General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAn apology for (and explanation of) an earlier post
Last edited Thu Apr 30, 2015, 09:00 PM - Edit history (1)
A little earlier today, I posted something that was an attempt at irony, but which unfortunately went over like a lead balloon. It started out with a question: "Why do I find it cosmically ironic that the lawyer who argued before the Supreme Court on behalf of Michigan against gay marriage was this guy?". I followed with an actual professional photo of the guy. His appearance in the photo is, shall we say, rather 'dandy-esque.' (For reference, I'll post it in a separate, follow-up comment.) Unfortunately, through no fault of anyone reading the post, my intent was not clear, and as a result, was misinterpreted. I was quite taken aback by the negative responses: things like, "Stereotype much?" and "No, why don't you enlighten us." I realized immediately that nobody reading, unless they personally knew me, could possibly have the context needed to understand where I was coming from with that post. And for that, I apologize.
But I do want to explain a bit, lest anyone think I am some bigoted, homophobic troglodyte. First, yes, it was poking some fun at the stereotype. I am acutely aware of the stereotype, and the hurtful, malicious ways it is sometimes used against gay people, because I, myself, am a gay man. And although I have made mention of that on numerous occasions here on DU, generally it isn't something I mention unless there is a particular reason to do so.
The irony I saw in the situation was the same kind of irony I see whenever a notorious, right-wing, anti-gay legislator is caught in flagrante delicto with another man, or trying to solicit favors in a men's room stall. The thing is, that lawyer's countenance <i>does</i> match an old, commonly held stereotype of gay men. Jon Stewart even made an oblique, unstated (but certainly implied) reference to it in his monologue last night, which is what prompted me to create the post. As a gay man, I was not offended in the least, because I didn't see it as being a swipe at gay people at all, but rather at the hypocrisy of so many right wingers.
And another friend of mine, also gay, posted the following about this same lawyer to Facebook after listening to the audio of the oral arguments:
Bursch could be coughing up glitter right and left every time he opens his mouth, self-loathing is real."
One person responded that the guy looked too much like a sexless dork to be considered to 'look gay.' To that, I would point out that prime time TV shows have a long history of portraying gay characters as sexless dorks: "Jack" from Will & Grace, for example, or the argyle sweater-wearing gay couple from Modern Family. Indeed, that stereotype seems to be the one TV producers think is most palatable to middle America. Salon ran a good article on this subject a few months back.
This kind of ironic humor has a long and venerable tradition in the gay community: it is referred to as "camp." And it often involves making use of the very stereotypes that have so often been hurled at the gay community in order to make its point. However, context is everything, and context is what was lacking in my post. I apologize for that, but I do not apologize in any way for seeing the irony in that situation and calling it out.
markpkessinger
(8,395 posts)ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)markpkessinger
(8,395 posts). . . but never say never!
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Which is quite poor indeed.
But truck drivers aren't judged on apparel, I suppose.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)No apology necessary for me. My brother (RIP) was gay and back when we were in college, we used to drive around the frat houses trying to decide which frat boy was gay, using of course the "dandy-esque" standard.
markpkessinger
(8,395 posts)lovemydog
(11,833 posts)I make lots of posts that go over like a lead balloon too. I get what you're saying.
markpkessinger
(8,395 posts)Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)The irony is very apparent and it's an interesting side note to boot.
Response to Oilwellian (Reply #5)
markpkessinger This message was self-deleted by its author.
WillowTree
(5,325 posts)Please accept my apology in return.
markpkessinger
(8,395 posts). . . and thank you!