When is an agenda not an agenda? in Subtexts Forum

RSS
Email

0 Points

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

When is an agenda not an agenda?

Author

Comment

Ken Hanke

When is an agenda not an agenda?

Lead

[-]

Posts: 72199

Mar 28 02 1:45 PM

Administrator

Tags : None

Without wishing to get into specifics and end up being slammed for attacking another publication (which is not my point), I want to note a singular peculiarity that I find in the world of fandom...I happened to be reading a genre mag the other day and came across a letter to the editor that was praising the magazine. The praise took the form of being so delighted to be reading a publication which "has no personal or political agenda." Now, I'm hard-pressed to accept the existence of a publication so faceless that it has no personal agenda, but leave that to one side for the moment. As I read further into the magazine, I encountered reviews and articles that would include the concept that this or that movie wasn't very good, but was worth watching simply because of the looks of this or that "hot" actress. Similarly, there was a review of a book that expressed disgust with writers mentioning gay subtexts. But this isn't an agenda...However, if I write a review that says (for example) that DARK CITY isn't very good, but that you get to see Rufus Sewell's naked backside (not that I would, since that's hardly a barometer of the quality of a film for me), it would suddenly become an agenda. Or if we reviewed a book and commented that it deliberately obscured any mention of gay subtext, it would become part of an agenda. So what I'm inescapably concluding is that it becomes an agenda the moment it's not heterosexual. If it is heterosexual, it's not an agenda... Maybe it's just me, but I see a double-standard at work here.

Advertisement
	Remove this ad Remove this ad

Bob Gutowski

Re: When is an agenda not an agenda?

[-]

Posts: 3053

Mar 28 02 2:51 PM

I don't know, but what comes to mind immediately is the protest "I don't hate homosexuals, but why do they have to go around announcing that they're gay?" The answer of course, is that if we don't somehow make it clear, we'll stay invisible by being taken for heterosexuals, since that is assumed to be the "norm." Therefore, it's normal to talk about Ms. Anderson's "rack," if you will, but, automatically, it's an an overt, political act to, oh, let's say, publish a photo of Ioan Griffud's hiney. A double standard, to be sure, with the weight of years of snide comments, repression, physical abuse and murder behind it.

Lelia Loban

Re: When is an agenda not an agenda?

[-]

Posts: 5920

Mar 28 02 6:29 PM

I'm curious what this famous hidden agenda is supposed to accomplish. "Promote the gay lifestyle?" Does that mean: Turn men gay? Well, then, what are those comments about the gay subtext and the picture of Ioan Gruffudd's arse doing in an article written by a woman? I mean, I can't quite figure out why it would be in a straight woman's interest to turn men gay.

Oh, I see, she's conspiring to turn lesbians into straight women by enticing them into leering at the cute male butt, right? No? Okay, okay, so she's trying to turn women into men? No? Um, trying to turn straight women into gay men? Trying to turn gay men into straight women? No, no, she's trying to shock straight women so much with awareness of our own wicked *lust* for handsome men that we'll all do backflips of repentance and mutate into lesbians, right there in front of the magazine rack at Borders!

Ah, but if the gay male editor chooses the photos, then everything's different, naturally. In that case, obviously the woman writer is only a token, given the assignment to provide a convenient cover story so that the editor could sneak a male backside into the magazine and blame it on the jane. The token woman writer doesn't know it, since (like most women) she's too busy choosing a fingernail polish to bother her fluffy little head about conspiracies or other complicated things, but that particular page is coated with a special invisible potion, see, and when you turn the page, it goes poof, and sprinkles you with fairy dust.

Anyhow, that photo is on page 66. (The boobs on p. 41 don't mean anything special, of course. Just forget about those.) Add one more 6 and you know what that means. Gasp!! Why, it's the *hidden* 6, written in that invisible potion! Clear proof of a conspiracy. :evil

Hey, makes sense to me. Makes as much sense as anything else about the "hidden agenda," anyhow.

Bob Gutowski

An aside, if you will

[-]

Posts: 3053

Mar 28 02 7:03 PM

For me to be sandwiched, as I am above, between the vital and beautifully considered writing of Ken and Leila is really a thrill.

There!

luluthebeast

Isn't Hate & Prejudice Wonderful?

[-]

Posts: 8005

Mar 28 02 7:42 PM

Some of the local boys were complaining the other day of the "Black Agenda" at the Oscars.

Richard Valley

Re: When is an agenda not an agenda?

[-]

Posts: 54081

Mar 28 02 8:46 PM

>>So what I'm inescapably concluding is that it becomes an agenda the moment it's not heterosexual. If it is heterosexual, it's not an agenda... <<

That is the only possible conclusion, yes. It also becomes an agenda when the magazine with the agenda outsells the magazines without the agenda, and remains on the news stands after the magazines without the agenda depart. I've no desire to start a magazine war, either--as Ken says, that isn't the point--but if we weren't SUCCESSFULLY doing what we do*, we wouldn't be hearing any complaints about it . . .

*which is to broaden the scope of film writing, I'd say, not turn people gay.

opticalguy

Re: Isn't Hate & Prejudice Wonderful?

[-]

Posts: 349

Mar 28 02 8:47 PM

As someone who has had a lot of exposure to some pretty "out" gays from an earlier than average age (I was in theater from my early teens) I never did get the whole "gays are OK as long as they are invisible" argument. I have actually heard someone say (recently) that he "resented the way they forced their sexuality on him." I responded with, "until someone pulls down your pants and cornholes you on the spot you aren't having anything forced on you." :rolleyes

Sheesh! I just don't get it. Some of the more exhibitionist folks at the Christopher Street West Parade out here in L.A. do seem a bit much to me but consider the venue. Also I refuse to keep my public displays of affection toward my wife (Eek! Public kissing! Those vile hetros !) so why should a gay couple be even more restrained? At 10% (approximately) of the population gays are more "normal" than we Jews are with our 3%.

As for the "black agenda" crap I think the obvious explanation here in Hollywood holds true. Russel Crowe shot his mouth off too often and alienated the Academy members and Denzel deserved his nomination. Actors who normally play noble characters who then do a flamboyant turn as a really nasty heavy usually get the votes as well.

Not that I'm above stereotyping myself. I think that it is true that gay men do tend to throw much more entertaining parties than stogy, hetro men.

opticalguy@aol.com (Spencer Gill)

Ken Hanke

Re: An aside, if you will

[-]

Posts: 72199

Mar 28 02 11:00 PM

Administrator

<<For me to be sandwiched, as I am above, between the vital and beautifully considered writing of Ken and Leila is really a thrill.>>

Well, if you were actually sandwiched between us and not just our writing, you might be even more thrilled...or maybe not.

Ken Hanke

Re: Isn't Hate & Prejudice Wonderful?

[-]

Posts: 72199

Mar 28 02 11:11 PM

Administrator

<<I responded with, "until someone pulls down your pants and cornholes you on the spot you aren't having anything forced on you.">>

He would also know he was having an experience. And the scenario is unlikely, since in 99.9% of the cases where I encounter someone whose manhood is threatened by gay men, the gent being threatened would be safe in Portsmouth on a pay night.

I find the whole business somewhere between amusing and disgusting--with a side order of bafflement. I do wonder sometimes what the threat is...I mean when we explore a gay subtext, if it's not there, then we are at worst absurd, right? I can only conclude therefore that we must not be absurd and have hit on a home truth that is making people nervous. Just why it makes them nervous is another question--one I am not going to try to answer.

As for the whole idea that gays are fine so long as they know their place--I think we should call this "Uncle Liberaceism"--that's too absurd and bizarre to comment on. Most of us--Richard being an exception, since I'm convinced he emerged from the womb with a cocktail glass in one hand, doing a Noel Coward impression--went through a hell of a lot of turmoil, inside or outside, to get to a point where we didn't mince (and I use the term advisedly) words about who and what we were. I'll be damned if I'm going to let someone take that away from me.

luluthebeast

I Guess That I Was Lucky

[-]

Posts: 8005

Mar 29 02 12:51 AM

My grandfather was a painter and whenever my sister and I went to visit my Dad (early divorce) and him on Cape Cod we would always go up to Provincetown to visit his artist friends. Now, as some of you might know, Provincetown has basically three types of people: tourists, gays, and Portuguese fishermen, which makes for a rather eclectic mix. Also a lot of good restaurants and a wonderful Portuguese bakery that has the best trutas in the world! We would also hit many of the clubs that had gay acts (even in my pre-teens) and never heard any negative comments about this from my family, so I was never taught that there was anything wrong about being gay. Maybe if more kids grew up this way we wouldn't have to worry about agendas. And then people wouldn't miss the drag races in P-Town!

77Jerry

Re: Isn't Hate & Prejudice Wonderful?

[-]

Posts: 4481

Mar 29 02 5:34 AM

"Some of the local boys were complaining the other day of the "Black Agenda" at the Oscars."

This view was running rampant on the Rotten Tomatoes forum boards Oscar eve. It can be discouraging to be reminded that not everyone is as "enlightened" as ths posters on Scarlet Street...

Advertisement
	Remove this ad

77Jerry

Re: Isn't Hate & Prejudice Wonderful?

[-]

Posts: 4481

Mar 29 02 5:42 AM

"We would also hit many of the clubs that had gay acts (even in my pre-teens) and never heard any negative comments about this from my family, so I was never taught that there was anything wrong about being gay. Maybe if more kids grew up this way we wouldn't have to worry about agendas. And then people wouldn't miss the drag races in P-Town!"

Sounds like a charming childhood Lulu and your reminiscences are a welcome break from the sort of 'victimization' stories that can sometimes drown out the more easygoing childhood stories one hears...

Ken Hanke

Re: Isn't Hate & Prejudice Wonderful?

[-]

Posts: 72199

Mar 29 02 5:48 AM

Administrator

Interesting take on the Oscars and I'm willing to bet that it was mostly being spouted by people who didn't even see the performances in question. I grant you that Halle Berry was my third choice (behind Kidman and not-a-hope-in-hell Zellwegger), but I don't deny Berry's dynamite performance, and it never occurred to me that she won because of any "Black Agenda." God knows, I'd rather have seen her win than Spacek or Dench, despite the fact that I like both actresses and liked Dench quite well in IRIS. As for Washington's Oscar...I'd have rather seen Tom Green get one for FREDDY GOT FINGERED than Sean Penn for I AM SAM, so that didn't upset me. And if you're gonna teach Russell Crowe a lesson, Washington was the obvious next choice (and it made up for him not getting one for THE HURRICANE). I don't really think ANY of this had anything to do with a "Black Agenda."

77Jerry

Re: Isn't Hate & Prejudice Wonderful?

[-]

Posts: 4481

Mar 29 02 5:52 AM

I don't really think ANY of this had anything to do with a "Black Agenda."

I certainly agree, but the award winners coupled with the fact that Whoopie was hosting and Sidney Poitier was honored with a special award appeared to be enough to convince some otherwise.

Lelia Loban

Re: Isn't Hate & Prejudice Wonderful?

[-]

Posts: 5920

Mar 29 02 11:24 AM

I sometimes harbor a strong suspicion that, while some of the "hidden agenda" comments come from true homophobes with a genuine, superstitious fear and ignorance about the subject, some of those remarks are purely disingenuous. I suspect some of the people talking about the "hidden agenda" are so indifferently homophobic that, although they're obviously not gay-friendly, they really don't give a rat's ass about who's gay and who's not, or who's out and who's not. They don't really believe any of that "promoting the homosexual lifestyle" nonsense they spread, because they're educated people, they're not total fools, and they know perfectly well that you can't catch gayness from reading a magazine. I think some of these people are simply publishing rivals or personal enemies, trying to compete by marginalizing Scarlet Street by any means available. If stirring up homophobia looks like a convenient way to trash the magazine, then what the hell, they'll play the gay card.

Ken Hanke

Re: Isn't Hate & Prejudice Wonderful?

[-]

Posts: 72199

Mar 29 02 12:13 PM

Administrator

<<they're educated people, they're not total fools>>

Well, I could name four or five...

Richard Valley

Re: Isn't Hate & Prejudice Wonderful?

[-]

Posts: 54081

Mar 29 02 6:15 PM

>>although they're obviously not gay-friendly, they really don't give a rat's ass about who's gay and who's not, or who's out and who's not. <<

It goes beyond that, Lelia. It does so the minute someone says that not only don't they care, but nobody should care and the subject has no place in a genre publication. That's just the modern way of keeping gay people closeted. It used to be that a gay person was supposed to be ashamed of being gay and, for that reason, had to keep it a secret. Now it's argued that it should be taken as just a matter of course and, because it's so common and no one really cares, it shouldn't be discussed. The end result is exactly the same, and I'm very far from convinced that the motive behind it isn't the same, too . . .

Morgan the Poisoner

Re: Isn't Hate & Prejudice Wonderful?

[-]

Posts: 1113

Mar 29 02 6:33 PM

However much straight men go on about not caring if someone is gay or not, I find that after a glass of whine or three they're extremely curious as to *what* we do and *how* we do it. For instance, a friend of mine (straight) caught the first two episodes of QUEER AS FOLK (UK) and immediately wanted to know what rimming was! Answers to such questions usually provokes disgust on the part of the straight man, and each time I am reminded of something Quentin Crisp said in THE CELLULOID CLOSET (I quote from memory):

"When heterosexual people think of homosexual people they invariably think of what homosexual men do to one another. And when they think of it, they imagine themselves doing it, and they don't like that. It's rather like that old joke: 'I don't like peas and I'm glad I don't like peas because if I liked them I would eat them and I hate them!'."

In my experience, that's usually what it comes round to and that is why many straight men will never understand or respect us.

Lelia Loban

Re: Isn't Hate & Prejudice Wonderful?

[-]

Posts: 5920

Mar 29 02 7:18 PM

I do hear a lot of people who don't want to know theyre prejudiced express homphobia as some variation and fugue on "Don't ask, don't tell," and I've seen plenty of those examples of men *and* women who ask questions so that they can make a drama of shuddering over the answers. Yes, I agree that those attitudes are common and I agree that they're hurtful. Nevertheless, I still perceive what looks to me like cynicism, a *fake* shuddering, for effect, in the repetitive complaints from a select few of the usual suspects.

Nobody's forcing them to read this website or the magazine. Why do they subject themselves to something that apparently bothers them? Why pick at a scab if it hurts? Because they think it's our scab, not theirs. They're not bleeding at all. They want to make us bleed. It's still homophobia, of course, but it's in the service of tribalism.

Brian Norliss

Re: Isn't Hate & Prejudice Wonderful?

[-]

Posts: 2737

Mar 29 02 8:25 PM

All of this ignores the fact Scarlet Street and this site is about a lot more than just homosexuality. It's not that Scarlet Street is EXCLUSIVELY gay-oriented. The nay-sayers can't even stand it that Scarlet Street is gay-INCLUSIVE.

George Kaplan

Re: Isn't Hate & Prejudice Wonderful?

[-]

Posts: 433

Mar 30 02 2:31 PM

One my favorite examples of the supposed non-existence of a "heterosexual agenda": men's exercise magazines. I work out, so I pick up a few (magazines, I mean) and one of the articles that appear in most every issue (aside from the latest variation on "GET ROCK-HARD ABS NOW!!") of every magazine is the "GREAT SEX!!" article, which in soft-core detail and accompanied by a photo of some sullen muscle dude with a clingy, swim-suited blonde, offers tips on how to improve the (presumed) male reader's love life by learning how to please one's "special lady". Never for a moment is there any consideration given to the fact that some readers may be gay or are tips ever extended toward those readers who may be better served by learning to please their "special guy". And even though the heterosexuality of the reader is assumed, I doubt that it would ever occur to most readers (straight -- as well as gay) that the magazine they're reading has a heterosexual bias or slant. Whereas of course, if said periodical were to do a "how to please your man" article or even something inclusive that would address those on both sides of the fence (or straddling it!), that periodical would most certainly be viewed as "gay-loving" or "liberal" or possessing an "agenda" -- all of those buzzwords imposed upon us and with which our brains are well washed while we're still too young to ever even realise it by a straight society with a very clear agenda: to maintain a world where the majority decide the extent to which anything that doesn't fit into that perfect little box constituting a "normal" lifestyle may be included in the various aspects of day to day life. I'm not saying that every straight person is directly responsible for this state of affairs: I know there are lots of intelligent, sensitive, enlightened non-gay folks out there (some of them right here on these boards) and loads of thick-headed queers. The fact is: we are, ALL OF US, responsible for perpetuating this sort of thing. Every morning when I buy the New York Times, I know I am supporting a newspaper that has stated it will not include gay unions on its wedding announcement pages. So, what can one do? I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I DO know that changing inequity begins with awareness. The more we all question the status quo -- and preferably within hearing range of those not inclined to do the questioning themselves -- the better off we will all be.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

When is an agenda not an agenda?

When is an agenda not an agenda?