calloutqueen: shatneroftheplains: You’re right and I suppose I should have known better than to think humor could ever be translated into Internet. And for the record, I will defend with all my heart your right as a gay man to call otherwise good people “bros” regardless of how much it pains my soul to hear the words. You are also allowed to wear bootcut jeans if that is the kind of life you want to lead. But I suppose my point is that I’m dubious of the progressive potential of a gay character whose narrative status is legitimated only through the mapping of exaggerated cultural markers of normative masculine straightness onto his body and by his repeated and emphatic disavowal of the “stereotypical” cultural markers of gayness.  So yes, I understand (although I don’t necessarily sympathize with) the argument that it is novel, perhaps even “refreshing,” to see a gay character like this dude on mainstream TV who is not primarily characterized by his bitchiness or “Grrllness” or whatever if only for the variety he represents and who, unlike many other primetime gay characters, is relatively fleshed out and rich in personality. But we need to be aware of the extent to which his representation as “straight in everything but those he chooses to fuck” (ie., heteronormative) constitutes not just a novel variation among the countless possible ways of representing gay characters on TV (and especially not a more “realistic” depiction of gay men - what a bullshit argument) but a powerful rejection of those identities and practices that breach the boundaries of tolerable otherness.  And it behooves me (fuck I love using that word) to point out that even though he might be a more “positive” representation than many we’ve seen in the past, his character exists in isolation from a larger gay world at all and functions only as a vehicle for the articulation of the problems of the straight people surrounding him (mind you I’m only 7 episodes in; perhaps it will shortly blow my mind). Even his very gayness is present only ever as a “lifestyle choice” (as opposed to a constellation of desire and sexual practice or even an articulable identity or whatever else “gay” or “homosexual” might mean to people) and is relevant within the narrative only to the extent that it is a vehicle for the articulation of the problems of the straight people on the show. In short, this show is still desperately lacking as far as “positive” gay representation goes. So no, it is not the use of “bro” to which I am actually objecting nor am I prescribing a certain mode of being as the “proper” one to which all gay men would adhere. It is the suggestion that by adopting the trappings of normative straight masculinity that this character signals some new type of liberatory political potential when in fact it is hugely regressive and celebratory of what is really a very narrow slice of the variety of possible queer ontologies (I love saying shit like “queer ontologies”). So there. I guess I’m glad my hair keeps you interested in my blog, because you’re generally able to articulate the types of arguments I make only without the intense misandry and fem tantrums and hairflips PREACH IT MY FELLOW QUEERS!

calloutqueen:

shatneroftheplains:

You’re right and I suppose I should have known better than to think humor could ever be translated into Internet. And for the record, I will defend with all my heart your right as a gay man to call otherwise good people “bros” regardless of how much it pains my soul to hear the words. You are also allowed to wear bootcut jeans if that is the kind of life you want to lead.

But I suppose my point is that I’m dubious of the progressive potential of a gay character whose narrative status is legitimated only through the mapping of exaggerated cultural markers of normative masculine straightness onto his body and by his repeated and emphatic disavowal of the “stereotypical” cultural markers of gayness. 

So yes, I understand (although I don’t necessarily sympathize with) the argument that it is novel, perhaps even “refreshing,” to see a gay character like this dude on mainstream TV who is not primarily characterized by his bitchiness or “Grrllness” or whatever if only for the variety he represents and who, unlike many other primetime gay characters, is relatively fleshed out and rich in personality. But we need to be aware of the extent to which his representation as “straight in everything but those he chooses to fuck” (ie., heteronormative) constitutes not just a novel variation among the countless possible ways of representing gay characters on TV (and especially not a more “realistic” depiction of gay men - what a bullshit argument) but a powerful rejection of those identities and practices that breach the boundaries of tolerable otherness. 

And it behooves me (fuck I love using that word) to point out that even though he might be a more “positive” representation than many we’ve seen in the past, his character exists in isolation from a larger gay world at all and functions only as a vehicle for the articulation of the problems of the straight people surrounding him (mind you I’m only 7 episodes in; perhaps it will shortly blow my mind). Even his very gayness is present only ever as a “lifestyle choice” (as opposed to a constellation of desire and sexual practice or even an articulable identity or whatever else “gay” or “homosexual” might mean to people) and is relevant within the narrative only to the extent that it is a vehicle for the articulation of the problems of the straight people on the show. In short, this show is still desperately lacking as far as “positive” gay representation goes.

So no, it is not the use of “bro” to which I am actually objecting nor am I prescribing a certain mode of being as the “proper” one to which all gay men would adhere. It is the suggestion that by adopting the trappings of normative straight masculinity that this character signals some new type of liberatory political potential when in fact it is hugely regressive and celebratory of what is really a very narrow slice of the variety of possible queer ontologies (I love saying shit like “queer ontologies”).

So there.

I guess I’m glad my hair keeps you interested in my blog, because you’re generally able to articulate the types of arguments I make only without the intense misandry and fem tantrums and hairflips

PREACH IT MY FELLOW QUEERS!

(Source: impostorsyndrome)


34 notes ! Reblog ! 8 months ago
Posted on October 4th at 12:56 AM
Reblogged from: calloutqueen
Originally posted by: impostorsyndrome
  1. quetzalcoitus reblogged this from human08 and added:
    Can’t beat a nice conflation of masculine male discourse (the Gricean kind) with internalised homophobia. I forgot that...
  2. human08 reblogged this from calloutqueen and added:
    PREACH IT MY FELLOW QUEERS!
  3. avantbear reblogged this from calloutqueen and added:
    PREACH IT MY FELLOW QUEERS!
  4. hrtextras reblogged this from calloutqueen
  5. dirtylion reblogged this from iamthebrainwasher and added:
    Seriously. I agree with this so much. There are so many people on tumblr who are so offended by the concept of “acting...
  6. rejoinders reblogged this from impostorsyndrome
  7. iamthebrainwasher reblogged this from impostorsyndrome
  8. calloutqueen reblogged this from impostorsyndrome and added:
    guess I’m glad...my blog, because you’re generally able
  9. calloutqueen said: how is it you always manage to say things that make sense to me without flying into a screaming fit and calling for mass castrations?
  10. impostorsyndrome posted this
Theme By: Heloísa Teixeira