- "This week, I noticed something else about Glee I hadn’t before. The McKinley high school students are not complex and interesting as characters at all. In fact, there is a surprising amount of stereotyping given that the writers are all supposedly liberal and open-minded. There is the overweight black girl with a large voice who is picked on by the dumb blonde cheerleaders. The only “good girl” is a great singer, socially inept, and appears to be the only Jewish girl in Ohio – convenient for the cheap Jewish jokes that have popped up from time to time. The most ridiculous stereotype is, ironically, Kurt the gay Glee club member. Despite what Murphy said at the GLAAD awards, Kurt puts his full gay victimhood on display. Kurt demonstrates his complete lack of self-esteem and stereotypically effeminate ways in the episode called “Home” aired on April 27. Watching that episode made me cringe and wonder how liberal gays are not livid about this over-the-top caricature of a gay teen. Here’s a thought – why not make the gay guy a football player? Kurt makes Richard Simmons look like John Wayne. Oh yeah, did I mention the gym teacher is a manly woman? Sue Sylvester, the meanie of the show, is played by Jane Lynch who has become a poster child for the Gay Left’s push for marriage. Come on, how stupid do the producers of Glee think we are that we can’t see through this crap? For the sake of humanity and to shine the light on the Glee agenda, I’m going to force myself to continue watching each week. So for now, there is a temporary household truce on Tuesday nights.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
What is Glee's agenda?
Bruce and John are a gay couple (Republicans) who enjoy watching Glee, but lately Bruce has become disturbed by the anti-America agenda (including slamming small towns like Lima, Ohio) of the show.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
21 comments:
Like any other commercial television show, Glee's "agenda" is, no doubt, $$.
There's always more than one agenda regardless of the money changing hands. Right now it is more lucrative to be anti-western, anti-American. 50-60 years ago, the entertainment industry had a different agenda if you've ever noticed how blacks or native Americans are depicted in films and TV shows of that era.
That wouldn't be Glee's agenda.
That would be what appeals to the largest audience.
So writers, directors, producers, investors and advertisers are only giving us what we want? The trash and filth are all our fault? Boy, are you naive.
Not my fault. I don't watch it, O Maven of Capitalism.
Thank you for the compliment, O lefty, homeless voyeur.
It's curious that you claim to watch GLEE, but don't actually understand its content; preferring, rather, to read into it all sorts of nefarious motives which no doubt stem from your vantage point on the conservative, rightwing side of the fence. Real kids in the real world know that its caricature moments are part of the accepted format of television series; no one takes this, or is supposed to take this, as an accurate guide to life. Even so, there are overweight black girls who get picked on, there are "effeminate" gay teens (and effeminate straight ones, too, truth be told), there are socially-inept Jewish girls, so what's the harm seeing them portrayed on TV?
You can't "shine a light" on an agenda that doesn't exist; talk about rightist propaganda designed directly to fear monger.
Where did I say I ever watched Glee? Notice I was quoting Bruce and John who are gay. That's what the indent and citations are for. They were noticing the stereotypes, not me. Your hostility toward conservatives, or anyone without your viewpoint and prejudices, is fast becoming a stereotype I'll need to guard against, since all liberals are not like you.
From vraleigh:
Where did I say I was addressing you personally? My comments were about the texts, and therefore, quite obviously directed at its author(s). Anyone who really believes such a diatribe, which conveniently trumpets conservative, anti-gay rhetoric, was actually written by two gay men, is seeing what they need and want to see, but I digress. How curious that you assume I must be liberal, simply because I refuse to fall prey to irrational and groundless paranoia about gay- or leftist agendas targeting our kids. Believe it or not, there ARE rational and educated independents and even conservatives out there, too. :)
My bad. I just assumed that the "you" you were addressing was the owner of this blog, where you are a guest being rude and impolite and nasty. You could go to the website of the men who wrote it and be nasty to them.
Goodness Gleigh, get a a grip. It's a TV show, and the quote was from someone who is a fan enough to watch it regularly and notice something.
Gay Patriot has a nice commentary on the left's civility campaign today--and I guess Bruce and John are still fighting over the TV remote and Glee. http://www.gaypatriot.net/2011/03/20/politics-killed-the-lefts-vaunted-civility-campaign/
From vraleigh:
It saddens me that you feel the need to be so gratuitously rude, just because someone "dares" to post comments you don't agree with and cannot counter with any logic or reason. And deleting and censoring points they can't argue against is a common-but-very-telling tactic of those who choose to promote a conservative, rightest viewpoint: they strive to silence anyone who refuses to acquiesce to their agenda.
Yes, I can see how sad you are.
From vraleigh
Thank you, Norma. Many people do see my natural altruism and sensitivity, and how unkind thoughts and hostility towards innocent minorities can sadden moral, big-hearted people like me.
Rest assured that when I offer my gentle-yet-accurate rebukes, they are borne out of Christian love, for I hate to see anyone spread deliberate misinformation like the supposedly "gay authors" of the original article did, or aid them in their folly, like those who reprint their nonsense without censure.
All I ask is for people to stop and think before being so contentious and gratuitously hurtful, and ask themselves, WWJD?
And you got all of that out of their comments on stereotyping--something you of course in your tender hearted sensitivity, would never do?
Norma, give it up. Do you need comments this much that you would argue with someone at this level?
From vraleigh:
Yes, those of us who are compassionate, aware, and insightful can easily see through the guile of those who willfully bear false witness and gratuitously condemn their fellow man.
Some people tell me that I shouldn't care about bigotry and inequality in the law; that I should just accept an unkind, unfair world the way it is. But that's not what the Lord would want, and I am compelled to work for Him, and the kind of fair, decent, compassionate society He would advocate for all His children.
Gleigh, Jesus wouldn't have posted anonymously.
From vraleigh:
Um, Norma, sweetie?
That's why I include my name with every post.
Jesus isn't anonymous, and neither am I, His proud supporter and advocate.
I hope this helps clear up your confusion.
"those of us who are compassionate, aware, and insightful" "my gentle-yet-accurate rebukes, they are borne out of Christian love"
A troll. Definitely.
Post a Comment