When Blogging Goes Bad: A Cautionary Tale


Because the written word has limits, and context is one of them. And because non-bloggers don't get (and don't care about) our ethos.

I do marketing for theatres. I see a lot of theatre, and I review the theatre I see. When I see a show put on by one of my clients, I still review the show, but I usually put a big disclaimer up front and then do a quick, little "Top 5 Things I Liked" post.

And so I did recently here. And this post was just the beginning of an unpleasant email exchange, some realizations about the limits of the written word...and some philosophical soul searching.

Here's the story:

In this review I named one of the male performances as one of my Top 5 Things. And I described it thusly:

"I'm trying to think of a polite way to say this, but there isn't one...the part is written kind of gay. I mean it's this mama's boy...and I mean a real mama's boy...and yet you're supposed to buy that he falls for Winnifred and eventually stands up to Mama to win her. In the wrong hands, it's kind of a joke. But in Actor X's hands, you buy that he's a mama's boy alright, but one that truly will grow up and become a, well, mama's man, motivated by affection for Winnifred. Actor X has a strong voice and presence and can stand up next to Ms. DeLaria's powerful presence just fine, thank you."

I soon received an email, not a comment on the blog, but a direct email, taking me to task for this description. The main thrust was the writer's contention that the part wasn't written any such way at all, and that I was merely buying into the stereotype that a strong mother figure results in a gay child, and therefore I was "fueling hate and homophobia" by perpetuating such a stereotype. Mama's boys can come with any sexual orientation, I was told. And the writer asked me if I would change my review, take out that reference.

Well, my first reaction was to feel really bad. Obviously I was intending to praise the actor, not offend anyone. Not only that, but being a liberal blogger, I often blog about gay rights and other gay issues, so it made me realize that it's very easy to fall into using a shorthand of stereotypes, even for someone who's pretty aware of these things and who's not intending any malice.

But I also felt that part of the problem was that I had written such a quick, short recap that I hadn't really explained well what I meant. There was more to my feeling that the part was written to appear gay than the mama's boy thing. There were lines in the shows (ad libs as it turns out) and there were comedic takes that were delivered, such as one taken at the utterance of the word "straight"...OK it's kind of hard to explain, but my point is that I thought the production was also playing off the straight/gay thing. Moreover, there's the whole shorthand of my own past experience of seeing the show, where the role was always played in a fairly fey manner, and there was no chemistry between the two leads, so the show was funny, but had no real heart at the center of it. Not only that, but I thought my review did convey the fact that mama's boys, as it turns out, come in all orientations.

But as a blogger, I felt the solution couldn't be to change what I'd written, but rather to write about what I'd written and how it had offended.

And I wrote the person back and said these three things:

1. I said I was very sorry to have offended.
2. I explained a little more of my rationale (as above) but acknowledged that didn't invalidate the person's perspective at all.
and
3. I said I would not change what I had written to "cover up" for myself, that I'd prefer to write a new post airing the issue, apologizing and discussing what I should have said instead to communicate what I wanted to without inadvertently perpetuating negative stereotypes.

As I put it: instead of covering it up, we can confront it, have a public conversation about it, and likely have greater impact.

The response shocked me. The person rejected outright my alternative solution to simply changing the post, and saw it merely as my way of "defending" my homophobic remarks.

I felt like I didn't know myself after seeing me through this person's eyes. So, at this point I called in my gay male posse. I took the exchange, removed identifying details, and sent it via email to about eight of my closest gay male friends. I asked them two things:

1. How offensive was my original remark?
2. Did you see my response to the email writer as resistant and defensive?

The response I got confirmed that it is all about context. Over and over these men told me that knowing me, they hadn't thought twice about my remarks. And certainly knowing them, I had gotten used to the words "gay" and "queer" and "queen" and even "fag" being thrown around frequently and without thought. I have to say I typically refrain from the "f" word, but my gay friends certainly do not. I do not know a gay man who has gone through a Richard Pryor-like epiphany and refuses to use words that began their life a perjorative terms for homosexuals...although I'm sure they exist.

Many of them also said, "that part IS usually played kind of gay...maybe he's just mad at the material itself" and "that person is looking to be offended." Only one of the guys (and he is a psychologist who does research about the gay community) said he could understand what the writer had originally said, but again thought my response and apology would have appeased him, rather than riled him up even further.

But this person didn't know me, had no context in which to judge my remarks. And while blogs are conversational, they can't replicate conversation.

And although this person wouldn't really have a way of knowing if I was straight or gay, he knew at least that I wasn't a gay male. And there is also the element here of "you can't say that about me, only I can say that about me." Take me. If I hear a man call a woman a "bitch", it's gonna raise my hackles, because my feeling is, sure she might be a bitch, but she might well just be strong, uncompromising, assertive, and unwilling to take bullshit from a guy, just 'cause he's a guy. if a woman calls a woman a "bitch"? That woman gets a whole lot more benefit of the doubt from me.

There are lots of other examples. After this incident, I gave my brother-in-law, who is black, the following hypothetical: I've heard him joke about CPT (colored people's time...signifying being chronically late) would he be offended if, the next time he showed up late to a family function, I teased him about running on CPT? He thought about it. (And he had to think about it.) And he said, "if you did, probably not, because I know you." But if another white person said it? All bets are off.

I feel like everyone who reads my blogs does know me, but the fact is that guy read one post. He hasn't read my rants about homophobia; he hasn't read my arguments in favor of gay marriage. He read this one post.

Later, this complaint actually bubbled up to the theatre itself, and with that came a part of his complaint that had not been expressed in our email exchange...it was more than my mama's boy reference, it was my use of the word "polite". That it was somehow not "polite" to refer to someone as gay. Again, the person from the theatre said they figured I probably meant "politically correct", and they too could understand that "polite" had a different connotation. In fact, that is correct. I did mean politically correct. In fact, I'm usually a big fan of politically correct. I don't think of it as pandering, usually; I think of it as respectful and, well, polite. But if I could change one thing, it would be to change the word "polite" to "politically correct." So I did...gasp! I struck thru and changed that one word.

The concept of not changing what you've "published" in a blog, because that would be unethical...that concept means nothing to those outside our own blogging community. The perception is not that blogs are like a journalistic source (after all, all you can ask of a newspaper is to print a retraction, not to go back and change something that's already out in the world.)

So, long story made even longer: what could or should I have said to avoid offense? What did I really mean?

I think what I really meant was that I've seen this role played with every stereotypical homosexual mannerism as part of the performance, and that it's easy to mine laughs (especially in front of a Bay Area audience) with not only such a performance, but other takes on the material that emphasize the character's sexual ambiguity, not his general child-like nature. And the fact is that I think such interpretations undermine the heart of the show. It's a silly little show, but the primary character growth to be found is in this mama's boy character growing up, standing up to his parents, including that strong mother figure, and taking control of his life, all for the love of the leading lady. If you don't believe that relationship, that driving motivation, then you don't really believe the show, you're just watching it for camp entertainment value. And sure, that's OK, but it's not as good as the material can be.

I don't know. Maybe my Offended Man would still find that offensive. I know it took a lot longer to figure out how to word that paragraph than my original one.

And I know I think a little harder about a lot of things I say...look at them through the eyes of someone who doesn't know me from Adam.

But I still don't want to change things I've put out there. That seems way too cheap and easy. Sort of like Offended Man!

See, now in my head I read that sentence and hear a big joke with a rimshot or perhaps a couple of snaps in a circle.

I'm guessing he's going to think I'm a "bitch" though.

Posted: Fri - January 14, 2005 at 05:17 PM       EmailFeedback

©