking for big dicked sex partners.

    Barely Closeted GOP Congressemen that vote for anti-Gay legislation.

    Barney Frank made a mistake 20 years ago. He got used by some twink he shouldn’t have been with in the first place. I’m willing to forgive him (but I certainly remember it).

    I’m not so forgiving about the NJ Governor. I thought he was using his sexual orientation in order to mask his other ethical problems. He got away with it too.

    Given that 80% of voting Gay Americans vote Democrat, if you use the criteria of being conservative to be your hero, then you’re likely to find the playing field pretty thin.

    I’ll agree with you, I’m also disappointed in US Gay Rights Organizations. I really like the fact that the NGLTF actually works to support Gay communities locally (and they do a better job of it than anyone else), but think their 1960’s coalition routine is counterproductive and dilutes the message. I like the HRC’s national focus, but find that for all the money HRC seems to raise, I don’t see much from them in return (How about a decent media buy HRC?). GLAAD has done some basic work combating bigots in the media, but I think their focus should be on the press – not Hollywood. LCR gets points for standing up for themselves in a very hostile environment, but when the biggest promise that Bush gave them (his promise to continue the non-discrimination policies in the Federal workforce) turned out to be a false promise (see Scott Bloch), I find their effectiveness limited. I’ve never heard anything significant out of Stonewall Democrats, which is really puzzling and disappointing.

    That leaves SLDN and the Victory Fund. Give to them.

    I’m also mildly disappointed in Gay celebrities – we have them – but they seem to be reluctant to get involved. Elton John (although he gets props for attacking Jamaica’s bigotry but I’d like him to speak about Georgia) and Martina Navratalova (she has an awesome story and presence – she should get involved in US politics) are examples of this.

    Ellen, Rosie, and Melissa got trashed when they stepped into the waters. They get points for trying though. We’ll see if Swoops is can beat the trend.

    Comment by Tom in Utrecht — February 14, 2006 @ 8:59 am - February 14, 2006

  3. Life is especially tough in a cutthroat show business career. That is what American Idol is all about.

    No it isn’t. American Idol is about selling advertising time. That’s what all of broadcast TV is about, and most cable channels. That became clear to me in an editorial in the Wall Street Journal 15-20 years ago. The advertisers are the customers, not the audience. The program is the mechanism by which the producers and broadcasters deliver “product” (viewers’ eyeballs) to the customers (the advertisers).

    Two other points. One, one way to induce viewers’ eyeballs to watch the program–and likely the commercials–is to provide a venue for humiliation. That seems to be what programs like American Idol, The Apprentice, and the various staged “reality” progams deliver.

    Two, these programs–and the so-called “reality” shows–are very cheap to produce. The producers’, networks’ and broadcasters’ primary interest is to maximize profits. Profit is the difference between income revenue (primarily advertising revenue) and expenses. Since these programs are very cheap to produce, target profit does not require as high an incoming revenue stream from advertisers to meet their desired profit.

    Comment by raj — February 14, 2006 @ 9:08 am - February 14, 2006

  4. One question about criticism of Barney Frank. Is conservative criticism of Barney Frank any different than liberal criticism of Jeff Gannon? Was it any worse for liberals to go after Gannon than it was for conservatives to go after Barney Frank? Just curious.

    Comment by Tom in Utrecht — February 14, 2006 @ 9:11 am - February 14, 2006

  5. Tom in Utrecht — February 14, 2006 @ 8:59 am

    I’m not so forgiving about the NJ Governor. I thought he was using his sexual orientation in order to mask his other ethical problems. He got away with it too.

    As far as I’m concerned, McGreevy wasn’t gay, and I’m appalled that so-called gay-rights groups “embraced” him after he made his announcement. McGreevy was a straight man who claimed to have had homosexual dalliances on the side. There is a difference. He was married, twice, to women and fathered a child within each marriage. He was straight from all outward appearances. And he held himself out as being straight.

    Comment by raj — February 14, 2006 @ 9:15 am - February 14, 2006

  6. Raj

    I agree with you.

    Comment by Tom in Utrecht — February 14, 2006 @ 9:16 am - February 14, 2006

  7. GP, good post, although as mentioned above, you conveniently only used examples of liberal/Democrat shenanigans, when there are as many or more examples of conservative/Republicans as mentioned above. But you pose a good question. Where are the gay role models? The problem is that there seem to some (many?) in high positions in both parties. Some are open, but only to a small number of people. And when they are asked about their sexual orientation (e.g., party chair, or passed over for party leadership in ), they simply say it’s irrelevant. Sounds great, except the irony is that some of these people help their straight counterparts in their party’s candidates for elections show off the evidence of their heterosexuality. So I am against outing, but it would be nice if these people do come out voluntarily. We need more people to see that we are not necessarily freaks of nature. Right now, a lot of people only do see gay people as only rare occurrences, who wear drag on pride parade floats. Or some may know gay people, but it’s okay when they are nice and self-loathing, and don’t dare think they deserve rights like everyone else. And I don’t get the point why closeted Hollywood celebs who have already made $100 million feel the need to stay in the closet, and in some cases go out of their way showing off the women they are “dating” on Oprah, or wherever.

    Comment by Pat — February 14, 2006 @ 10:55 am - February 14, 2006

  8. Tom, raj… get a booth and pull the curtains, would ya? Gheeez, I can almost hear the air-kisses all the way to the Midwest. It’s confirmed, you have no shame.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 14, 2006 @ 11:28 am - February 14, 2006

  9. Hero – A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose.

    Are our individual behaviors courageous or just outrageous? And does anybody really understand the meaning of nobility anymore?

    The above definition suggests that perhaps we should all be looking inward more than we do. In so doing we may find more heroes in one another.

    Comment by Dave — February 14, 2006 @ 11:31 am - February 14, 2006

  10. Yes, telling male contestants they look and sound like Sylvester Stallone’s younger sister or the Incredible Hulk in a dress is homophobic.

    How exactly?

    Comment by V the K — February 14, 2006 @ 11:34 am - February 14, 2006

  11. #8 – I find myself idly wondering (for the briefest of moments) if Tom agrees with raj’s position that our soldiers are stupid idiots (if not evil) for the sacrifices they make to protect us.

    Comment by Calarato — February 14, 2006 @ 11:52 am - February 14, 2006

  12. Geez guys.

    Raj made a good point about McGreevey. Where the heck did that come from Calarato? I don’t have a photographic memory of every post that Raj has made (nor do I care for a rundown). You certainly can’t be referring to this thread. If so, I’m missing something. Y’all are pissed that we are upset with the former Democratic Governor McGreevey’s behavior? Hmmm.

    Comment by Tom in Utrecht — February 14, 2006 @ 12:16 pm - February 14, 2006

  13. Tom,

    A little slow today? As I said, I found myself IDLY wondering for the BRIEFEST of moments if you were aware of this other position of raj’s (by implication, one necessarily outside this thread).

    I meant nothing by it, yet you seem touchy. Interesting.

    Comment by Calarato — February 14, 2006 @ 12:24 pm - February 14, 2006

  14. Some additional 411: Because the position of raj’s I referred to is particularly putrid, we devoted space to it in other threads (>1). When I see “raj” now, it’s just what I think of. But if you only read intermittently, of course you would not have seen it – No problem.

    Comment by Calarato — February 14, 2006 @ 12:35 pm - February 14, 2006

  15. I’ll lighten up. Fair enough.

    Comment by Tom in Utrecht — February 14, 2006 @ 1:02 pm - February 14, 2006

  16. When and how, exactly, did being gay get mixed up with gender confusion? Was that when everybody added the T(ransgendered) to their organization names, including the obviously gender confused?

    Just curious.

    Comment by rightwingprof — February 14, 2006 @ 2:05 pm - February 14, 2006

  17. #15 – OK, thank you 🙂

    Comment by Calarato — February 14, 2006 @ 2:15 pm - February 14, 2006

  18. On the subject of Simon Cowell and whether or not he’s homophobic, I have no idea, but I do think that he believes gay men (or at least men who people might think are gay) have no business being on his show. If you go back to Pop Idol, the UK series which spawned American Idol, he routinely criticized the very obviously gay Will Young. When Young won and then came out (because he was going to be outed anyway), Cowell spent a lot of time trying to build up the career of Gareth Gates, who was straight and runner up in the competition. Only after Gates fizzled out and Young had several chart successes did Cowell tolerate him. If you look back on every male finalist of AI who was gay or might be gay (Jim Verraros in season 1, Clay Aiken, Anwar in season 4), do you remember Cowell really liking any of them?

    Gays are used as the butt of a joke on the audition shows. Any effeminate man is almost always told they should be a female impersonator. Just as almost anyone who is overweight is turned into a pathetic joke.

    American Idol panders to what they see as the stereotypes of America. Those involve gays, the overweight, since those are the groups America most enjoys laughing at. It’s the reason that Cowell and Ryan Seacrest trade all the “he’s gay” jabs every season.

    It’s lowest common denominator because ultimately the Idol producers have a very cynical view of America. If I didn’t believe that before I have to believe it now after the audition shows this season were so focused on making fun of everyone that we barely saw anyone who could actually sing.

    As for whether or not gay celebrities should become more involved, I’d love to see that happen, but many of those who do are often ignored or sneered at (like Chad Allen). Or they’re too afraid of coming out and risking their careers.

    Comment by Carl — February 14, 2006 @ 2:32 pm - February 14, 2006

  19. I watched this episode in a gay bar, and the laughter was overwhelming when Simon made his remarks. Not one person seemed “offended”. When are these “gay leaders” going to stop trying to lead us?

    Comment by John Fullam — February 14, 2006 @ 2:37 pm - February 14, 2006

  20. I have, in the last five decades, seen a great deal of idiocy from liberals and the so-called “gay community.” But I do believe that this squealing about American Idol is surely the stupidest thing I’ve seen yet.

    Offended? Shut up and change the channel.

    Comment by rightwingprof — February 14, 2006 @ 4:03 pm - February 14, 2006

  21. Unfortunately, you answer part of your own question in your post:

    “Once again this is proof that liberals, especially Gay Lefties, abhor democracy and free enterprise.”

    You (along with other conservatives and liberals too) who make these blanket statements about people with opposing views hurt us all. Not all liberals, let alone Gay Lefties abhor democracy and free enterprise, so why do you say it? It’s this lack of spirit of compromise which brought our great nation into existence that is hurting everyone in our country. One piece of information picked up from a single group doesn’t automatically apply to everyone.

    Should I ascribe the desire to bring back sodomy laws (as voiced by *some* conservatives) to apply to all Republicans/Conservatives? I think not.

    I may be a liberal, but I sure as hell believe in both Democracy and free enterprise.

    Comment by Kevin — February 14, 2006 @ 4:49 pm - February 14, 2006

  22. #20 and #18 –

    I’m with you prof, as the final solution – but I have to say, I found Carl’s post interesting.

    Comment by Calarato — February 14, 2006 @ 5:03 pm - February 14, 2006

  23. When I was an undergraduate, we had the Gong Show. Now, we have the first round auditions of American Idol.

    Comment by rightwingprof — February 14, 2006 @ 5:40 pm - February 14, 2006

  24. My question is:

    Who the hell watches this show or cares what anybody on there says?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 14, 2006 @ 9:13 pm - February 14, 2006

  25. You’re right on one point, Bruce. We need some gay “heroes”/role models. A 15-year-old neighbor boy came out to me last summer and I was beside myself trying to think of a gay role model I could mention to him as a source for inspiration and hope. In this rural area of middle America all the boy sees or hears is hate and intolerance.

    Kevin, in #21, makes a valid observation, Bruce. Do you really believe the fact that someone is liberal means that person abhors democracy and free enterprise? I’m sure that would come as a surprise to Bill Gates, who frequently tilts to the left, and Warren Buffett, who is certainly a political liberal. Not to mention hundreds of other very successful corporate types who support liberal political candidates.

    And ditto to ThatGayConservative, #24. I watched American Idol a couple of times and failed to enjoy watching fellow human beings ridiculed, debased and humiliated for laughs and TV ratings.

    Comment by Jack Allen — February 14, 2006 @ 10:57 pm - February 14, 2006

  26. -I watched this episode in a gay bar, and the laughter was overwhelming when Simon made his remarks.-

    He’s made these types of remarks over and over, and his disdain for gay or possibly gay male singers goes back for several years. So the issue is beyond what a few men at the gay bar laughed at one night.

    Comment by Carl — February 15, 2006 @ 12:53 am - February 15, 2006

  27. It’s on posts like these where I just sit back and laugh, because Bruce, I think you’re being kind.

    You see, the “gay community” has already picked its heroes. I would expect these gay liberals who say that gay conservatives and Republicans want to strip gays of jobs and houses and throw them into concentration camps to choose these kind of heroes; the fact that said heroes are pathological liars and hypocrites, not to mention disastrous reinforcements of all the worst stereotypes of gays, is their problem, not ours.

    As I have mentioned elsewhere, I have largely given up on gay liberals or the “gay community” ever coming to their senses without the equivalent of a nuclear bomb. Not even the repeated passage of numerous constitutional amendments stripping gays of rights, as well polls showing that the majority of Americans still consider homosexuality “immoral”, has done it; it will take one large event with national fallout to make gays realize that abortionists, antireligious hatemongers, and sociopaths are not, nor should they have ever been, the gay community’s “heroes”.

    Now, to answer your question, Jack:

    A 15-year-old neighbor boy came out to me last summer and I was beside myself trying to think of a gay role model I could mention to him as a source for inspiration and hope.

    Um….how about the one that looks back at you from the mirror every morning?

    That’s what it’s going to take — gays with an ounce of common sense going out and showing people around them what being gay is all about. Then, when the nuclear bomb takes out the Matt Foremans and Mike Rogerses of the world, there will be some small modicum of civilization left to rebuild and undo the previous damage.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 15, 2006 @ 1:20 am - February 15, 2006

  28. “Do you really believe the fact that someone is liberal means that person abhors democracy and free enterprise?”

    Leave out democracy for a moment. As I understand the terms “liberal” and “free enterprise”: The answer would be Yes.

    By “liberal”, I generally mean “leaning toward socialism, whether or not they are willing to use that term for it”.

    The American liberal may say “I like free enterprise; I’m a reform capitalist”, like one friend of mine. But in practice, his politics amount to an endless expansion of government, and war on up-and-coming businesspeople who need, want and deserve to have government off their backs.

    High taxes, for example, are a great way to favor established companies at the expense of up-and-comers.

    “What?”, you say, “The high taxes take from business, and all businesses equally”. Sure… but… capital accumulation is a necessity in building a business, and for the up-and-comer, the high taxes just been made extremely difficult. Net effect: The big established business is protected, relative to the up-and-comer. The rate of “business change” is slowed. That’s not free enterprise.

    And it is, I believe, why trust fund kids instinctively gravitate toward liberalism / socialism. At one and the same time, liberalism / socialism will (1) allow them to pose as “friends of the little guy”, “friends of the Earth”, etc., AND (2) protect their own trust funds, by slowing down change and artificially favoring established business institutions. But I digress.

    Bottom line: The fact that someone is liberal means they abhor free enterprise functionally or in practice, i.e., whether or not they can see it, admit it, etc.

    Comment by Calarato — February 15, 2006 @ 1:23 am - February 15, 2006

  29. For the Bill Gates example: All I can say is, he is not an up-and-comer anymore; he is one very big, very established business.

    “Big business” types are very often liberal, as you have observed. I’m saying that liberalism, or endless government interference in the economy, works for them. And that, actually, it isn’t “free enterprise”.

    Comment by Calarato — February 15, 2006 @ 1:26 am - February 15, 2006

  30. OK, now about liberals and democracy:

    I’ll spare you a long speech. Suffice to say that liberalism = government paternalism (which is elitism), and that American liberals have a long, LONG track record of putting down the electorate (the majorities who frequently vote against liberals).

    Comment by Calarato — February 15, 2006 @ 1:40 am - February 15, 2006

  31. Calarato, #28-29-30, I don’t think the labels “conservative”, “moderate” and “liberal” are very appropriate these days. I, for instance, am still a follower of Goldwater’s “conservatism” but that is definitely not the contemporary “conservatism” of George W. Bush, Bill Frist, George Allen, Sam Brownback, et al. What you call “liberal” I’d call far-left or radical left. (And what you call “conservative” I’d call far-right or radical right.)

    I just don’t buy your argument that because a Warren Buffett is “liberal” to the extent he supports Democratic presidential candidates he abhors the free enterprise system. Robert Rubin, Clinton’s Secretary of the Treasury, would be considered a political “liberal” but the policies he advocated were positive for business profits, business expansion and job growth.

    Comment by Jack Allen — February 15, 2006 @ 2:36 am - February 15, 2006

  32. We’d have to get down to brass tacks about which Rubin policies you were referring to.

    I agree that Goldwater was a consistent “libertarian conservative” (as I call it) and friend of free enterprise, while Bush is NOT. (One of the reasons I don’t like Bush.)

    Buffett I think has more sense than Gates, in general. Gates, I get the impression, is extremely capable (a genius, in fact) in certain very specific areas, and otherwise, he is easily influenced / manipulated. That’s just my impression.

    I’d like to know more about Buffett’s “liberalism”. Many people are social liberals and business / fiscal conservatives… i.e., liberatarian conservatives 🙂 Is he one of those?

    But even if he isn’t: many many businessmen, again, are “liberals” outright (in my sense of the word – quasi-socialists), because, well, having the government interfere on their behalf is what works for them.

    Comment by Calarato — February 15, 2006 @ 3:53 am - February 15, 2006

  33. And such people would of course say – and even believe (mistakenly but sincerely) – that they support free enterprise.

    I’m saying, I go by the government policies they stand for, or the behaviors they practice and the functional results of that – not what they claim to believe or feel.

    Comment by Calarato — February 15, 2006 @ 3:56 am - February 15, 2006

  34. I was looking at some of the comments at Television Without Pity (one of the sites obsessed with American Idol) and some of them were really put off with that “Brokeback Note” segment tonight where they tried to imply the cowboy singers were gay because one of them tried to comfort another one when they were cut from the competition.

    It’s not just gays who are getting tired of how this season has treated homosexuality as some sort of sick joke.

    Comment by Carl — February 15, 2006 @ 4:03 am - February 15, 2006

  35. Robert Rubin, Clinton’s Secretary of the Treasury, would be considered a political “liberal” but the policies he advocated were positive for business profits, business expansion and job growth.

    Not really. The Clinton Economy was based on the rapid expansion the tech sector, which would have happened regardless of who was president. It also “benefited” from the Enron-style scams that ran amuck in the 90’s, and also the two trillion spent in 1998-1999 on Y2K compliance that turned out to be another overhyped scam.

    As the saying goes, the 90’s economy was primarily due to Bill and Al. Bill Gates and Al Greenspan.

    Comment by V the K — February 15, 2006 @ 5:29 am - February 15, 2006

  36. -In fact, the same type of mean, knee-jerk emotional reactions that most gay men make on a Saturday night when an 60-year old man starts hitting on a 24-year old-

    I’ve heard black people casually cut down another black person with something like, “n(you know the rest) please”. I doubt Simon will ever be using that word on national TV.

    Karel seems to have a similar opinion of the homophobia “scandal” as you do, GP, even if you disagreed on the rest.

    Comment by Carl — February 15, 2006 @ 11:05 am - February 15, 2006

  37. A 15-year-old neighbor boy came out to me last summer and I was beside myself trying to think of a gay role model I could mention to him as a source for inspiration and hope.

    And the idiocy of identity politics pops up again. Nobody needs a “rold model” that belongs to their very own little token group. And where’s his father?

    Oops, sorry. I forgot. Strong fathers aren’t politically correct.

    Comment by rightwingprof — February 16, 2006 @ 10:34 am - February 16, 2006

  38. How odd you all miss the point…my point was, and is, that sure it’s homophobic, but it’s also mean and that mean trumps homophobia. It also says that not everything is homophobia, some things ARE just jokes. But like all those CRITICS of the LEFT you simply quote what you want, out of context. I love Idol. It is not a scathing criticism of it, but really of the editors and programmers that think mean is cooler than talented.

    Comment by Karel — February 16, 2006 @ 7:27 pm - February 16, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.