“Homo” — Equality Means Taking The Hits
Posted by Dirty Harry on Saturday, June 28th, 2008
Equality is a two-way street. If you consider who you are or your particular “group” inoculated from satire or too precious to be the butt of a joke, you’re not equal. In fact, you’re separating yourself – taking the position of an outsider. Whether it’s an individual or group, no one likes anyone unable to laugh at themselves:
Will Smith, who kissed David Letterman on TV the other day, is offering up very mixed messages for Gay Pride Month. In his new movie “Hancock,” his character, an alcoholic superhero, uses the hateful term “homo” three times to describe prospective superhero costume[.] … ”Hancock,” which opens next Tuesday night, all I’ll say now is that Will’s use of a sexually loaded epithet may be the least of the problems[.]
Context is the blood of truth. What’s the context of the use of the word “homo” in Hancock? Adam Sandler addressed this issue perfectly in I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry. While openly advocating tolerance for gays and lesbians, the film made clear that with acceptance and equality comes the ridicule we all face.
Families tease.
That’s not a “mixed message” if the message is one of equality. If you’d prefer to be patronized, you’re asking to be looked at as “different.”
Filed in General |
Troyon 28 Jun 2008 at 8:57 am 1Let’s just say that when it comes to humor… some groups are more equal than others.
Troyon 28 Jun 2008 at 8:59 am 2And with gays it’s an ingroup/outgroup thing. There is an entire wing of Literary Criticism called Queer Theory. I guess I’ll argue from the Cracker-Ass Cracker Critique.
Templaron 28 Jun 2008 at 9:04 am 3Let’s just say that when it comes to humor… some groups are more equal than others.
Considering the extent to which criticism (or anything even bearing the appearance of criticism) of homosexuality or homosexual lifestyles has been muzzled in Canada, I really don’t see there being any need for said groups to learn to laugh at themselves.
Opuson 28 Jun 2008 at 9:06 am 4If memory serves Smith refused to kiss another man in his first movie now he’s kissing Lettermam? Surely he could have found someone better.
“While openly advocating tolerance for gays and lesbians, the film made clear that with acceptance and equality comes the ridicule we all face.”
“if the message is one of equality. If you’d prefer to be patronized, you’re asking to be looked at as “different.”
There is a difference between ridicule and bigoted remarks however.
Stephanieon 28 Jun 2008 at 9:06 am 5Its funny how many Gays don’t want to be out and prefer just to live their lives and yet the few louder members of the group make it nearly impossible. Its actually a crime to some of them that a man or woman would prefer to live quietly. And it has nothing to do with ridicule or worrys of prejudice its just they want quiet lives.
Carlitoson 28 Jun 2008 at 9:18 am 6Recall, these are the same homos that flamed (pardon the pun) Jada Pinkett Smith for her “heteronormative” speech at Harvard:
http://www.contactmusic.com/new/xmlfeed.nsf/mndwebpages/pinkett%20smith%20upsets%20homosexuals
I loved it when the tooooooolerant Left eats it’s own.
Buck Turgidsonon 28 Jun 2008 at 9:21 am 7The “butt of a joke” indeed!
Troyon 28 Jun 2008 at 9:33 am 8Canada is whack when it comes to speech. Thank God we don’t do prior restraints here in the U.S. We put up with a lot of garbage to be sure, but on balance better to be Mark Steyn in the U.S. than Mark Steyn in Canada (sadly for him especially I’m sure).
Templaron 28 Jun 2008 at 9:44 am 9Canada is whack when it comes to speech. Thank God we don’t do prior restraints here in the U.S. We put up with a lot of garbage to be sure, but on balance better to be Mark Steyn in the U.S. than Mark Steyn in Canada (sadly for him especially I’m sure).
Indeed. Unfortunately, there are signs that the Left in the US is attempting (as always) to follow Canada’s lead. There was a case in New Mexico a little while back where a photographer was fined $6,600 for declining to service te “wedding” of a female couple.
Stephanieon 28 Jun 2008 at 9:48 am 10Hey did you all hear though Steyn is off the hook now as far as that case was concerned? Yep. McLane’s or whatever the magazine is called is still in “trouble” but Steyn was exonerated or whatever we want to call it. Good news to.
Peter T Chattawayon 28 Jun 2008 at 10:19 am 11Speaking as a Canadian (and for what it’s worth, I believe the “human rights” case in B.C. is still pending, though Steyn and Maclean’s did win the one at the federal level), I’d like to talk about the movie.
Will Smith uses the word “homo” in a scene where his PR guy is showing him possible uniforms that the PR guy thinks would improve his image. Smith uses this word the same way he uses “bitch” when speaking to women who complain about the way he goes about his superheroics.
So he uses this word when he is in his cranky, dysfunctional, pre-reformed state. I don’t believe he ever uses it after that point.
If anyone is going to complain that Smith uses the word “homo” no matter *what* the context is, then they should complain about his use of the word “bitch”, too. And no doubt some feminists will. But it makes no sense to treat his use of one word harsher than his use of the other word.
Daniel Crandallon 28 Jun 2008 at 10:53 am 12Boston 2008 Dyke March, this garbage is what I’m supposed to tolerate?!? I don’t think so.
JohnFNWayneon 28 Jun 2008 at 11:06 am 13If they wanted equality, they wouldn’t ask for special protections all the time.
Why should you get more jail time for beating up someone who’s gay than someone who’s straight, white or male?
Daniel Crandallon 28 Jun 2008 at 11:10 am 14One of the chants at that march I linked above was “10% is not enough. Recruit! Recruit! Recruit!” Think about this when you see the signs that read “I like girls”.
Templaron 28 Jun 2008 at 11:18 am 15One of the chants at that march I linked above was “10% is not enough. Recruit! Recruit! Recruit!” Think about this when you see the signs that read “I like girls”.
Or the repetition of “born that way” rhetoric.
Of corse, it’s nothing like 10% either. 1-2% at best os probably closer to the mark.
Bobon 28 Jun 2008 at 10:31 pm 16What would concern me is if the line actually DOES read as offensive in the movie-proper, which would indicate that the film is failing to sell it’s characters properly. Hancock, for most of the movie, is supposed to be a thoroughly loathsome excuse for a (super)human being; so this and other slurs/insults should read as unwitting self-slams BY Hancock revealing what a creep he is. If not, it could mean they’ve softened him up too much and it just reads as “Will Smith reading a line.”
Templaron 29 Jun 2008 at 9:34 am 17Hancock, for most of the movie, is supposed to be a thoroughly loathsome excuse for a (super)human being; so this and other slurs/insults should read as unwitting self-slams BY Hancock revealing what a creep he is.
Having a character refer to something he considers unmanly as being “homo” doesn’t mean he’s he’s a creep. It means he’s a normal, unbrainwashed male.
Stephanieon 29 Jun 2008 at 1:35 pm 18Having a character refer to something he considers unmanly as being “homo” doesn’t mean he’s he’s a creep. It means he’s a normal, unbrainwashed male.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Exactly
CTDeLudeon 29 Jun 2008 at 2:40 pm 19Ah Peter glad to see you over here! Love your reviews!
Gritzon 29 Jun 2008 at 3:21 pm 20The Gay Mafia is the BIGGEST threat to homosexuals. They keep making homosexuals look bad. I may disagree with homosexuality, but I could care less about what they do.
People don’t want equality. They want to be better than everyone else.
Bobon 29 Jun 2008 at 9:23 pm 21Templar
“Having a character refer to something he considers unmanly as being “homo” doesn’t mean he’s he’s a creep. It means he’s a normal, unbrainwashed male.”
It makes him a creep because of the negative conotation, same thing as with idiots over the age of (I dunno, TEN maybe it’s still grudgingly acceptable?) who use “gaaaaaaayyyyy!” as a put-down.
Hancock calling the costume “homo” should WORK because it’s in-character: That’s probably what a jerk would consider to be a proper critique for your average superhero costume.
Templaron 30 Jun 2008 at 8:43 am 22It makes him a creep because of the negative conotation
As I said before, it makes him a normal, unbrainwashed male, and that’s precisely because of the negative connotation.
same thing as with idiots over the age of (I dunno, TEN maybe it’s still grudgingly acceptable?) who use “gaaaaaaayyyyy!” as a put-down.
You really don’t spend much time with other humans, do you?
It’s rude, of course, but “idiot” is properly reserved for those who can convince themselves that homosexuality is an innocuous “lifestyle choice”, or perhaps “useful idiot” would be closer to the truth.