Good afternoon. Today, i’ve been thinking about irony.
There’s a girl I met through a drama class who nearly every time I see her will be wearing some variety of very large cross on a chain or rope around her neck. We became friends, and I asked her a while ago if she was particularly religious. She said she wasn’t, she wore the crucifix for the look. As a fashion statement
I find this ironic. While obviously people have the right to wear whatever tokens they want for whatever reasons, people who wear crosses, or buddhist beads, or whatever other religious symbols just because they like the way they look, seems to me a bit disrespectful to those who attach genuine significance to that object. It’s the same with ironic tattoos, when seeing people with big tribal tattoos or chinese characters who have these for the sake of the look of them.
It’s annoying when people use symbols and tokens that are associated with particular meanings for no other reasons then they like the look of it. I think it’s disrespectful to those who regard these tokens with any kind of real significance, and I think attempting to fabricate some kind of attachment is kind of a douchey thing to do.
Then again, I’m not religious in the slightest not have any particular cultural things that I hold near and dear, so what would I know.
More ironic musings. A few nights ago on the television show Glee, the character Kurt and his boyfriend Blaine decided to have sex. It was very tasteful and I thought quite groundbreaking in terms of bringing gay characters into equal standing with their heterosexual counterparts on the prime time television stage.
However, later on I made the mistake of reading the comments on an article about the innovative move, and found that many of these comments were targeting the character Kurt. Many of these complaints went along the lines of
“OMG i hate it how they stereotype the gay character! Why can’t gay characters on tv just be normal guys? Why do they always make them all feminine and girly?”
I found this response to be silly for a few reasons. Number one, stereotypes come from somewhere. Yes, not every gay guy is effeminate, is fashion conscious, likes musicals, and whatever other cliché you want to throw into the mix.
But a hell of a lot of them are.
As a not quite heterosexual eighteen year old female I’m probably not in the best position to judge, but out of the five guys I know who are openly gay, all of them adhere to this stereotype to some extent. Four out of five are very outspoken musical fans and participants, at least two of them I know have dressed in drag, and all five are involved in various creative fields.
Therefore, having the character of Kurt the way he is I think is pretty much a case of art mimicking life.
Second of all, the concept of ‘normal guys’. I think this speaks for itself. Just because the intention is not homophobic, that’s what it effectively comes across as. I mean really, what is ‘normal’ anyway? In this day and age, can anyone really define it clearly? We’re so PC, you’d get shot down in a second if you tried.
Thirdly and finally, Kurt is not the only gay character in the show, and this is where the irony really kicks in. Fact of the matter is, Kurt is actually not the ‘gay character’. Blaine, David, Santana, Sebastian, even Brittany, these are all characters that are gay or bisexual and whose sexuality is just as prominent in the show as Kurts. But it’s Kurt alone who is cited as ‘the gay character’ and criticized for being effeminate, ignoring the other equally as gay but still ‘normal’ characters. In this case, the ‘normal’ outweighs the cliché five to one.
Always stereotyping the gay character? The show may not be, but these commentators up on their soap boxes sure are. Ionic? Yes indeed.
Speaking of commentators on their soap boxes spewing crap on the internet, can someone say irony?
Yes we can.