• Join The Fed
• Advertise with The Fed

• About Us
• Contact

In This Issue

• I'm the Man in the Glass Box
• A Beginner's Guide to Smoking Cigarettes
• The Epic Drunken Email
• Letter From Some Dude
• 5 Easy Steps to Becoming a Barnard Girl
• The Cold, Harsh Reality that is SEAS
• Fun With Freshman Housing
• F.E.D.S. vs. The Fed
• First Year Friendships
• The Fed Guide to What's What: Points of Interest on Campus
• The Fed Guide to What's What: Where to Shop
• The Fed Guide to What's What: Where to Drink
• A Campus Club Wish List
• How to Win Friends and Alienate Your Parents
• Legalized Speed a Huge Hit in NYC
• Fed / Counterfed
• GLAAD vs. Kevin Smith
• Horoscopes
• News Briefs
• Wacky Fun Whitey
• THEY Watch
• The Staff of 17.1

Recently, a smattering of controversy erupted over the new Kevin Smith film 'Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back.' GLAAD (the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) objected strongly to humor contained within the film that they believe is anti-gay and promoting of homophobia.

In late July, representatives of GLAAD contacted Smith after attending a screening of the film to address their concerns. In the letter (which can be read online at various websites, including Smith's and GLAAD's), they objected to the gay humor being "at the expense of the stereotyped category of people." They also claimed that "all references to gay men reinforce them as objects of acceptable ridicule and dehumanization," and most importantly, "when sympathetic characters substitute the word 'gay' for something that is wrong or stupid, it validates a common slur used by school-age youth to mean anything unacceptable."

GLAAD argues that since some people may not understand satire, it is dangerous to attempt satire at all. In the organization's official response on its website, it states simply that "[s]atire is easily misinterpreted and misunderstood. Satire relies on the viewer of reader's life experiences as a frame of reference to "get the joke." The impact on a viewer may not be what the filmmaker intended, and not every person who sees this film will identify it as satire."

When asked if one may assume that anyone seeing the film will know it just a film and know not to emulate the idiotic characters portrayed, GLAAD responds that "such a blanket statement can not be made." Apparently some blanker statements are more acceptable than others.

Whether or not the film is offensive to gays and lesbians is subjective, and each person should come to his or her own conclusion on the matter. GLAAD does good work and is a necessary agency in the world while homophobia and hate still exist, but their motives and actions in this particular case seem a bit suspect.

The initial letter to Smith was civil and polite enough, considering its subject matter. According to Smith (from a posting on the View Askew website), the ensuing conversation with GLAAD media director Scott Seomin was equally cordial and mature. Seomin informed Smith that GLAAD was requesting a $200,000 donation from Miramax to the Matthew Shepherd Foundation. Smith said he would like to make a donation as well, and the two settled on a figure of $10,000. The conversation ended with, as Smith put it, "a couple of guys enlightened as to one another's feelings about some potentially thorny issues, as well as the Matthew Shepherd Foundation being ten g's richer."

The next week, however, 'Entertainment Weekly' released an article on the controversy. In it, Seomin says, in reaction to the film, "I've never seen something so horrific." The article also states that Seomin asked for and received the $10,000 donation from Smith. On GLAAD's website, however, a statement clearly reads: "At no time did GLAAD suggest, request or accept any donations from either Miramax or Smith."

GLAAD has made some suspicious moves in dealing with this case, critics suggest that GLAAD has started the controversy to justify its existence. To answer this question, they give a roundabout statement on the purpose of their organization without really saying yes or no. It all leads one to believe that maybe there really isn't anything left in the media there that is seriously defaming gays and lesbians, and that this organization is looking for anything it can find to justify it possibly obsolete existence.

GLAAD's main issue of contention is that the film will give rise to the use of the word 'gay' to mean 'stupid.' The use of 'gay' as a negative term has been developing for years now. In my high school, 'gay' was used as a derogatory term, and when questioned, those using it maintained that they had not actually meant anything about homosexuality. Example: "man, I totally flunked that math test. That class is so gay." Proper translation: "that class is so lame/stupid/annoying." Improper translation: "That class is of the orientation to have sexual intercourse with members of the same gender."

What GLAAD fails to acknowledge is that language is a fluid beast. In fact, the gay community co-opted the word gay from happy people. How do you think they felt? Too bad there was no Happy People Anti-defamation League to complain then.

On a personal note, I went to see this movie with my boyfriend, and after viewing it, we felt in no way defamed. There will always be ignorant people in the world. There will always be homophobic morons who act on unenlightened ideas. However, this film is a satire, and condemning a satire because some people might not get it is just plain gay.