GLAAD seems to be furious, which I predicted, and which I can certainly understand. As the article says, and as I kinda hinted at when I wrote about it the other day, I'm sure they feel like idiots for making such a strong public stance in favor of the show by sending the wedding gift on the Today show. Where I think they are going a little too far is the statement that the post wedding fight was essentially gay bashing. It's pro-wrestling dammit. Have you ever seen pro-wrestling? Fights break out over people congratulating each other for expecting a baby in pro-wrestling. I'm not joking. This in fact happened on the same damn show. As it is, the post-wedding beat down had nothing to do with the gay angle. It was the mixing of the three-minute warning angle and warring shows angle, which anyone who had watched the show even once in the last 2 months would have been able to see pretty easily. The problem is that a whole bunch of people who watched the show Thursday night HAVEN'T been watching the show in the last 2 months, which was my whole damn point in the first place.
I mean, call it stupid if you will. Of course its stupid, that's why I enjoy it. But gay bashing? *sigh* They weren't gay! That was the whole point. If anything, they should be mad about the fact that 2 gays characters up and suddenly decided that they weren't gay, thus enforcing the belief that sexual orientation is just a random choice that people make. I don't know that I'd buy that complaint about the show either, but at least it would make sense. Furthermore, the brunt of the attack wasn't even against Billy and Chuck, it was against Stephanie McMahon. Any other episode, the outrage would have been about two 300+ lbs. Samoans beating up on 120lbs woman, but oddly that's being completely ignored. Also ignored is the fact that black man dressed as a 70s pimp, down to the florescent colored shirt and oversize white man fur, calling himself the god father paraded about a dozen prostitutes (actually local strippers, hired for the occasion) that he referred to several times as "the Ho Train" down to the ring about 3 minutes before the revelation that Billy and Chuck were not gay. Why is there no outcry from NOW about portraying women as whores? Oh, that's right, because no one from NOW watches the show, since they already know pro-wrestling is offensive by design, and there was no "wrestling is going to make a positive statement about a young single mother selling her body on the streets to support her four year old son" story in the Times this week.
The odd thing is that Scott Seomin of GLAAD claims that WWE promised them two months ago that Billy and Chuck would actually get married on the air. I can't speak to that, really, because I don't know what discussions WWE and GLAAD talked about. What I do know is that like I said the other day, wrestling is a soap opera, weddings almost never actually happen the way they're supposed to. That's the entire point. The entire drama. There can't be a happy ending because there needs to be drama for next week. It should have been obvious what was going to happen. (Note: technically, both Billy and Chuck said "I do" before they announced they weren't gay. They interrupted the Justice of the Peace just as he was about to pronounce them husband and husband. He went on to say some things about them having a commitment to each other that eventually led to the 3 minute warning... I have the sneaking suspicion that next week, its going to be revealed that Billy and Chuck ARE married whether they want to be or not, thus making it not really a lie, and probably getting GLAAD complaining even more).
What I do know is that Seomin also says that the WWE told him "the day after the show was taped in Minneapolis that the wedding took place and all was well." OK... now this just makes him look like an idiot. Remember, Smackdown is taped 2 days before it airs. Billy and Chuck got the gravy boat from GLAAD on the Today show TWO DAYS AFTER the wedding was taped in front of a crowd of some 30,000 people. Hell, I wasn't even there, and yet I knew what was gonna happen the afternoon after it was taped. And its not because I have some direct connection with Vince McMahon. I looked on the Internet for a report by one of the 30,000 people who was there. It was posted as a spoiler on every damn wrestling website there was. This isn't rocket science folks. If you are a political media watchdog organization, and you are endorsing something that has already happened, common sense says CHECK TO SEE WHAT HAPPENED. Ok, maybe McMahon did lie to him, I don't know. But, do better checking than just taking to a guy who you traditionally don't like. Dubya isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, but when Hussein says "No, I don't have any nuclear weapons here" he at least has the common sense to GO AND FUCKING LOOK!
The funny thing is, Monday night's live show, RAW, featured two characters who were supposedly actual lesbians (they weren't, they were two little known female wrestlers) getting beat up by the exact same two Samoans after making out and undressing in the middle of the ring in the name of ratings (there was no veil here... they actually, literally said, on the air "in order to boost ratings, these two lesbians are going to make out for you the home viewers. That's right! Hot Lesbian Action! Here! On RAW!" -- I'm not joking). Two badly stereotyped, nymphomaniac, lesbian characters, who's only motivation was entice the male viewers G-rated softcore, were beat up on live television by the group that GLAAD was endorsing a mere 3 days before the endorsement. GLAAD did nothing because they weren't watching the show. (Because they already know pro-wrestling is offensive by design, and there was no "wrestling is going to feature the touching story of two realistically portrayed intelligent young women who find themselves in love struggling against a hetero-patriarchal dominated world " story in the Times this week.) From the article, I can't even tell that know that Monday night even happened STILL. And there, they would have had an absolutely legitimate point.
Ok, so I'm not saying the WWE is totally blameless here. It was a publicity stunt. They pretty much came out and said that. All I'm saying is that I don't think "portraying gays negatively" is their agenda. Their agenda is getting viewers. Wrestling is a funny business. They strive on negative popularity a lot of the time. Will this work for them? Who knows. But GLAAD should have known that ahead of time. I mean, they've done it for decades. And I knew it was going to end badly which is why I said so the other day. I just find it ridiculous to not check into something like that first. And I have a hard time believing that WWE lied about it, since it was a matter of public record by Wednesday morning. And even if they did, GLAAD should be ashamed of themselves for not looking into it. They're a watchdog group. Its their job! Gay bashing?!? Please... that is so reaching. Its also their job to complain about Monday night, which they completely missed.
Sigh... I hope whoever is watching out for my minority interests is doing a better job.
On another note, I find the article I linked to humorous because they said:
Billy (played by Chuck Palumbo) and Chuck (played by Monty Sopp), former pro wrestling champions,
This is incorrect. Can you guess why? Ok, it may not be obvious which of Billy and Chuck is actually Monty Sopp, but I'd think you'd be able to figure out which one is Chuck Palumbo. Particularly when the aforementioned 70s pimp said in the segment that they are writing about "Chuck, you were one of the legendary Palumbo boys." Bleah... reporters...