Home
by Shale Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:55 amIn Defense of Bad TV
By Shale
January 14, 2012
First off, I don't watch too much television. Since there are no more Star Trek shows or Futurama I would be hard-pressed to name half-a-dozen shows that I watch regularly. I continue watching a couple of the CSI shows, Bones occasionally and the new show A Gifted Man. The Big Bang Theory is a staple now in syndication. So, I am not a TV snob, I do watch it but since most of the prime-time stuff is now a vast wasteland of unreality shows ... well, guess I can be a TV snob after all.
There was a new show this year, Work It, with a written script instead of just a bunch of strangers put in humiliating situations. I never saw it because it only lasted two episodes. My daughter got a peek at it and confirmed that it was bad and apparently a lot of other people thot so too because not many watched the first ep and less the second. Apparently the only people who watched the show were its detractors - the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) and Human Rights Campaign (HRC).
The premise of Work It was not new. Two guys couldn't find work as guys so they cross-dressed as women. Sounded like Bosom Buddies, which was a TV show for two seasons of 1980-82 where a young Tom Hanks and Peter Scolari played characters dressed as women to live in a cheap, exclusively female building. Or the 1982 movie Tootsie, in which Dustin Hoffman played an actor who could no longer find work as himself so he cross-dressed as the titular character. It seems to me the only difference in all these shows is that the first two were in the early '80s, had top-notch actors and they happened three years before GLAAD and possibly flew under the radar of the fledgling HRC which had formed in 1980 and was perhaps more concerned with real issues facing gay and lesbians of the day.
GLAAD and HRC had spoken out against the series for its potential to cause harm to transgender people. I don't know exactly how that would have worked differently than Bosom Buddies or Tootsie, but they did see the show and I did not.
However, cross-dressing has been a staple in movies and television since the silent black & white days of Charlie Chaplin. I remember watching "Uncle Milty" (Milton Berle) dressed as a woman on TV in the early '50s. If you like, we can see that this tradition of cross-dressing for entertainment goes back to 1600 in Shakespeare's As You Like It, where the character Rosalind, a woman disguised as Ganymede, a man was actually played by an adolescent boy, because women were not allowed to be actors.
I am an active and out supporter of gay rights. Been that way for years and have been a member of HRC since 1995. However, I do not follow any group blindly and in 1996, thru the Gainesville Bisexual Alliance admonished HRC for not openly including bisexuals in their Vision Statement. I even dropped out of HRC over that omission, tho they apparently never take you off their roles. I did rejoin in 1997 after Executive Director Elizabeth Birch acknowledged bisexuals in their focus.
As for GLAAD, we too have history - mostly bad and during the late '80s & early '90s I frequently criticized their antics in the local gay press. Such as the Kellogg's supposed homophobic Nut 'N Honey TV ads in 1988 or their protest against the 1991 movie Silence of the Lambs because one of the psycho's fit a gay stereotype (actually, more a cross-dresser stereotype) or Queen Latifah's one-sided portrayal of a butch lesbian in the 1996 movie Set It Off. There was much more, with me and a few other gay & bi activists taking GLAAD to task for its hypersensitivity to perceived wrongs, which actually discredits the real complaints about anti-gay bigotry. So, GLAAD and I have been nemeses for the past couple of decades but I hadn't seen them in the news so much until this latest attack against a cross dressing TV show (Yes, they protested the other bad, short-lived, cross-dressing show Ask Harriet in 1998 - and I was telling them to lighten up on that one too).
But, this time they dragged (oops) HRC into their silliness and I again am considering not renewing my membership in that organization. I disagree with attacking 'perceived' slights in the entertainment business that may cause 'potential' harm. That is a form or prejudice that I will not support. GLAAD is a lost cause, they are the PETA of the gay rights advocacy and subscribe to the philosophy that there is no such thing as bad publicity. Ironically, they often bolster the very product they condemn for that reason. But I was dismayed to see that HRC had sunk to their level.
Oh, I will still support ACLU and Southern Poverty Law center, both of which do real work in the trenches and in the courts to protect civil rights of all people, including gay, lesbian and transgendered. You may not hear of them so much - they only make the real news not the entertainment section.
My Last HRC Membership Card - 2011
Two essays in one weekend.
I posted another essay in the Writers Chamber, but it looks like no one visits there.
http://www.conversationchamber.com/t15952-in-defense-of-honest-dialogue
I got pissed at this other org to which I belong because of their (in my opinion) misguided activism. The essays explains it for those able to read more than a sound bite.
I am discontinuing support for both, my money can be better spent on other civil rights orgs.
» NEW ADDRESS: http://conversationchamber.ipbhost.com/
» New project
» st pattys day
» White smoke signals cardinals have selected a new pope
» Red?
» Do You Look Like a Celebrity?
» Canned Foods
» English Muffins or Toast?