Tuesday, October 26, 2010

confessions of a disappointed gleek.

tonight, glee will feature its hallowe'en homage
to the rocky horror picture show.

truth be told, i can't wait.
my name is kristen card, & i'm an utter gleek.

but no matter how warped a time
the gleeksters offer during tonight's episode,
it can't compare in fright factor
to last week's glee-full horror picture show:
a gq cover shoot spotlighting glee stars
lea michele, diana agron
& some guy with his clothes on.

this has been beaten to death
by the media, with [ironically] a pair
of arguments arising against the,
um, inappropriateness
of the photo session theme.

argument #1: these young actresses portray
underage girls, so to dress them up
& shoot them as super-lolitas
promotes pedophilia.

first response: these actresses
are not teenagers, they're adults,
& as such, can choose to wear
as much or as little clothing
as they desire & be just as sexual
as they want to be.


argument #2: many children watch
the show, so it's irresponsible for
two of its big stars to pose for
what amounts to soft-core porn.

second response: it's irresponsible for
parents to let their children
leaf through what is clearly a
magazine intended for adults.
adult males, even.


[i'll skip over my thoughts about
the responsibility of parents
who let their children watch glee.]

so here's my question:
does it have to involve children
being traumatized to be
inappropriate or offensive?

because even if a pedophile or
an eight-year-old never sees this spread
[pun intended; here's looking at you, lea],
i - a 43yo mom attracted to adult males -
am still offended.

offended because it's sexist.
perversely, profoundly sexist.

but somehow, that doesn't seem to be much of an issue.
not enough of one to create a fuss about, anyway.

is this what we've come to?
a society where overt, arguably obscene
sexism is so ubiquitous, we just
accept it as part & parcel of our cultural scenery?

is it not worthwhile enough to mention
that this use of media
debases more than half of
the american population
by reducing two amazing young women
who are talented actors & gifted musicians
to naughty-schoolgirl stereotypes
with so little self-respect that
they will expose themselves,
fondle their breasts,
spread their legs,
perform oral sex with a lollipop,
& apparently share a guy
[who seems to wear more & more clothing
with every ensuing picture, btw]
to gain attention?

because that's the story that these photos tell.

so, to the gq eds,
i didn't know you were
vying for periodical
property with the likes of
maxim or playboy
[gentlemen's quarterly? really?].
duly noted.

to the photographer,
terry richardson,
just a little research into
you & your career
explains a lot about these photos.

& to ms. michele & ms. agron,
i assume you're proud
of being part of a tv program
known for its intelligent
& progressive approach to
some of today's most divisive issues.
you should be.

so how disappointing it is that while
you stand up, strong & tall,
when it comes to doing the right thing
for america's gay community,
you chose to lie down
when it came to doing right by women.

image source: kansascity.com

1 comment:

ahufford said...

Tell it, sister! I am a huge fan of the show and its progressive messages, but the photos are offensive to me as a woman and a mother of girls. Have you seen this? http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DM6wJl37N9C0&h=09a13