Too many effeminate images of black gay men on television

[Rolyo85]

I did. You asked for the quote, I gave it to you If you claim what I quoted doesn't say what I say it does, you'll have to explain why. The rest is just you flailing.

 

[The Fly]

Totally wrong! You don't see masculine gay men (of any race) featured as friends of housewives because masculine men have enough pride to refuse to be portrayed as a lifestyle accessory for straight woman.

Well, in general, he is not totally wrong, but totally right. And again with the offensiveness of "feminine men have no pride". Shame on you.

Beneath the femmephobia though, you are sorta right - masculine men rarely have enough interests to be the sort of friends to straight women that mainstream culture likes to show. As a side not, I've never been close friends with girls, and I find it weird when most of my gay friends' besties are females...

"Masculine guys don't do what feminine guys do because they have pride" = "feminine guys have no pride". It's your own words, not mine.

Where in my post do you see the statement "feminine guys have no pride"? You don't, because I didn't say or post that. I never said "masculine guys don't do what feminine guys do because they have pride" You did not quote what I posted, you created these posts from your "interpretation or assumption" of what I meant. And that's fucked up, fluffy britches (you'll have to excuse me, I'm not fluent in snarky bitchiness)

 

[Rolyo85]

Where in my post do you see the statement "feminine guys have no pride"? You don't, because I didn't say or post that. I never said "masculine guys don't do what feminine guys do because they have pride" You did not quote what I posted, you created these posts from your "interpretation or assumption" of what I meant. And that's fucked up, fluffy britches (you'll have to excuse me, I'm not fluent in snarky bitchiness)

No, you really aren't. And let me give you an example:

If I said "White people were never slaves because they weren't fucking losers", what would the obvious implication be? Should I then start ranting that "I never said black people are fucking losers!"?

Stop flailing, man up, admit you posted without thinking, and let's move on, because you're embarrassing yourself.

 

[The Fly]

Good, now we're getting somewhere. You admit I never posted the statements you claimed I did. You took things I did say and extrapolated, inferred, and drew erroneous conclusions. That's not quoting.
I did not post without thinking, I said what I said, I meant what I said, and I stand by what I said. Nothing to be embarrassed about.
I do however agree that it's time to move on.....but one question first.
I get that you see yourself as the Champion of the Oppressed, the Defender of the Downtrodden, the Grand Poobah of Political Correctness,............does that position come with tights and a snazzy cape or just the incredible sense of self-righteousness?
Personally, I'd have held out for a golden lariat, x-ray vision, something....even Felix has a bag of tricks, and he's just a freakin' cat....a wonderful, wonderful cat...but a cat none the less.

 

[Sausy]

There are feminine type gays, masculine types and most I suspect like myself have some of both... have no problem with anyone being who they are because they simply ARE. Btw, a General Hospital fan and have seen Felix, and really like him. He's more on the effeminate side but doesn't seem outlandish or offensive at all... no mere stereotypical queen type.


Lafayette is great.... he's definitely complicated, shows both sides but is one of the stronger characters on True Blood in terms of writing and personal character.

 

[Rolyo85]

Good, now we're getting somewhere. You admit I never posted the statements you claimed I did. You took things I did say and extrapolated, inferred, and drew erroneous conclusions. That's not quoting.
I did not post without thinking, I said what I said, I meant what I said, and I stand by what I said. Nothing to be embarrassed about.
I do however agree that it's time to move on.....but one question first.
I get that you see yourself as the Champion of the Oppressed, the Defender of the Downtrodden, the Grand Poobah of Political Correctness,............does that position come with tights and a snazzy cape or just the incredible sense of self-righteousness?
Personally, I'd have held out for a golden lariat, x-ray vision, something....even Felix has a bag of tricks, and he's just a freakin' cat....a wonderful, wonderful cat...but a cat none the less.

If you want some tips on how to make your sarcasm a little less heavy handed, shoot me a PM. First lesson is free of charge.

As for the rest, you didn't answer my question. If I said "White people were never slaves because they weren't fucking losers", what would the obvious implication be?


Hint: people reading this topic are currently laughing at you.

 

[Phantas33]

^ I think most people reading here are more likely getting annoyed. Use PM if you must snap at eachother vilely, but I don't care

 

[Rolyo85]

I weep a river of tears for your plight.

The purse fight is directly related to stuff in this topic. I wanna get an answer to my question publicly, since he made his offensive comment publicly.

 

[Phantas33]

I understand you care, but it doesn't look like he'll give in anytime soon. Perhaps you both should just agree to disagree and move on? Surely his opinion or whatever it was isn't the end of the world for you. Despite the original thought being on-topic, the "purse fight" as you call it isn't IMHO. You're both allowed to have an opinion - but I don't think that constitutes having a multiple-page-spanning debate about who's opinion is right or not.

And with my previous post I was hoping to show that, in the end, perhaps you two will be the only ones posting in this thread if you continue like this.

Just trying to think of the state of the forum here...there's more than one's personal gripes.

 

[Rolyo85]

Nah, it's dead now. He can't really answer me without shooting himself in the foot. But you're right, it should stop. What bothered me is that it isn't a case of differing opinions. It's a case of a simple logical step that he denies can be made from a very offensive statement he made. If he owned it, then it would be different opinions. As it is now, it would be me saying "just because I said whites were not slaves because they weren't losers, doesn't mean blacks are losers. Show me where I said anything about blacks!" And I get rabid when faced with logical fallacies.

 

[refujiunderground]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...document_n_2883651.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices

 

[Phantas33]

All it takes is ONE to say : "I stand for who I am. I stand for what I am. Accept me or leave me be." more or less anyway. In other words, a champion is needed.

 

[Kahaih]

^There have been threads about gay celebrities who don't wear/talk about their homosexuality enough. Plain, everyday, run of the mill homo folks who have, as I've read, "let us all down because they don't shine gay 24/7".


Anyway, as for the soaps and sitcoms, etc., a writer has to first decide how important a character is to the scene/program, and then, how much air time or how many pages can/will be needed to create/build an (quickly?) identifiable/usable character.

If a character's time on page or screen is brief, then of course you are going to see stereotypes - a lot of stereotypes.

 

[MorrisseyX]

One of the arguments, I think people are not talking about is something that is esoteric some people don't get it. For a long time even heterosexual black men were emasculated in Hollywood.

I think the reason the majority of black gay men on television is effeminate is a way to emasculate the black man.

Usually, these effeminate black gay male characters are a joke, not to be taken seriously and definitely to be laughed at.

Dave Chapelle talked to Oprah about this on her show a few years ago. The video clip is on You Tube Chapelle said when he was going to star in a movie the white studio executives thought it would be funny if he would wear a dress. Dave refused to wear a dress because he thought it was offensive and also it was below him to do so. Dave thought it was abhorrent that these white studio executives thought it would be hilarious for him to wear a dress and act effeminiate in a film and he rejected the idea.

I agree and I applaud Dave Chapelle for speaking out about this emasculation of the black man. Why must a black comedian wear a dress in order to be funny? It is all about emasculating the black man and making the black man weak.

So I think people need to think a bit more critically and deeper about what Dave is trying to say.

For centuries the black male has always been constructed as a threat to white society. The black male has been demonized and I'm including straight black men here. Remember, black men were lynched and killed for even looking at a white woman until the mid 20th century in America. If a white woman said a black man raped her he would be killed long before a trial.

I think the effeminate gay black men simply engender more of the emasculation of the black man to make gay black men seem less of a threat.

I think one of the reasons there is an oversatuation of gay effeminate black men in pop culture is because they are considered less of a threat. Think about it, the Real Housewives of Altanta and shows like that people can laugh and giggle at the queens on that show.

However, can you imagine, if there was a serious shift with more masculine gay black men on television?

The LA Complex, was a real eye opener to me personally because it was wonderful to see two masculine gay black men fall in love.

It wasn't until Denzel Washington and Will Smith, Wesley Snipes radically changed things in pop culture for black men. The black male was often the white guy's side kick, best friend, but he never got the girl.
Denzel and Will helped change that with their success.

Also, there are black gay activists doing something and they aren't complaining they are taking action. People like Keith Boykin he wrote a book a couple of years ago bashing the guy JL King who wrote that offensive down low book. People like Jasmine Cannick a black lesbian she's very high profile in the media.

 

[bankside]

There is also a comedic tradition of lampooning people who take themselves too seriously. Masculine men taking themselves too seriously make themselves into a prime target for being satirised by a man in a dress.

 

[BFizzle]

I was channel surfing the other day and saw Glee and then I noticed some song and dance number and of course a black man in a dress and make up.

The character on Glee is transgender and the was based on the actor, who competed for the role on a reality show. He's not a "straight" actor selling his soul to portray the LGBT community negatively, but rather portraying his own unique identity and I think there's a place for that as well.

You sound ignorant for having a problem with it.

All it takes is ONE to say : "I stand for who I am. I stand for what I am. Accept me or leave me be." more or less anyway. In other words, a champion is needed.

Girl this ain't The Hunger Games.

 

[bankside]

Not wearing a dress = taking yourself too seriously?

No but the whole "emasculation" backlash seems a bit silly. What does "emasculation" even mean?

If there is a subculture of black men trying to prove they haven't been "emasculated" when no one else sees them that way, they can easily come across as being a bit ridiculous. I don't agree with emasculating men, if we can even figure out what that means, but REmasculating the male image can look even sillier. To me it almost seems like history had moved on so black men lost their chance to participate in patriarchal society and missed out on enough misogyny. What would have made that crowd not feel emasculated? A black remake of Leave it to Beaver?

Anyhow one way to take the piss out of anyone putting on a front of masculinity is to stick a man in a dress.

 

[Phantas33]

Not to try and put my foot in my mouth again here, but this is 2013, and imho, isn't every individual responsible for their own choices? I.E. if black male actors portray a character in a certain way, isn't that partly their choice as well?

So if Will Smith or Denzel or whomever has to cramp himself into a dress because the role or story requires it, is that the same thing as being emasculated? I can see it's different if you're a beginning/upcoming actor but these guys have earned their stars... surely they don't let ANYONE tell them how or what to do?

At the same time though, I emphasize with the cause you're going after - I'm just trying to keep a sane mind about it and see pros and cons on both sides of the fence here.

 

[Rolyo85]

In this, I have to agree with bankside. This is beginning to sound like conspiracy theories...

 

[pat grimshaw]

…Anyway, as for the soaps and sitcoms, etc., a writer has to first decide how important a character is to the scene/program, and then, how much air time or how many pages can/will be needed to create/build an (quickly?) identifiable/usable character.

If a character's time on page or screen is brief, then of course you are going to see stereotypes - a lot of stereotypes.

I agree. I thought Keith's character seemed a bit inconsistent and contrived rather than stereotypical in 6ft. Under