Posted by 1971 at 1cust191.tnt7.nyc3.da.uu.net on August 26, 2001 at 13:17:32:
Dear GLAAD:
Regarding GLAAD's response to "Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back"--
Is GLAAD now in the business of policing the humor of gay characters? I mean, Jay is a GAY CHARACTER. Didn't you see "Dogma"? And he's an immensely relevant Gay character at that: I certainly know more guys who grew into upstanding gay adults via the foul-mouthed Goofus route, than the ideal Gallant route.
Shall I next expect to see you in an orange safety-patrol sash-- tut-tuting the language of the youths down at the Chelsea Piers/ or at Wigstock, shushing potty-mouthed drag comedy?
This episode has caused me to lose respect for GLAAD. But for a reason other than that which you might expect. My reason:
You Were Unable To Decypher "Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back".
Think about that. That's like getting tripped-up by the plot twists in a Scooby-Doo episode.
So let me spell it out: Jay is intentionally Repellant to women. This conveniently prevents him from getting into touchy sexual situations with them. When, in the course of this most recent movie, he Does get a girlfriend-- she is conveniently DEAD for the bulk of the film. Nicely spareing Jay from the requisite hands-on heterosexuality expected of a leading man. The film ends with the girl headed for a long prison term; and Jay pledging to save himself for her. That puts her on a par "with the numerous girls in the Niagara Falls area" that Brian from 'The Breakfast Club' bragged of. In other words-- she'll be a perfect excuse for Jay NOT to have actual sex with women, for years to come.
Is my reading of the film -definitive-? Is Jay
absolutely a desperately-closeted gay? Well, my name ain't Kevin Smith; so the answer is No and No.
But you have to admit my reading is Plausible. Because its plausible that a young punk like Jay would feel compelled to go to great-lengths to defend his masculinity. If he uses crude humor to build this facade-- is that such a bad thing? Because, I tell ya, if you take away crude humor as a tool to this end-- then you put him on the spot. You push him that much closer to 'proving' his masculinity to himself and whoever-- with some violent, actual, physical gay-bashing. What do you think motivates the guys that engage in such?
And when I say "if you take away crude humor" I really mean if -You- do so. If GLAAD does. Because that is the professed goal of your campaign. To stop this kind of speech. The problem is, that you have an overly simplistic view of this humor. It doesn't serve soley to escalate homophobia. It also diffuses homophobia.
Thus far, I have addressed the controversy at face-value. In doing so, I have given GLAAD the benefit of the doubt. Because a more cynical view; would be that GLAAD doesn't really care about the fine points of their accusations at all-- that GLAAD is motivated purely by scandal-mongering. I am not ready to conclude that this is GLAAD's actual intent. But I am likewise not ignorant of how machiavellian public advocacy can get. Watch that shit. You are meddling with The Dark Side.
Sincerely,
Another Punk Like Jay
cc: Kevin Smith
ps: Let me explain Eminem to ya sometime.