Comments

  1. says

    They played their characters?! WTF? I thought they were supposed to be the cast members on tour.

    Still great to hear young people in Ireland cheering a gay couple kissing!

  2. Mark says

    The show jumped the shark in December 2009.

    Many complain about Kurt and I just have to make this one point: Kurt’s obnoxiousn­­ess has nothing to do with sexual orientatio­­n.

    Kurt is annoying because he’s self-absor­­bed and melodramat­­ic NOT because he’s homosexual­­.

    Do NOT mistake 1) sexual orientatio­­n for, 2) cultural identity. The first is biological­ly determined and naturally occurring; the second is ACQUIRED.

    Kurt was born liking guys NOT loving Cher and singing show tunes. Homosexual­s are born. Gays are constructe­d.

    Unfortunately this disctincti­on is lost on everyone. It’s especially sad most “Gays” do not get this.

    “Official Gay Identity” (in America) is nothing more that PTSD – a reaction-formation CONSTRUCTE­D and ACQUIRED as a response to heterosexi­­st bigotry.

    What’s gonna happen when The Gays can serve openly and get married in all 50 states? Their defensive, opposition­al culture of marginaliz­ation will recede. Meaning characters like Kurt (and reports of same sex kisses like this one) will be pointless, anathema.

  3. Judy Was A Punk says

    @ Mark…Oh for christs sake. Its a tv show meant to entertain, not solve world peace. I suggest you dont watch it if its not to your liking.

  4. mstrozfckslv says

    season 1 of glee was fresh and great with plot 7 character development being in the lead while the music fit and supported that

    everything after season 1 sucks with the focus being what music stars songs can they fill an episode with and screw plot and character development.

  5. William says

    I have mixed feelings here. On the one hand, I agree with those who think Mark is over-reacting; and say, with them, “Get over yourself. It’s a television show!”

    On the other hand, I agree with Mark that the Kurt character comes off as obnoxious at times. I really hope that’s not how mainstream straight people think of gay people.

  6. says

    Two points: I have to agree with Mark a little…….we do have an oppositional culture but when the time comes that we don’t have to be oppositional we will channel our energy into greater creativity and be a really positive part of society rather than a protesting part…….yes, I know we are positive and creative at the moment , I simply mean we will be more so.

    Second; Go Dublin, it’s now one of the most gay friendly destinations in Europe……we have had to grow up quickly, and we did.

  7. Kevin says

    I’ve seen the tour. Yes they play their characters and Golden Globe winner Chris Colfer aka Kurt gets the most applause of anyone whenever he’s onstage so get over yourselves. People love him as Kurt.

  8. Rob says

    I’ve been a musician all my life and I think Glee is a blast. It’s a fun-filled romp that brings gay to the people. I attended this concert here in Chicago and it was A number one entertainment, from beginning to end. Lighten up, amigos.

  9. Rowan says

    1,2,3 Chris Colfer fans will go crazy!

    Kevin, Chris is a charicature like so many flaming gay men before him but that’s okay.

    What is interesting and I say this going on so many social media sites, is re fangurls, I never here them pissed off that Colfer is gay, its just assumed he is gay and they still fancy him.

    But with Matt Bomer, wow, talk about frothing at the mouths everything from ‘I’m going to have to find a new guy to love now, to why is he gay?, to OMG nooo!’ etc etc

    So question here is Colfer ‘yay he is gay I soo fancy him’ and I’m thinking ‘like a fag hag?’ but Bomer fangurls need to give each other pep talks on how to fantasize about him or act like bitches.

    I would love it if someone write a proper article about gay actors being Out and not some freak from Newsweek because the stuff going on now on blind item blogs-it’s like every other gay blind is Bradley Cooper (they’re guesses)-to tumblr or twitter with Matt Bomer fanatics and the crazy fan gurl obsession of Colfer, it would be a fascinating piece.

  10. Larry says

    The fact that the Dublin O2 Arena packed with people, screamed and cheered when two female actresses and two male actors (in character) kissed each other in celebration of their gay relationships is earth shattering. If you hate the show, or Kurt, simply turn it off and shut up. Why would even bother to click on this or to comment? Kurt is over the top in many ways, with his arrogance and superiority, but has a heart of gold. If you don’t know this, you don’t really watch the show. So, everybody lighten up and enjoy! (Colfer also has one of the best voices that I have ever heard)

  11. Hue-Man says

    Predictions of a future homogeneous bland gay stereotype – more like Will Truman than Jack McFarland – are as ridiculous as someone predicting that heteros will be a similarly homogeneous bland straight stereotype. They don’t exist and won’t exist because human personalities are so diverse and because gay people range in age from early teens to late 90s.
    I’m not a Gleek but appreciate the positive ambassadors that the Glee cast have been on TV, on stage, on radio and in print media; it’s hard to think of another show which has had the same impact.

  12. uffda says

    Mark (3rd post above) is mostly right. When there’s no more resistance we will drop our pretensions, defenses and posturing, all of which will then become even more ridiculous than they already are. Two gay performers out there epitomise this: Matt Alber and Tom Goss. Tom has said in interviews that he wants to bring a sense of normalcy to gay life, and in his joyful music he does that. Matt, with an innovative and soaring cd called “Hide Nothing” does the same – both regular guys of an exceptional kind singing about love, both married to men. Already there’s a whole world out there of such people. Not very sure if we’re meeting them on line here though in such a frequently fractious atmosphere.

  13. qjersey says

    To chime in.
    @Mark… you are dead wrong. You conflate Kurt’s atypical gender expression as being some sort of oppositional identity. The hatred aimed at Kurt/Chris is all about his “effeminate” qualities. Modern gay men are so conformist about masculinity. Oppositional identity means to embrace what is not valued by the dominant culture…that would be “Queers,” sex pigs, and the dudes at Treasure Island Media.

  14. Rin says

    @Mark,

    do you have research to back up the fact that ALL gay men are born liking guns, fighting, football and baseball and that it is somehow society that has forced some gays to feel a proclivity to things deemed feminine?

    When I read posts such as these I can’t help but feel sad. What business is it of yours, mine, or anyone else’s how anyone else “acts”?

    If someone is happy (a rare thing in this world) with who they are, regardless of how they came to the place, we should all be pleased for them.

    On a side note, Scandinavian countries have done a lot more research into gender sexual preference and there have been a lot of interesting studies about brain patterns, lobe activity, amygdala response to show that in many gay men there are internal (not social) responses that are similar to those of women.

  15. jason says

    I’m sorry but I found this very tacky and not very gay-friendly. Firstly, the two actresses look nothing like genuine lesbians. Their kiss came across as if it’s pandering to the sleazy straight guy fantasy for girl-girl action, with the girls wearing very little in the way of clothing.

    We gay men need to be very careful how lesbianism is promoted to the public. It is NOT about “two hot chicks” making out. Glee ought to be ashamed of itself for promoting a very sexist and counter-productive image of lesbians.

  16. RyanD says

    @Jason You should probably tell Ellen’s wife to change her face/body then, because she doesn’t seem to have heard that she’s not allowed to look hot.

  17. Paul R says

    @Jason, for someone whose every post talks about how much he hates stereotypes and works endlessly to educate the rest of us on how we’ve all been brainwashed by society, I can’t believe you think there’s a “look” for “genuine” lesbians.

    For those of you irritated by Colfer’s flamboyance, the show provides a counter “type.” Hint: it’s his boyfriend.

    Enough straight Americans know enough gay people to realize that we’re not all one big stereotype. If they don’t, they’re ignorant, isolated, bigoted, or all three and a TV show isn’t going to make a damn bit of difference. That would be like saying any other minority group is identical. No rational, remotely intelligent person thinks that way.

  18. Mike in the Tundra says

    @Mark Oh Mark, you’re so butch. Oh Mark, you’re so straight acting. Oh Mark, you’re such a stud. Feel better now? Good.

    Thanks for playing. We have a lovely departure gift for you.

  19. Bobeau says

    sad that many gay men have rules about the effeminacy of other men.

    Colfer is a role model for his effeminacy as much as for his openness. I always admire men who’ve been able to hold onto their feminine characteristics….

  20. Phil says

    Why so much intolerance about Chris Colfer’s character? There are three gay male characters on Glee, that is to say major characters that are integral to the show and its plot development: Kurt (the Broadway show tunes type), Blaine (not at all the Broadway show tunes type) and Karofsky (closeted football player). That’s balance, but what the haters are asking for is censorship of the Kurt Hummel character. Censorship is wrong. If you’re in love with censorship so much, move to North Korea.

  21. Bobeau says

    that’s an open question…..

    they did this skit for at least 43 audiences previously without the Klaine or Brittana kisses.

    My guess is that the kisses were improvs for the last performance.

  22. uffda says

    There are many good additional thoughts and emendations here to what Mark@ said earlier about gay people having constructed somewhat warped oppositional forms of behavior which would not exist if they – gay people and others – were more easily welcomed into the larger society. As a result my original enthusiasm for Mark’s point of view is modified…indeed, there will always be great variations in human behavior which have nothing to do with the oppositions of society. Still, the heartache, anger, and resultant extreme behavior (you name it) which accompany exclusion and rejection will surely lessen both within and without for many of us when we are fully able to take an unopposed “place at the table.” That time is evolving and a show like Glee – and so many others – makes at least a fitful contribution to us all.

  23. kodiak says

    whether you agree with mark or not, he sure prompted a slew of interesting responses.

    didn’t watch the clip, but the lesbian kiss is very chaste, non sexual way of kissing. no wrapping arms around each other. isn’t the dumb blond character in love with the wheelchair nerd? isn’t she more “lebanese” than lesbian? forgive me, i’ve only seen half a dozen episodes.

  24. zz says

    Jason, the kiss wasn’t pandering to straight males, it was pandering to Brittana fans (the Brittany/Santana coupling). Both actors are very aware of the huge fan base for this couple. Naya Rivera, especially, plays to this base and has completely embraced the fandom. There have been many instances where she’s intervened to push the Brittana relationship and also her character’s coming out process. That said, the kiss was chaste, because the world still has issues with anything but chaste.

    On a side note, yes, Brittany dated”the wheelchair nerd” Arnie, but after he called her stupid, she dumped his ass.

  25. Mark says

    My original comment had nothing to do with gender. That many reflexively believe it did is pure fantasy and, most importantly, PROOF of my original point that “Official Gay Identity” is a defensive post-traumatic-stress-disorder.

    Whether acting feminine or masculine, WHETHER REBELLING OR CONFORMING, it’s all an ACT – conditioned by the society in control.

    Arguing that gushing, prancing and a love of show tunes is AS natural (i.e. biologically determined) as sexual orientation is dangerously reductive and misses the point entirely.

    while many “Gay” men ACT feminine, many other “Gay” men ACT masculine, each behavior is exactly the same: an insecure, defensive, posturing ACT conditioned by the oppression of a hegemonic culture that rejects all homosexuals.

    MY POINT IS ABOUT CULTURAL IDENTITY…NOT GENDER. How would any Gay man ACT if homosexuality were NOT hated and vilified? Probably somewhere in between the two clownish gender extremes currently embraced.

    Whether we like it or not, hegemony controls the thinking, self-perceptions and behavior of marginalized population­s…BY DESIGN. That is how power works.

    As a consequence, those oppressed groups coagulate. They form identities and communities in opposition to the dominant culture that repudiates them.

    Whether rebelling or conforming­, the cultural identity of all members of a given society (whether they be enfranchis­ed or dis-enfran­chised) is determined by that society’s rules, mores and power structure.

    As long as homosexuality is deemed unacceptable, both “Official Gay Culture” and “Official Gay Identity” will be a defensive construction bolstering a fragile, insecure, damaged population.

  26. Sean Mac says

    Mark – Your concerns are becoming moot, seeing as how the feather/leather drag extremes which previously dominated media representation of GLBT folk are now rounded out with representation from the entire spectrum. Kids aren’t stupid. They know there are lifestyle choices *within* the gay community. I’ve met kids like Kurt and I’m thrilled they feel comfortable to be themselves. As long as they aren’t using the self-descriptor “diva” as license to be bitchy, of course.

  27. Mark says

    Consider this:

    Increasing rights for “The Gays” (like marriage in New York) is great news we all welcome.

    It is also the death knell for “Official Gay Culture” and “Official Gay Identity”…as it is currently contructed.

    How oppositional and marginalized can you ACT once you are enfranchised members of society?

    How does one rebel from the inside?

  28. Mark says

    Same question put another way:

    Who is Kurt WITHOUT Karofsky?

    Does Kurt’s identity have any meaning or relevance without the hate of world on his shoulders?

    While powerful and politically relevant, it’s also dangerous to have Gay Characters who’s entire identities are nothing but defensive reactions to hate.

    Is the character of Kurt (or Official Gay Identity as currently constructed) even possible without that hate? NO. That is exactly my point about “Official Gay Culture” and “Official Gay Identity”.

  29. testintgon says

    @Mark

    You are totally right that what makes Kurt obnoxious is not his homosexuality, but the fact that he is self-absorbed and spoiled. But I think that both his homosexuality and his obnoxiousness make him an interesting and unique character. And regardless of how you feel about the character, you gotta admit Chris Colfer does an excellent job playing it, especially for somebody so young and inexperienced.

    However, I think you’re 100% wrong in believing that gay people won’t act up or whatever you called it if/when there is equality. Anybody who has ever worked around kids can tell you as little as about 4 or 5 it is pretty obvious which boys will grow up to be linebackers and which will crow up to behave like Kurt, regardless of which gender they grow up to be attracted to. If anything I think equality would have the opposite effect and there will be more flamers out there because more straight guys will feel the freedom to express themselves. I have straight friends who LOVE musical theater and poetry, but they downplay that among their straight friends.

  30. Mark says

    @ Testintgon

    Sure, young people will always act out. I never said “that gay people won’t act up…when there is equality.” What I said was the reasons will be different.

  31. Mark says

    “Mark, if you are enfranchised why rebel?” – UFFDA

    Yes. That is EXACTLY the point.

    It might be fun now but what happens when there is nothing and no one to rebel against? How do The Gays define themselves then?

  32. uffda says

    Mark – great fun here.

    There will always be someone and something to rebel against, it’s the nature and value of contrast itself. However, gay men and all the rest will find new reasons for rebellion even when being gay isn’t one of them. Won’t that be nice, whether macho or fem it will take something more to stoke the disapproval of others. The challenges will never be over, the changes and growth unending. That’s why the process is the journey.

    Thanks for your many thoughts, clarifications, patience and good humor.

    I would ask, after all this discussion, is there any way in which your first post now seems inadequate or overstated? I am not asserting anything here. This simply interests me because it is rare to find anyone willing to step up to any form of post humility, let alone to the horror of apology. You’re fine with me as you are, but…

  33. Justin says

    How is an effeminate pre-pubescent child whom would rather play with dolls than cars, conforming to a (supposed) cultural category of sexual orientation?

    It’s those whom could NEVER pass as straight who threw open the closet doors to let ALL OF US through.

  34. Mark says

    @ UFFDA

    My first post stands on its merits. Of course we’ll never get rid of rebellion. However, the reasons for it will change.

    It’s my impression that most readers comprehension was “inadequate” and their reactions “overstated”. Proof of the very point I was making in the first place: marginalization produces an oppositional culture of insecure, self-conscious people who affect counterfeit poses with defensive bravado.

    Yes, the marginalization is wrong. Yes, it’s all beyond The Gays control. No, they’re not excused for not realizing this…in 2011.

    I’ve learned that attempting an intellectual discussion with The Gays about any of this is like trying to reason with a Scientologist. You can’t have an objective intellectual discussion with people who are emotional and threatened.

  35. uffda says

    Mark…”trying to reason with a Scientoligist”. Ouch. I can’t say it’s not true but you DO need actual, thinking grownups who are gay as friends. T-road doesn’t appear to be the best working pool for this. At the same time it must be said that your tone is not inviting, which means less than tactful, therefore insensitive and unpersuasive to people who are “self-conscious…emotional and threatened.”. Right. So then your motives can only be to vent (in the hopes, perhaps, that someone will listen). Not the maximum use of argument perhaps, or your skills.

    Sadly, however, it does perfectly match the tone of most
    commentators here – the defensive “Scientolists”. Thus you are wedded in perfect, hostile irony to one another. Talk of “oppositional”. Another tactic might work better.

  36. Mark says

    @ UFFDA

    Correct: my “tone” betrays my frustration. Most Americans would rather watch Dancing with the Stars than have an intelligent discussion about Global Warming or Iraq. Similarly, most American Gays would rather watch America’s Next Top Model than have an intelligent discussion about the future of “Gay” Culture, or the nature of “Gay” Identity. As long as The Gays continue to substitute political reality with pop culture escapism, they perpetuate their own indentured status.

    I disagree my tone matches that of Towleroad readers, specifically those responding to my comments. While I approach this discourse with knowledge they, as I’ve already stated, respond with anger and insecurity. Here’s an inconvenient truth: I really haven’t stated anything unusual or offensive; I’ve only stated the obvious.

    Still I am met with the raging, misguided id of so many damaged people. Which only proves my original point: “Official Gay Identity” is POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER from a lifetime of being hated and vilified. Consider:

    1. It’s only natural (and obvious) the condition of post-traumatic stress disorder would result from such grotesque, bigoted circumstances.

    2. It’s only natural for people living through such thorough and unexamined trauma to be completely unaware of it. BY DESIGN hegemonic oppression renders victims ignorant, preoccupied with the burden of their oppression only.

    3. It’s predictable for such people to create what they think is a positive identity in opposition to their oppression. What they fail to realize is the “postive identity” they have worked so hard to create is OPPRESSION DEPENDENT – constructed as a response to their marginalization only. Such and “identity” can never be complete or, therefore, positive.

    4. It’s predictable for such people to take offense when presented with the very uncomfortable fact they’re damaged, that the Cultural Identity they cling to so desperately is not merely inadequate but invalid.

    5. Gays taking offense at this simple truth is proof of the PTSD and that “Gay” Identity is a sham.

    I feel I must state, AGAIN, the “damage” I speak of IS NOT sexual orientation but a cultural identity the result of bigoted hegemony. The flawed condition in question is NOT homosexuality. Sexual orientation is natural, determined. The damaged state I reject is Gay Identity constructed as necessarily oppression dependent.

    Instead of faulting my comments and motives, why not examine the psychology of The Gays responding to those comments?

    Instead of asking me why my comments are so incendiary, it’s actually better to ask why The Gays respond to them with anger. If it’s true my tone matches theirs, how is it you and I are able to have a reasonable discussion here? That seems to contradict this idea that everyone here is a raging mess.

  37. Mark says

    @ UFFDA

    As an analogy look at American Blacks. Would anyone argue Black men are born “gang banging thugs”? No, of course not. That would be racist. It is clearly understood the persona of “gang banging thug” is an ACQUIRED CULTURAL IDENTITY.

    It is clear everyone easily makes the distinction between race and cultural identity. The former is biologically determined, the latter is culturally constructed and acquired.

    Strangely, that SAME DISTINCTION is lost when we examine sexual orientation and cultural identity. Homosexuals are all magically expected to be “Gay” – born with a love of Lady Gaga, Cher and show tunes. How can anyone argue this and NOT be accused of being reductive and offensive?

    It is grotesque and deeply offensive to me, as a homosexual, that I am told (and expected to believe) that ALL homosexuals are actually born “Gay” – when “Gay” is a cultural identity that is NOT inherent but ACQUIRED.

    It is even more offensive to me that “The Gays” believe this, as it is proof of their own subjugation.

Leave A Reply