Is that there was no problem with the second season premiere of Glee.
I read an article over on Feminist Frequency today about how offensive it was. I left a comment over there because I was so angry, but also decided I’d blog about it over here on my own platform.
A few things you should know before I get into my rant:
- I watch Glee every week and like the show;
- I liked the premiere very much and thought it was one of the strongest episodes of the series thus far;
- Film criticism was my major in university, so I do know how to properly read a text and decipher meanings from it.
Since the article in question, “Top 5 Problems with Glee: Race, Gender and Sexuality in the Season 2 Premiere” laid out its “evidence” in sections, I will too. And, for anyone who agrees with these “problems” in the premiere, I urge you to watch Nip/Tuck, which was also created by Ryan Murphy and also did a lot of the same things and playing with stereotypes/minorities/women as Glee does. Then report back. Thanks.
1. Transphobia and homophobia
Firstly, Ryan Murphy is a gay man. Jane Lynch is a lesbian. The idea that this show would promote homophobia is ridiculous to me. It’s also a criticism that has dodged the show since Season 1. Let me remind you of a little show called All in the Family which broke down bigotry by putting it front and centre in the show’s main character. Was Archie Bunker a racist? Undoubtedly. Was All in the Family racist? Nope.
Glee creator Ryan Murphy at Comic Con.
Murphy likes to play with gender lines and what we, as a society, perceive to be male and female. Hence Coach Beiste — a butch-looking, female football coach. Is that a norm to us? Nope. But I’m willing to bet if you were to imagine a female football coach for a high school boys team, you’d picture someone like Beiste, and not someone who looks “feminine.”
Was Sue right in how she tormented Beiste? No. But Sue and Will’s actions mirrored those of high school students playing pranks on a new student (Rachel to Sunshine, anyone?).
2. Fake sexual assault and rape
OK, I had a problem with Brittany claiming Beiste touched her inappropriately. But we are dealing with Sue Sylvester here, so I was willing to let it go.
3. Token Asians
Mike and Tina have real names — and they’re real people to us. Sure, the “Asian” and “Other Asian” as Sue calls them is a little racist, but Sue is a little racist. Was the camp they taught at over the summer racist? Again, is it not playing on what we imagine to be racist? And I’m sure camps for Asian kids exist. Do they exist to get those kids to stop playing with technology and love the arts? Likely not, but is it really exciting to hear that Tina fell for Mike while they were singing over a campfire?
Secondly, these two “token Asians” have a storyline. We learned last season that Tina’s stutter did not really exist — she made it up. We fell in love with her and Artie as a couple. The fact that Artie is so hurt by Tina’s decision to break up with him for Mike only leads me to believe that both Tina and Mike will figure prominently into a storyline this season.
4. Alpha male syndrome
Artie is a misogynist. Artie is sexist. Artie is a teenaged boy for pete’s sake!
Is Artie’s language toward women a little demeaning? Yes. But Artie is supposed to be a 16-year-old kid trying to find his way. Do all teenaged boys speak to women the way Artie does? Nope. But boys like Artie have a lot to learn.
Perhaps Tina dumping him for Mike will cause Artie to re-evaluate the way he speaks to and treats women going forward. Hmm. A character on a TV show that grows and changes? Revolutionary!
5. Making racism into a joke
Again, ladies and gentlemen, let me draw your attention to All in the Family for my first point.
For my second point, let me draw your attention to the character of Rachel: She is self-absorbed, pigheaded and doesn’t listen. The way she first spoke with Sunshine was not meant for cheap laughs, but rather is how Rachel would have perceived the situation. It was also a way for Rachel to assert herself with Sunshine — she’s smarter and better because she speaks English as a first language.
On top of that, racism occurring on a show with one of the most diverse casts on television right now? Sure. I can see that happening.
When approached at a surface level, Glee can be read as all of these things. But proper criticism is to delve to the layers underneath a text to understand what it’s doing and why. Sometimes in order to break down stereotypes, you have to deal with them head on which is why Kurt, the only gay character thus far, is a stereotypical gay man and not a tough guy, like Finn or Puck.
I’m not looking for everyone to like Glee as I do, but rather trying to make those who only approach it on a surface level understand that it’s more than a show with singing and dancing. It’s a show about who we were in high school, who we became as adults and who we are as a society underneath it all.
(Photo of Ryan Murphy courtesy of Gage Skidmore on Flickr. See more of Gage’s photos in his photostream).
The problem with journalists and Twitter
Another journalist, another Twitter mea culpa.
This time it’s a Canadian journalist who’s come under fire for remarks made online. CBC’s Jason Davidson is facing criticism, and possible discipline from his employer, for remarks he made on Twitter last week.
According to a report by QMI Agency, Davidson tweeted his frustrations at the fans who booed Montreal Canadiens goaltender Carey Price after he allowed four goal on nine shots.
“OK, separatist Habs fans, stop booing Price. I know it’s idiots of your type,” he tweeted (the tweet has since been removed, with Davidson tweeting he deleted it and “should never have implicated politics, which had nothing to do with hockey.”
Now, Davidson’s not the first journalist to come under fire for remarks made on Twitter, and he likely won’t be the last.
The question here is why are so many journalists unable to avoid this landmine?
Obviously, journalists are human, and therefore are bound to make mistakes. However, social media being just that, media, makes me wonder why journalists don’t seem to have more common sense when it comes to social media.
Journalists are used to being in the public eye and appearing to be unbiased (I say “appearing” because, again, we are human and do have biases — good journalists are just able to toss aside personal opinions when it comes to their work). Good journalists don’t announce who their voting for, what they think of political issues or take a stand when it comes to public policy.
Journalists also are often the ones to witness a private citizen having a meltdown in the press firsthand (i.e. saying things they shouldn’t on the record — sound familiar?), so why does that go out the window when it comes to Twitter?
Perhaps many journalists forget that they are a journalist first and, if they have a Twitter account which they use to tweet for work, they are representing their organization at all times while using that account. Even if journalists are not “officially” tweeting for their employer, by process of association, they are (meaning as far as the public is concerned if you work for CBC, you represent CBC — always).
Was what Davidson did wrong? If he meant it to be Quebec-bashing, then yes. If he was venting because he realized that this was just an exhibition game, meaning Price could have let in nine goals on nine shots and it still wouldn’t stop the Habs from making the playoffs this year, then there’s a bit of a grey area there.
Is it a fireable offence? Well, I don’t think Octavia Nasr should have been fired by CNN for expressing her condolences for the death of Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, so I definitely don’t think Davidson should be either. Should he be disciplined? Undoubtedly, mainly because he should know better (after all, according to his Twitter bio, he sometimes co-hosts on the I-Desk).
Perhaps more educating needs to be done to journalists. Many may not realize that they can’t tweet everything that comes into their heads (it’s not about censoring, but being smart — think of the newsroom humour that many outside of it would not find nearly as funny as those inside it do).
But it also comes down to a journalist’s Twitter voice and followers. The National Post‘s Bruce Arthur often tweets observations that are absurd, wry and sarcastic. But that’s the voice he has developed in his columns and on his Twitter feed — his followers would expect nothing less. (And yes, Arthur has a bit more freedom because he is a columnist.)
Journalists have to remember which side of the microphone they are on and not forget how they have seen so many people say things publicly that they immediately regret.
They don’t want to be one of them.
(Thanks to @travisboisvenue‘s post on MediaStyle for hat-tip.)