Chapter 31 Family Ties part 3

[Connie Killjoy]

It's obvious that the people responding to my post aren't bothered by the things I put in my post... (whoooo yay lets throw a party, you don't see an issue except that I pointed out an issue!), and so rather than arguing out with everyone who responded, I'll mostly (with some small responses) seek clarify my point.

I was VERY pissed after listening to this weeks podcast, which resulted in the above post. After reading some replies I tried to listen with taking into account that maybe there is some kind of cultural "male" context that I'm not privy to going on. Still pissed, but was able to hear more of the story that KC put into the episode than before.....

My frustration isn't about political correctness as much as it is writing. My problem with the content of this week's episode is that the homophobic cracks and weird slurs about Victor's ex wife were jarring. Why wouldn't Victor be angrier about Saul joking about his dead friend? And with NO explanation about why Victor feels the way he does about his wife, I am (as a listener) just supposed to assume that these things are true? I walked away from this episode hating these characters more than necessary.

Though, strangely enough I didn't hate Burt for saying he was going to "Skullfuck" Scratch earlier in Chapter 30.

So what's the difference?

There's a clearly underlined context to what led Burt to say that to Scratch. It's obviously not about a need to rape and defile her for being a woman, it's a defense mechanism. He's also not targeting a group of people (imagine if instead of gay jokes, Saul was making racial slurs.) In at least one episode Saul and Victor say racially heated things to each other, but it was when they still hated each other. So now, instead of saying racial shit, Saul is putting Victor into the "gay" catagory, which is safer because it's not offensive to either of them to make fun of gay people? This doesn't make sense to me.

When KC takes so much time explaining the ins and outs about the military, what things like "MOS" and other terms mean it's because he knows that the listener might not have that knowledge about what those things are. Without those things built into the conversation, someone without the knowledge base would be turned off because suddenly it's foreign. What's great about most of this story is how it seamlessly builds in that information into the story making it more understandable for those with civilian backgrounds, while those of us who know the terms aren't sidelined by it.

When I hear discource between two straight male characters like the ones in the conversation, it doesn't have context for me to understand that they are bonding. Instead, it sounded like Saul was picking on Victor, and vice versa. They sound more like enemies than friends, and then the conversation about CJ is even worse because it (to me as a listener who doesn't hang out with people that talk to each other that way) IT MAKES NO SENSE.

Sure, these conversations might seem totally rational for those of you responding, but your experience of the world is not everyone's experience and not everyone WANTS to have that lived experience. Also, the argument "well that's what I have seen/ or that's how I talk to my friends" is invalid because it doesn't apply to everyone listening, which is my point. If military jargon wasn't explained, than the only people that could listen and enjoy it would be people in the military.

When the writing draws expectations from a narrow vein of lived experience, it's not good writing. It's not reachable, and it turns people who don't relate off to it. I get pissed when I'm distracted from the story with nonsensical bullshit, and miss the stuff I want to hear. I don't listen to this story for political correctness, I listen to it for the story, and those conversations got in the way of my experience and I feel entitled to say so, even if there isn't a person on this forum who agrees.

And as for this, the Gatekeeper business ....
"It's not like Gatekeeper walks around in full BDSM outfits with a ball gag, or a banana boat with feathers or any other stereotypically gay outfit one might see in the village during Pride week (I've been there. I've seen it). He doesn't call people honey, or squeal when he gets upset and profess his undying love for Cher/Barbra/Celine. He just is an ambitious man with his goals set who happens to like guys. I'd say the more celebrated gay characters on sitcoms are more damaging to the culture than Gatekeeper."

I am still uncomfortable with the Gatekeeper, who I see as super creepy, sinister, and a cold-blooded killer, as being theonly character on the show who has been defined as gay. Sure, there are suspicions about Riley, but her character is an alchoholic and also in the closet if she is a lesbian. I am entitled to feeling that way and having someone list out all the ways that he isn't perpetuating a stereotype isn't helpful to convincing me otherwise. Also, when I'm unexpectedly jarred by two characters having a conversation like Victor and Saul's, the tolerence I need to have to "get over" all the other stuff that I could get over for the sake of the story becomes strained.

I have a far reaching critique of Will and Grace so it's not about gay/queer people having to be in a good light, just not different lighting, that makes them look stereotypingly one way or another. Something about Gatekeeper and his position doesn't sit right with me at all, and the fact that the story pointed out him being gay also seemed out of context. Perhaps it was thrown in there to make people feel better about him staring at naked Peggs and Kelly. Still, it struck me as odd and uncomfortable.

And as for the Killjoy cracks? Haha fuck yeah. I'm pretty sure none of you went to bed crying because I "Killed" all your "Joy", you can be sure that I sit a little taller everytime someone says something about how the name fits. :P