« Damien Hirst Skull Fetches Asking Price of $100 Million |
Main
| Church Overseers to Ted Haggard: Get a Job »
08/30/2007
The New York Post's Lame Attempt at Survey Humor
New York magazine's Intelligencer takes a look at a survey accompanying the New York Post's Larry Craig coverage today:
Intelligencer notes: "If blacks or Jews, for example, were painted in such broad strokes, there'd be widespread uproar."
The only real shock, however, is that there isn't a Sean Delonas cartoon to go along with it.
For all our Larry Craig coverage, click here.
Sphere: Related ContentPosted 10:30 AM EST by Andy in Larry Craig, New York, News, Republican Party | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Not offended at all. It's just not that funny.
Posted by: Allen | Aug 30, 2007 10:32:09 AM
lame indeed.
the legs this story has grown are getting out of hand.
Posted by: A.J | Aug 30, 2007 10:37:35 AM
Any paper that pays Amanda Peyser for her opinion should be used to clean windows and maybe line your birdcage, if you hate your bird that is.
Posted by: Davey | Aug 30, 2007 10:49:30 AM
Oh come on guys--if this were in any outlet other than The Post we'd all be laughing.
Posted by: Charles | Aug 30, 2007 11:07:20 AM
Yes, if other groups were painted like that, there would be uproar. And I would understand why. But.... the fact is that I'm not offended by this. Maybe it's because I don't relate to the pain and ridicule felt by those who don't match their seersucker suits, but I think it's really because they're just not making fun of gay people; they're making fun of hypocritical gay Senators. So maybe the title of it should be "Are You a Closeted Hypocritical Gay Senator," but ... it does say that in the line directly below.
Posted by: GC | Aug 30, 2007 11:07:43 AM
And it's printed in pink. Give me a fucking break.
Posted by: Gregg | Aug 30, 2007 11:09:43 AM
Oh my god - you idiots who are not offended by this need to wake up. They are indeed "making fun of gay people". And by NOT being offended by this, YOU are allowing them to marginalize all of us as showtune singing effete fashion obsessed queens. (Not that there is anything wrong with showtune singing effete fashion obsessed queens. I love em. But most gay men are NOT that, and that stereotype is used to disempower us and paint us as ineffectual weaklings.)
Posted by: Gregg | Aug 30, 2007 11:14:11 AM
Um ... Gregg ... I'm not a closeted married man trying to get some cock in a public restroom, so I find this piece pretty dull and not funny.
Posted by: Allen | Aug 30, 2007 11:25:14 AM
Number 4 is funny I think. The rest, meh...
Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Aug 30, 2007 11:27:42 AM
I suppose it's offensive, but I don't know if it INTENDS to be offensive or if it's so poorly written by someone with obvious lack of irony, humor or talent. It's just poorly done, like a 12 yr old boy wrote it. Nickname is "Mother"? Barbershop Quartets? Exclaiming that someone is "a very naughty boy"? Did New York mag dig this up from 1952? What type of homosexual are they exactly talking about here - Quentin Crisp? Oscar WIlde? It's more baffling than anyhting else. Just extremely arcane.
Posted by: Joe Marrazzo | Aug 30, 2007 11:32:02 AM
If the questions weren't pointed at gay men and were instead related to more political situations of hypocrisy then I'd be amused. Instead, I'm insulted.
Don't go around insinuating that this is the behavior of gay men, senators or otherwise.
Posted by: Rob (lrdarystar) | Aug 30, 2007 11:34:19 AM
Allen - YOU may see a distinction between yourself and "a closeted married man trying to get some cock in a public restroom", but the general straight readers of this article will not. The "humor" of the piece is the stereotyping of ALL gay men. Showtunes, snappy dressing, and motherly behavior, all neatly linked to gay bathroom sex. Open your eyes.
Posted by: Gregg | Aug 30, 2007 11:36:05 AM
I completely agree...the biggest offense is the fact that its just not that funny. And they have SOOO much material they could have gone to. Show tunes? Bow ties? C'mon, you can do better than that.
But i can look at this and at least see they were trying to be funny. It would be nice if other 'groups' could be so playfully ribbed once in a while w/o going into convulsions.
Posted by: Nikk | Aug 30, 2007 11:50:22 AM
#2 is funny.
Posted by: hill_w | Aug 30, 2007 12:00:51 PM
As Larry Kramer bluntly and correctly points out, the dominant culture "hates us" and will continue to hate us, even while begrudgingly offering us the barest minimum of human rights. We should not be deceived into thinking we are accepted. This is a big joke to the culture at large. It is not so much about the Craig's hypocrisy as it is about the "shame" of homosexuality. Same old, same old.
Posted by: lwoolf | Aug 30, 2007 12:21:06 PM
LWOOLF - thank you for summing up so succinctly what I was stridently trying to say.
It just bugs me to no end when gay people give this kind of thing a "pass" because it's so pervasive. Yes, there has been much worse than this. That doesn't make it right nor OK. Yes, we all need to have a sense of humor about ourselves. And believe me, I love the kind of humor that rips apart PC propaganda, like South Park and Sarah Silverman. But the attempt at humor here is so facile that it is infuriating.
The author and the magazine saw nothing wrong with stereotyping and marginalizing us, and does it with a wink and tongue in cheek. This is the kind of subtle homophobia that we need to say "No" to, not only the blatant Naugle/Romney/etc homophobia.
Sure we have much bigger fish to fry than this, and it clearly does not demand some kind of uproar when compared to the other hatred we face. But there is NO reason to dismiss it and say it is not offensive.
What upsets me here is not so much the article itself, but the easy dismissal of it.
Posted by: Gregg | Aug 30, 2007 1:17:47 PM
(that should read "do it with a wink" not "does". Oops.)
Posted by: Gregg | Aug 30, 2007 1:20:23 PM
C'mon guys, all you have to do to know that this stuff is offensive is to substitute the words "jew" or "n*gger" in place of "gay" and you'll easily see how offensive this stuff really is...
Posted by: Robert In WeHo | Aug 30, 2007 2:21:49 PM
This is not a list of random stereotypical gay traits. This is a list, specifically, of Larry Craig's behavior. And it sounds pretty damn gay to me! As does he!
Posted by: Chris | Aug 30, 2007 3:03:33 PM
And it's from New York Magazine, not the New York Post. For whatever that's worth.
Posted by: Chris | Aug 30, 2007 3:04:51 PM
And it's from New York Magazine, not the New York Post. For whatever that's worth.
Posted by: Chris | Aug 30, 2007 3:06:50 PM
Oops. Ignore that last comment. Or two.
Posted by: Chris | Aug 30, 2007 3:12:37 PM
Oops. Ignore that last comment. Or two.
Posted by: Chris | Aug 30, 2007 3:13:01 PM
Why do the more vicious and bitter of the gay community think stories like this Craig thing deserve to be screamed from the high heavens? It does deserve reporting, yes, but in the long run it doesn't change anyone's attitudes about gays or the way people vote or anything. Sometimes it even backfires. The public is thinking of gays as a bunch of toilet freaks now. Matt Sanchez? He's still working for and accepted by his conservative gang. Tyler Whitney? Gays made themselves look bad by wishing AIDS on a 17-year-old. Meanwhile 21-year-old Matt Hill Comer of Interstate Q, who doesn't feel this inner need to attack and tattle, spends his time making genuinely positive changes, actually travelling across country, really affecting change at diehard Christian colleges in their policies. He's a good gay kid who makes a difference. And he's totally ignored on this site.
Posted by: Joe T. | Aug 30, 2007 3:29:14 PM
Ugh. I'm pretty tired of this stuff. Yeah, getting stereotypes shoved in my face all the time, especially when none of them even remotely describe me, is getting REALLY old.
It doesn't matter if it was meant to be offensive or not. You can't just say "it was meant to be funny, so it's fine!!!" Well, it's not funny to me, a gay man who is the brunt of the joke. I know they're aiming to make fun of the GOP sex scandals, but they could easily do it without resorting to tired gay stereotypes that basically covey the message "gay men are not real men, and so it's an insult to say someone is gay".
Posted by: Donovan | Aug 30, 2007 4:17:10 PM
I was well on my way to being pretty pissed off about that little pink list. Show tunes? Effeminate mannerisms? Stereotypes!
Then Chris' comment took the wind out of my sails:
"This is a list, specifically, of Larry Craig's behavior."
If every item on this list is something that Larry Craig actually did, then....well, it's totally fair game. Facts don't need to be excused, even when they jibe with some classic stereotypes. The truth about this guy hurts, especially since I'd rather believe it's all a lie.
Posted by: Zlexar | Aug 30, 2007 4:47:16 PM
I know that Larry Craig would check "yes" on #s 2, 5, & 6. I don't know about the other three. Anyone? Anyone...?
Keep in mind, kids, that the Post is a Rupert Murdoch owned rag. You can't expect too much from them. I went to Wikipedia to make sure of that, and I found a (for real) Post headline, "Headless Body Found In Topless Bar."
Posted by: nic | Aug 30, 2007 5:21:37 PM
CHRIS and ZLEXAR - you're telling me that it is factual that Larry Craig sings showtunes in his car? That he has high concerns about bow ties and barbershop quartets? That his nickname was "Mother"?
What is with you people?! Do you hate yourselves so much that you will laugh at gay stereotypes just so you can pretend that straight people aren't laughing at YOU?
Posted by: Gregg | Aug 30, 2007 6:20:40 PM
Gregg:
Note my use of the word "if" above. Also:
"As president of Delta Chi, Craig secured a $100,000 loan to remodel the fraternity house, instituted study hours, and blackballed members for drug use. They called him "Mother Craig" for his officiousness."
Link is below.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/localnews/story/143801.html
Posted by: Zlexar | Aug 30, 2007 10:10:00 PM
And below are links supporting the "naughty boy" quote and at least a reference to the "Singing Senators."
http://www.radarmagazine.com/exclusives/2007/08/larry-craig-gay-singing-senators-trent-lott-jim-jeffords-john-ashcroft.php
http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2007/08/larry-craig-wants-to-punish-bad-naughty.html
It looks like the Post's list, while hostile and caustically flamboyant, is not pure fabrication.
Posted by: zlexar | Aug 30, 2007 10:23:39 PM
well, it seems the list is specific to craig. if i could just get confirmation of #1.
Posted by: nic | Aug 30, 2007 11:24:19 PM
Wow - you people really will bend over backwards to pretend that this is not homophobic stereotyping. No wonder gay political action is generally fucked.
Posted by: Gregg | Aug 31, 2007 12:57:23 AM
Gregg,
what is it that you don't get? all of the items on the list apply directly to sen. craig. this is not a broadside against gays in general. at least i don't read it that way. maybe you can explain it to me. perhaps it is i that doesn't get it.
Posted by: nic | Aug 31, 2007 3:24:12 AM
Okay, I'm going to start with that I do not take kindly to being called an idiot. That was disrespectful, immature and entirely uncalled for.
"They are indeed 'making fun of gay people'. And by NOT being offended by this, YOU are allowing them to marginalize all of us as showtune singing effete fashion obsessed queens. (Not that there is anything wrong with showtune singing effete fashion obsessed queens. I love em. But most gay men are NOT that, and that stereotype is used to disempower us and paint us as ineffectual weaklings.)"
GREGG, you sound very much like you take great offense to the possible notion that you could be labeled as a showtune singing effete fashion obsessed queen. You sound as though those very terms threaten your masculinity, and that anyone who is one, some or all of them is a sorry piece of faggot shit who does nothing but embarrass the gay community. Well guess what. There are gays like that, and they're fucking wonderful people. And just by saying you "love em" doesn't negate the fact that you clearly see them as less than men. In fact, you call people like that "ineffectual weaklings." I find that extremely offensive, and I think it does nothing but highlight your own insecurities. If you actually have feminine gay friends, I'd be interested to know what they would think if they knew you saw them in this way.
None of the items listed were offensive to the general gay community. And the only one that I could see as offensive was the one about "sitting in a wide stance" at the bathroom, which given the context of the article, was clearly aimed at the senator. And even if it wasn't, who gives a shit. And furthermore, who gives a shit what straight people think. Homosexuality does have a history of having to find sex in public places, and what's sad is not so much the act itself but the loneliness and isolation which causes and surrounds it. Not all gay men search for sex in bathrooms, but the ones who do are not necessarily terrible people.
And as for the other things on the list? Singing showtunes? Being called "mother"? I think that any gay man who takes grave offense to something like that has a lot of internalised homophobia to deal with. Because the next time I'm in the mood to put on a fucking wig and sing out "Dreamgirls" from my car, I'm going to do it really fucking loud, so every fucking gay and straight can hear it.
Posted by: GC | Aug 31, 2007 5:38:47 AM
I'm going to add to that one thing. GREGG, I don't claim to know you personally, nor what your insecurities might be. I got upset by the "idiot" comment (and the rest of what was written...), and if any of what I said was too personal, I apologise.
Posted by: GC | Aug 31, 2007 6:04:20 AM
Gregg, I actually agree with you on several points. The 'Post' is terribly homophobic in my experience. And of course they chose to print these *particular* items about Craig because they fit in with certain stereotypes that are often used to ridicule all gay people. Duh.
The problem is this: if you look up 'stereotype' in the dictionary, the definition goes something like: "an oversimplified, formulaic characterization of a group or community." The word 'untrue' is not part of the definition, though of course there are people in every group who do defy stereotypes. Craig just isn't one of them.
It's particularly frustrating to see this dirtbag in the news because he is a poster boy for so many of the images about gay people that have been used to pigeonhole us. And the Post's motives aren't honorable. But if the Post's defense is that the items they put on that list are actually true, then they owe us no further justification for publishing that unpleasant list. Just as Jon Stewart can can wear a hunting vest and have banjo music and shotgun noises playing when talking about Dick Cheney's 'hunting accident,' the Post can list some actual stuff that Craig did in pink curly script. It's brutal, it's satire, it's fair game.
Posted by: Zlexar | Aug 31, 2007 10:43:33 AM
I'm still amazed at how hard you folks try to avoid the issue here. I am saying that this is offensive because it helps to paint ALL gay men in a stereotypical way. I am not saying that showtune singing fashion obsessed queens are not real and true. I have many days where I fit that stereotype to a tee. That is not the point.
The point is that they are using broad strokes to paint gay people, in an pathetic attempt at humor. Humor is often based on stereotypes, yes, but that does not mean that items with humorous INTENT can not be OFFENSIVE.
Let's say there was a Jewish senator who got caught stealing money, and several of the items in the list referred to Jewish stereotypes like being cheap or living in New York. Even if those facts applied to my imaginary senator, that does not mean that the piece as a whole would not be offensive.
Or if it were a black senator who got busted for drugs and who happened to like eating watermelon. Would a list called "Are you a black senator" be offensive? Of COURSE it would be!!
Even if this list applies to Craig, the items chosen and their wording and the color and the font all coalesce into a portrait of gay people being a joke. Not just Larry Craig being a joke. All gay people.
I'm saying that you folks are so busy trying to excuse offensive behavior, that you are helping to belittle all gay people, yourselves included.
Posted by: Gregg | Aug 31, 2007 11:58:18 AM
"I'm saying that you folks are so busy trying to excuse offensive behavior, that you are helping to belittle all gay people, yourselves included."
I guess what *I'm* saying, Gregg, is that I hold the right to belittle and offend people to be a sacred one that outweighs any entitlement we may feel we have to respect and dignity.
Offensive behavior does not need an excuse. It is guaranteed in our constitution, and if there is any right that characterizes the best elements of the United States it is this one. We cannot have it only for groups or causes we like (ACT UP, South Park, Howard Stern, and the civil rights movement come to mind); it must be freely exercisable by all - even assholes - or it means nothing.
Do I like what New York Post is doing? Of course not. Would I ever be pissed off enough to engage in some kind of action against the paper? Maybe, if they were posting gratuitous slander that had no basis in truth and no basis in relevant current events. But that standard isn't met here: the list does have a basis in truth and is based on relevant current events. Larry Craig actually did these things. He lived the stereotype. He gave them this opportunity, and they took it.
Your earlier posts expressed incredulity that any of these items could be true. You were wrong. Most of them are true (possibly all). The Post is a publication, and satire is their right, and they did their homework. You do have a right to shake your fist at them and demand a boycott, but my suggestion is that you save your energy and uninfectious indignation for offensive items that truly are lies. Pick your battles.
Posted by: Zlexar | Aug 31, 2007 2:16:46 PM
Gregg (and everyone else reading),
I suppose that when I read the comic, I simply saw the humor in it. I am someone who is very much able to take offense at things, but I also like to laugh, and I just saw the comic as a way to poke fun at Senator Craig.
Gregg, I know that the New York Post is a right-wing newspaper, and that anything written in it is broadcast to plenty of people who hate gays. To that extent, yeah, I am upset that a bunch of homophobes are going to read that article and not get the point that they're supposed to be laughing at the hypocrisy of a gay senator who tried to ban gay marriage, and instead laugh that "oh, gays, they're always doing this and that, those silly faggots." I am, in fact, upset at that. I think that yes, the joke should have been much more pointed at the senator. But, the things listed, on their own, simply didn't offend me, I guess paritally because I didn't think that the writer was intentionally being malicious towards all gays and partially because I saw truth in them. If it were an article about Jews, and talked about being cheap, I would be offended because cheapness is not a uniformly positive quality and I have seen no connection between Jewish people and cheapness. The stereotype of blacks eating watermelon would be offensive because that image has been historically used as a way to show alleged stupidity among that race. But the things that were listed here ... I just didn't see them as negative, and I saw no reason why we had to say to straight people "wait, we're not really like this!" I mean, (certain) straight people are going to think what they want about gay people, and while it is our job as gay activists to support positive stereotypes, I just hope we don't lose our ability to laugh at ourselves either.
I mean - if straight people decided that all gays wore blue jeans and lived in apartments, should we be upset at everytime a straight person portrays us as such? I think that while working to present positive stereotypes (such as being loving, compassionate and politically active), we should also not take every supposed negative stereotype used against us as negative. I think we should be able to take it as a joke, assume best intent unless otherwise proven, and move on.
I want to finish by saying that I don't really like yelling at people over the internet (or being yelled at, but in any case) ... while I felt passionate about what I wrote and was upset while doing so, I feel that I also assumed much about you (Gregg) personally while I wrote what I did. There is a difference between saying that it seems like an author is exposing their own internalised homophobia, disdain towards feminine gays and so forth which I wrote, and saying that it is actually true. I guess that I'm sorry if some of what I wrote isn't actually true about you, even if from what you wrote it seemed like it. This whole thing just became personal, and I wish it hadn't.
Posted by: GC | Aug 31, 2007 2:29:38 PM
ZLEXAR - did I say "boycott"? No. I even wrote, "we have much bigger fish to fry than this, and it clearly does not demand some kind of uproar when compared to the other hatred we face"
My indignation was directed at folks saying this was NOT offensive. That is all. And you basically admitted in your last post that it IS offensive, so thank you.
Yes, I was wrong about the "mother" bit. Truth or not, it does not change my point if you read my post just above yours.
GC - the reason the Post's stereotypes are offensive is because they portray gay people as frivolous weaklings, just as the watermelon bit portrays blacks as less than full people. Who doesn't like watermelon? But it can still be offensive, based on context.
The pink font, the showtunes, the bow ties - all may be lovely and true on their own. But taken together they are used to portray us as weak. Un-"manly". Less than.
That is my only point.
This IS offensive. Based in truth or not. Don't try to pretend that there is no offensive nature to this humor.
(And don't worry about me taking offense to anything stated here. We are all simply little snippets of thoughts here in this comments section, and no one knows much of anything about one another. I'm not hurt by random words on the Internet, and I'm not trying to use my words to hurt others. Just trying to get a point across.)
Posted by: Gregg | Sep 1, 2007 1:34:50 AM
Gregg -
"My indignation was directed at folks saying this was NOT offensive."
Of course it's offensive. I agreed with that from the beginning. My point was that offensive behavior is fair game in a free society, which is still something that you haven't acknowledged.
And what is the point of all this indignation if, as you say, you don't actually want to do anything about it? Okay, you don't want a boycott, no action, no letter of apology - fine. Then why are you carrying on so? It strikes me that really what you wanted was an opportunity to call other people 'idiots,' self-hating, and accuse them of 'marginalizing' and 'belittling' all gay people because they disagree with your assessment of the situation. How freakishly petty to get all angry about stereotypes and then turn around and then paint us with some of the most hackneyed and - yes, stereotypical - insults that live in the gay editorial universe. You and the Post may have more in common than you think.
And I'm sorry, Gregg, but regarding the 'fact' issue, you changed gears pretty fast once you were called out on it. Here's one of your posts:
>>>"you're telling me that it is factual that Larry Craig sings showtunes in his car? That he has high concerns about bow ties and >>>>barbershop quartets? That his nickname was "Mother"?"
Okay, you're calling us out on the facts. Once shown that items 2-6 on the list have a basis in reality:
>>>"Even if this list applies to Craig, the items chosen and their wording and the color and the font all coalesce into a portrait of gay >>>people being a joke."
So you go from the truth being important in this matter to it *not* being so important. My guess is that if the list was NOT based on truth, you'd have stuck to your original point and not changed horses in mid-stream.
I guess I just think your argument kept trying to have it both ways. You seemed to demand one standard of decency for the Post and another for yourself, one standard for truth and then another one when the truth was suddenly starting to get a little inconvenient for your original position.
Posted by: Zlexar | Sep 3, 2007 3:19:30 PM
Zlexar - ya still don't get it.
My ENTIRE POINT was - when we as gay people pretend that this stuff is not offensive, then we are allowing ourselves to be marginalized. That's it. HELLO!?!
I'm talking about our own internalized behavior. Not boycotts. Not letter writing campaigns. Not banning "offensive" writing. I'm all for freedom of speech and the press.
You can characterize my comments as "changing gears" if you wish, but I have not changed my point anywhere along the way.
Dismissing the article as inoffensive reeks of internalized homophobia. I am not "demanding" any standard of "truth" or "decency" here. I am demanding a standard of self respect for ourselves as gay people.
Posted by: Gregg | Sep 6, 2007 6:25:14 PM
Just so there can be no question that the Post is homophobic in general, here is a story about Thomas Roberts, in which they use the phrase "toe tapper" to mean a gay man. Obvious reference to Larry Craig, and obviously homophobic. There is simply no way the Post's survey above can be seen as harmless. http://www.nypost.com/seven/09072007/gossip/pagesix/new_sex_mess_jolts_insider.htm
Posted by: Gregg | Sep 7, 2007 11:27:06 AM
Just so there can be no question that the Post is homophobic in general, here is a story about Thomas Roberts, in which they use the phrase "toe tapper" to mean a gay man. Obvious reference to Larry Craig, and obviously homophobic. There is simply no way the Post's survey above can be seen as harmless. http://www.nypost.com/seven/09072007/gossip/pagesix/new_sex_mess_jolts_insider.htm
Posted by: Gregg | Sep 7, 2007 11:28:28 AM
Aha! "Internalized Homophobia!" "marginalized!" You're almost there.
All you have to do is say "shock people out of their complacency" and you'll have completed the triple crown of PC rationalizations for being a dick from the 1980s. All three are wonderfully classic, empty ways to justify insulting people who dare to disagree with you. "I'm doing it for the good of the community" and all that. A bit dusty now, though. Outweek's been out of print for a long time.
By the way, your video about Fred Thompson (http://youtube.com/watch?v=JgtLrQijdxo) didn't contain any stereotypical images at all. Lots of self respect in that one.
Posted by: Zlexar | Oct 2, 2007 3:45:16 PM