Lack of diversity in LGBTQ+ tv shows and how it has an effect in the real world

[Sagittarius84]

Effeminate and "stereotypical" gay men exist.

As do masculine and stoic gay men, the difference is I'm arguing that neither should should have a monopoly as to whom is the face of gay men, while you seem content to have said effeminate men be your sole face as long as the women stroke your precious egos(milking their objectification from the oh so willing source.)

Sorry that bothers you. If Hollywood cared enough they could produce such works, but they're clearly not invested.

What bothers me is this disingenuous observation by so many gay men whom only see the ills in their narrow portrayals when it is androcentric media "watering them down", but don't really mind being stereotypes and tropes for women, whom media primarily serve.
If you would like the eyes of men you're going to have to appeal to them, period. Y'all collectively chose to appeal to the eyes of women, bed made, lie in it, and stop complaining about the consequences when you collectively have the unilateral ability to appeal to whomever you want, if you so choose.

 

[badd mamma jamma]

As do masculine and stoic gay men, the difference is I'm arguing that neither should should have a monopoly as to whom is the face of gay men, while you seem content to have said effeminate men be your sole face as long as the women stroke your precious egos(milking their objectification from the oh so willing source.)

What bothers me is this disingenuous observation by so many gay men whom only see the ills in their narrow portrayals when it is androcentric media "watering them down", but don't really mind being stereotypes and tropes for women, whom media primarily serve.
If you would like the eyes of men you're going to have to appeal to them, period. Y'all collectively chose to appeal to the eyes of women, bed made, lie in it, and stop complaining about the consequences when you collectively have the unilateral ability to appeal to whomever you want, if you so choose.

Nothing disingenuous about my second response. This is why I wrote in my above statement that gay people need to take a page from Black Americans and focus on building our own media instead of relying solely on mainstream Hollywood for representation. Straight people need to stop being so biggoted.

 

[badd mamma jamma]

He never said it "bothers" him. Whereas you make some well-considered points, you tend to undermine them by setting up straw man arguments just to knock them down. As another example, you conclude Hollywood is "not invested" on the pretext that they do not "care enough" to produce works that others would claim are plentiful. Even assuming a paucity of such works, many reasons exist, other than indifference, for not producing more of such works.

Hollywood is indifferent to anything that doesn't yield a profit. I probably should have specified that. Also the poster I responded to said in one of their replies that they refuse to accept effeminate gay men as their just a stereotype. Not their exact words but along those lines.

 

[FrankieGuile]

Hollywood is indifferent to anything that doesn't yield a profit. I probably should have specified that. Also the poster I responded to said in one of their replies that they refuse to accept effeminate gay men as their just a stereotype. Not their exact words but along those lines.

An enterprise can both "care" and "yield a profit." Those two concepts are not mutually exclusive. You are defining how they should demonstrate that they care, and when that standard is not met, concluding the offending party does not care. That's the straw man.

 

[badd mamma jamma]

An enterprise can both "care" and "yield a profit." Those two concepts are not mutually exclusive. You are defining how they should demonstrate that they care, and when that standard is not met, concluding the offending party does not care. That's the straw man.

They can and yet they don't.

 

[Sagittarius84]

Also the poster I responded to said in one of their replies that they refuse to accept effeminate gay men as their just a stereotype. Not their exact words but along those lines.

An example of listening to respond instead of listening to comprehend. What I expressed is an obvious logical incongruence in gay mens collective comfortability with being defined and exploited simply by the effeminate, flamboyant translation common to women's tastes, yet having an issue with androcentric media not indulging in such stereotypes and opting to show gay men in a more masculine light.
If the argument is "gay men are not a monolith" then you should be equally averse to gyno- and androcentric media sources doubling down on their respective translations being the "face" of gay men, but as you're demonstrating, as long as the attention/unconditional affirmation mechanism is present from women, you really dont give two fucks how they exploit you, to the point you will help them in facilitating homophobic insults and assertions against straight men.

This is why I wrote in my above statement that gay people need to take a page from Black Americans and focus on building our own media instead of relying solely on mainstream Hollywood for representation.

Don't forget the other page that you may want to read, a big part of how we were able to get better representation and rights was because of how many leaders impelled the black community to assimilate to the white status quo, in wardrobe, grooming, and mannerisms, to gain a foothold in a world that didn't accept them, to then be able to create a space where we could be unapologetically black.

 

[FrankieGuile]

They can and yet they don't.

...which is your opinion with which others disagree, and particularly, others who work in the industry creating stories for film who state emphatically that they do care. You can choose to disbelieve them, and pretend they do not exist, but in doing so, you put yourself in league with all intolerant people who do not believe or see another person genuinely stating their own belief.