Chapter 31 Family Ties part 3

[7oddisdead]

I have been listening to this podcast since the last part of season 1, I suggest it to my friends, look forward to it every week, and also listen to We're Not Dead.

I am incredibly, incredibly disappointed with the latest episode. The "character development" in part 3 of family ties involves mostly homophobic and women hating jokes, along with a seriously uncomfortable section around CJ's nudity. It's never that I have never been bothered by subtext, but I haven't found myself enraged, either.

There have always been stereotypes poking their heads out within this podcast, and they have been fairly low-level and not overtly offensive. (Except for those awful commercials for Chapter 30, and one of the most sinister characters, Gatekeeper, being openly homosexual.) But THIS was by far the least listenable episode of the podcast, and I can't think of any reason for the dialog contained other than FILLER. If suddenly down the line it matters that Saul and Victor are not only homophobic, but also hate/distrust women, then maybe I'll feel differently, but I highly doubt it.

These repeated themes reinforce that this is an issue with the creater, and not "plot/character development."

Earth to Casey: You might have people other than (white) straight men listening to this podcast, and the dialog can affect listeners who aren't just typical dude-bros (even if the majority of feedback you get on forums would suggest that is the case.) Attitudes like the ones your characters are reflecting are outdated and unneccessary for your plotline.

If your response to this is "it's part of their character" maybe you could take a serious look at what relying on base insults centered around gender and sexual orientation says about your ability to write and carry a plot, and how a confident female or homosexual character might confront them within the story. A punch hard enough to knock them out for a few hours might suffice, but I think in a situation like the one they find themselves in I would like to see more severe consequences.

Don't worry, I've got my flame-retardent suit on for what I'm sure will be a ridiculous series of responses to this post.

fuck it..this pissed me off.

When the third season began..saul and Vic were not exactly friends. Really, they wanted nothing to do with each other..and now what, three months later...they're making what you might call "dude-bro" humor. Now, I'm a working guy..just a normal dude-bro myself...but this particular episode showed me just how close Saul and Vic have grown...most guys will not joke around about things like they did unless that person is a good, good friend...an acquaintance or somebody you don't know that well will react in ways similar to that wall of text you put ^up there.. So I for one found the "sophomoric" humor in this episode to be quite effective...it showed the level of trust Saul and Vic truly put with each other..

And KC...good on you for writing it that way, too many people pull punches when it comes to writing for just this reason..thank god there's still some manly writers around. Rant/

[nikvoodoo]

I would point out that Gatekeeper's sexuality is mentioned in passing. Victor mentions it. It's never brought up again. It doesn't influence his characterization, or personality. It simply is a part of who he is, but just like in real life it doesn't affect everything he does.

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'd wager the character Jack on Will and Grace did more to set back the cultural perceptiom than anyone in this podcast (removing the obvious argument of national exposure on a network sitcom).

Having grown up in a jock's world: this episode didn't bother me. Growing up solidly within the theater culture and world: this episode didn't offend me. I've heard some of the nastiest things in my life come from the mouths of my gay friends. Everyone regardless of sex, race, creed or orientation has locker room talk or bathroom mirror talks similar to this episode.

[Hellbringer]

I would point out that Gatekeeper's sexuality is mentioned in passing. Victor mentions it. It's never brought up again. It doesn't influence his characterization, or personality. It simply is a part of who he is, but just like in real life it doesn't affect everything he does.

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'd wager the character Jack on Will and Grace did more to set back the cultural perceptiom than anyone in this podcast (removing the obvious argument of national exposure on a network sitcom).

Having grown up in a jock's world: this episode didn't bother me. Growing up solidly within the theater culture and world: this episode didn't offend me. I've heard some of the nastiest things in my life come from the mouths of my gay friends. Everyone regardless of sex, race, creed or orientation has locker room talk or bathroom mirror talks similar to this episode.

I might be oblivious, but I needed Victor to tell me that Gatekeeper was gay.

As for Jack... I pretty much hated that show because of his character. Total stereotype in my mind, and not even worth the butter on the bread if you ask me.

[forgottenone]

It's instinctual. We mate. That is our purpose as animals. Procreation. Make no disillusions about that. Unfortunately, evolution has developed our brains to the point we have intelligence. Intelligence and jealousy have made us possessive of things and others. Hence, mind games and crimes of passion.

In other words, yeah, guys are horny and we know it.

Which is exactly why I can't believe Saul hasn't thought of her that way. Even with Lizzy out of the way, so to speak, the second brain takes over. 6 mos without it...watching 'Boobie' anime (don't remember how Victor put it)... Yea, sure.. Who you trying to fool?

[Vlarken]

I agree with all of these responses. In my opinion, political correctness is a hinderance to society rather than a help. It raises up barriers between people of different nationalities and sexual orientations, causing them to be too wary of offending the other party that they aren't able to get along and view each other as just human beings: equal and on the same field. It puts ideas and opinions in people's heads that would not have been there before and are damaging to their view of the world.

Also, about this 'being hateful towards women' thing: did the thought ever occur, that Victor's wife actually was a bitch? She was probably a mean and hateful woman, and I don't think it's incorrect or hateful towards women to state that fact. He was describing one woman's character, not women as a whole. It's ridiculous to assume that just because he said that about one woman that he was slandering women as a whole. It's a stupid double standard that men shouldn't be aloud to say bad things about women, or use the word 'bitch' about them when the person whom they're talking about truly deserves it.

[Litmaster]

Earth to Casey: You might have people other than (white) straight men listening to this podcast, and the dialog can affect listeners who aren't just typical dude-bros (even if the majority of feedback you get on forums would suggest that is the case.) Attitudes like the ones your characters are reflecting are outdated and unneccessary for your plotline.

Apt name, first of all.

And I'm not even sure whether to take you seriously, given that this is your first post here. I've known other people from various forums who like to drop these incendiary text-bombs, most likely out of some narcissistic desire to shift the focus of conversation to themselves. Hell, for all I know, you ARE Kc, and have just signed on using a bogus name on a different computer just to screw with us...

...but assuming you're serious, (and this is the only air-time you'll be getting from me):

The day I suspect that Kc starts making decisions based on a political rather than artistic motivation is the day I stop listening.

If what he writes bothers you so much, you're more than welcome to do the same.

[Luna Guardian]

Ugh.... how ironic that this came up during the "Romeo & Romeo" chapter....


I feel like I've fallen into one of those internet safety films....

... where you think, "Ok, Finland.....so...." you imagine you are talking with this

Attachment 2046

when the reality is more probably like this!

Attachment 2047

This may have forever altered my perspective of Finland. Thanks for that, Luna.

I think I'm gonna head over to that 'manly' thread and shoot the shit with Todd or Cabbage Patch about manly stuff like trucks, and guns.... tailgating.... ball-bearings... (uh, no-- on second thought, nothing that has to do with 'balls')...

Yeeech... now if you excuse me, I have to go brush my teeth. Again.

If you'd have paid attention in that thread, you'd notice that I stated there that I was a man . You just can't keep yourself from me, hmm?

[Osiris]

I have been listening to this podcast since the last part of season 1, I suggest it to my friends, look forward to it every week, and also listen to We're Not Dead.

I am incredibly, incredibly disappointed with the latest episode. The "character development" in part 3 of family ties involves mostly homophobic and women hating jokes, along with a seriously uncomfortable section around CJ's nudity. It's never that I have never been bothered by subtext, but I haven't found myself enraged, either.

There have always been stereotypes poking their heads out within this podcast, and they have been fairly low-level and not overtly offensive. (Except for those awful commercials for Chapter 30, and one of the most sinister characters, Gatekeeper, being openly homosexual.) But THIS was by far the least listenable episode of the podcast, and I can't think of any reason for the dialog contained other than FILLER. If suddenly down the line it matters that Saul and Victor are not only homophobic, but also hate/distrust women, then maybe I'll feel differently, but I highly doubt it.

These repeated themes reinforce that this is an issue with the creater, and not "plot/character development."

Earth to Casey: You might have people other than (white) straight men listening to this podcast, and the dialog can affect listeners who aren't just typical dude-bros (even if the majority of feedback you get on forums would suggest that is the case.) Attitudes like the ones your characters are reflecting are outdated and unneccessary for your plotline.

If your response to this is "it's part of their character" maybe you could take a serious look at what relying on base insults centered around gender and sexual orientation says about your ability to write and carry a plot, and how a confident female or homosexual character might confront them within the story. A punch hard enough to knock them out for a few hours might suffice, but I think in a situation like the one they find themselves in I would like to see more severe consequences.

Don't worry, I've got my flame-retardent suit on for what I'm sure will be a ridiculous series of responses to this post.

[Osiris]

Dude, you mad, bro.

[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