15 March, 2007

Garrison Keillor Can Suck It

And I mean that in the worst way possible. As in, he can suck on a bog full of bile and scum, like the pitiful wastrel that he is.

I've detested Keillor's "dry" (read: not funny) humor for a while now, which has infested NPR like fruit flies on an otherwise lovely, juicy piece of fruit [excuse the language] but this piece--what he probably thinks of as "pointed satire" or an equally shitty descriptor--absolutely takes the proverbial cake:

The country has come to accept stereotypical gay men—sardonic fellows with fussy hair who live in over-decorated apartments with a striped sofa and a small weird dog and who worship campy performers and go in for flamboyance now and then themselves. If they want to be accepted as couples and daddies, however, the flamboyance may have to be brought under control. Parents are supposed to stand in back and not wear chartreuse pants and black polka-dot shirts. That’s for the kids. It’s their show.

GEE WHIZ, BEAV! The ever-present '50s nostalgia, the tired stereotypes, the whining OH MY GOD THE FUCKING WHINING. I wonder what he has to say about lesbians.

What sort of ancient crust-laden dried-up applefacedoll of a man thinks this is hilarious? No progressive person--male, female or in between--finds this funny. As I sit here listening to Placebo and reading's Keillor's word vomit over and over again, like the faghag bitch that I so totally am, I am angry. I am angry that gays and lesbians, and bisexuals and transpeople and whomever else I am forgetting to include--as categories at this point in history are nearly obsolete--STILL have to put up with harmful bigotry, even as some of us pat ourselves on the back for the "advancements" we've made in tolerating (read: not killing) others who somehow differ from our perfect, "normal" selves. Any form of bigotry, really--and that includes pretentious, "nostalgic" wordbarf that masquerades as humor, like GK's little schpiel (sic?) here.

On a more personal note, I can tell you with absolute certainty that I would not be who I am today, were it not for the many wonderful people--many of "different" sexualities--whose presence I was blessed with in my formative years. You see, when I was growing up, we (my family and I) had three gay couples as neighbors. My younger brother, at age 5, asked one day [about two of our neighbors], "Mom, why do John and Bill live together?" My mom's response: "They're the best of friends, honey." Even an oddball straight girl like me, as I later found out, could learn some important things about respect, acceptance and--most importantly--friendship from "these" people.

Also: Take away the male pronouns in the above passage, and GK could be talking about me. I have an over-decorated apartment; I love Campy stuff and Campy people with a passion; and I have not one, but two "small weird dogs", Frank and Winston, whom I love dearly. I don't have kids, but still--the similarities are difficult to ignore. Suck on that, Mister "Stating the Obvious" [the article should be titled, "Stating the Obvious: I Am an Entitled, Unfunny Windbag Who Loves My White, Straight, Middle-Aged Male Privilege Very, Very Much"].

Garrison Keillor, it seems, could learn some things as well. GK, you may want to try learning things about people other than your precious Lake Woebegonites sometime. It's fun, trust me.

For more, please refer to Dan Savage's most excellent takedown of the guy, located here.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Your post typifies the blogoverse and makes his point, whether he meant it tongue in cheek or not.

You spend a couple of paragraphs spewing hate filled language about an essay who's hate could hardly be measured in comparison to yours.

Then you spend a couple of paragraphs talking about YOU YOU YOU. I think that was his point. Parenthood SHOULD be about the kids.

But for most bloggers, including you, apparently, it's all about YOU YOU YOU.

Not sure if your narcissism has anything to do with your homosexuality, but it's fairly transparent nonetheless.

As I've read through a couple dozen blog responses to Keillor's piece, I've seen more of the same. Incredible vitriol and let's talk about ME ME ME.

Anonymous said...

Keillor uses stereotypes to keep you reading, because he knows you'll be dumb enough to think he's really being stereotypical.

The other anonymous got it right - what about the children?

This piece by Keillor isn't a call for levelling and normativity of parents. It's a call for them not to make their issues more important than their children's lives.

He suckered you all into your typical responses.

annaham said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Ames said...

Uh, anonymous #1, I don't think AnnaHam states any where that she's a homosexual. (As far as I know, she is not.) One doesn't have to be gay themselves to mind the stereotyping present in Keillor's essay.

If Keillor was attacking parents for making their lives more important than their children's, I'd be all behind it. I don't see that as what's happening here. Wearing a chartreuse shirt is not making your own issues more important than your child's. Hell, BEING GAY is not making your own issues more important than your child's anymore than being straight is!

Should I refrain from having children in the future because my heterosexuality will trump any caring about my hypothetical child's issues? Will my visible tattoos be too "flamboyant" for me to parent adequately?

Being a parent does not mean no longer being a person. Should your child's needs come first? Absolutely. But show me where it's proven that being a khaki-clad heterosexual in a legally-bound marriage is the best way to parent.

I'm so bored with the mentality that things were soooo much better back in the old days. Much of that is a rose-tinted retelling of an era unlike the black and white sitcoms that remain.

annaham said...

Anon #1: Please, don't give me that "YOU'RE PLAYING RIGHT INTO HIS HANDS LOL" crap. Also, I am not homosexual, but would it matter if I was? To you, perhaps, but not to any thinking person. As for the "me" thing: Yes, I talk about myself and my experiences on this blog. If you can't handle that, then please leave. Not only that, but please refrain from hiding behind a curtain of anonymity (sic?) that allows you to say whatever you want. If you're going to say something, tell me who you are if you want me to take you seriously. There are other blogs out there that you may enjoy reading. If mine upsets you, then you do not have to read it--rather like I do not have to read Keillor's stuff (which is why I do not, most of the time).