web
counter
 

GLAAD's Protest of Cross-Dressing Comedy, 'Work It,' Ignores the Bigger Issue: The Show is Moronic

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Trade News | Comments (24)



61707567.jpg

GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) has been all up in the news this week, throwing a hissy fit about ABC’s new cross-dressing comedy, “Work It,” screaming like a bunch of ninnies that the show will cause irreparable damage the transgender community, going so far as to place an ad in The Hollywood Reporter. Normally, I’m a fan of GLAAD. And I’m not just saying that. I was raised in Redneckia, Arkansas by a gay father during a time when the overwhelming majority of citizenry was openly hostile to homosexuality. GLAAD never prevented my Pops from getting his ass whooped by a**hole homophobes, but hey! It got the NY Times to use the word “gay” instead of “sodomite” or “screaming fairy.” One small step …

But GLAAD’s outrage over “Work It” is misplaced, misguided, and silly. It’s basically “Bosom Buddies” or “Sorority Boys” set in the workplace, and while it’s a preposterous, outdated, unfunny and ludicrous premise, it is not offensive to the transgendered community. It is offensive to intelligence and common decency, however, and the more GLAAD gets their panties/knickers in a twist over it, the more exposure they provide to a show that almost everyone had given two, three episodes tops before it got cancelled.

What is it about “Work It” specifically that provoked GLAAD’s response, anyway? Cross-dressing has been part of the fabric of comedy for decades, from “Monty Python” to “Kids in the Hall” to Mrs. Doubtfire, Big Momma’s House and Norbit. More often that not, unless it involves Eddie Izzard, it’s dumb, but cross-dressing comedy has rarely been hostile to the transgendered community. Reasonably intelligent people can tell the difference between a man or woman that self-identifies as someone of the opposite sex and two idiots dressing up like women to get a job. The more GLAAD protests “Work It,” the more the two ideas get conflated. If there’s confusion, GLAAD will be partially responsible.

The real issue, however, is that many people can’t tell the difference between a smart comedy and dumb one (see “Two and a Half Men’s’ ratings). GLAAD is providing free exposure to a dumb one, and now everyone is going to check it out to see what’s so offensive about it. Viewers with doltish sensibilities might even stick around, and then we ALL lose. The best thing GLAAD can do it shut up about the show and let it die a quick death, as was preordained by the television gods the moment the show was announced.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



I Love You, New Spartacus: Vengeance Trailer | Merry Not-Christmas Christmas From Netflix And Hulu









Comments

I don't know if my opinion counts here, since I haven't seen the show, but in a glance, this is my take:

GLAAD is probably more concerned with how transgender peeps are perceived by the very crowd that would think something like this IS funny. The normal, intelligent person will automatically dismiss it as ridiculous, but those are not necessarily the people GLAAD is trying to influence (or not influence).

I dunno: In general, it's offensive. But so is most shit on TV.

Posted by: boo at December 22, 2011 11:35 AM

I do, however, agree that they are bringing more press to the show than it's worth. So, yeah.

Posted by: boo at December 22, 2011 11:38 AM

Ahhh Amaury Nolasco. He was so good on 'Prison Break.' Is he hurting for money? That's the only explanation for this.

Posted by: kilmo at December 22, 2011 11:47 AM

Two words:

Cop Rock

Posted by: MRod at December 22, 2011 11:47 AM

needing to get to work but this article is making me too ragey to even form coherent sentences.

Posted by: Alyson at December 22, 2011 11:55 AM

CopRock
CopRophagy
Coincidence?

Posted by: , at December 22, 2011 12:17 PM

Somewhere Peter Scolari weeps...

Posted by: bleujayone at December 22, 2011 12:22 PM

Now that Fox airs (stupid) Big Bang Theory at 10pm instead of Simpsons my house watches old 30 Rocks on our CW affiliate...but after 30 Rock they air 2 1/2 Men so occasionally I find myself watching the opening of that show while frantically hunting for the remote control. I have never before even pretended to watch it and holy fuckballs it is AWFUL. I mean just seriously, heinously unfunny and occasionally offensive. WHO thinks this show is funny? I can't even fathom those people being smart enough to find their way home from work every day...and now THIS shitshow? God help us all.

Posted by: JenVegas at December 22, 2011 12:26 PM

Amaury Nolasco? The hell man? Dean Zayas would not be proud. ... Or would he?

Posted by: MissRos at December 22, 2011 12:28 PM

That show looks Love Guru bad.

Posted by: John W at December 22, 2011 12:37 PM

Sweet Unholy Cthulhu.

This show's wretched, and all I've seen of it are ads.

Posted by: The Wanderer at December 22, 2011 1:03 PM

What advantage could a white guy get from dressing up as a woman? What advantage could any guy get from dressing like a woman? Lower wages and cramps?

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at December 22, 2011 1:41 PM

Last night i asked Mr.525 who in gods name is watching this shit...and how did they possibly get someone to agree to even make it. Unbearable.

Posted by: jenniferk525 at December 22, 2011 1:48 PM

Two words:

Bosom Buddies

Posted by: Tom Hanks at December 22, 2011 1:57 PM

What Mrs. Julien said.

Posted by: MM at December 22, 2011 2:13 PM

I'd still spend my hard-earned quatloos to see the current-aged Dave Foley turn himself into Isabella Rossellini. Kids in the Hall didn't do drag, they performed female characters.

Looking at the photo above, my question is not why they're in drag (who cares), but why are they dressed like extras from Pan-Am? Maybe it's set in the 70s!

Posted by: Corvus at December 22, 2011 2:21 PM

I'm sorry if I'm missing some kind of intentional irony here, but "screaming like a bunch of ninnies" doesn't seem like a much more sensitive description of GLAAD than "screaming fairies" would be.

Posted by: Amanda6 at December 22, 2011 3:33 PM

IIRC, the idiots in this show dress up like women to get jobs as pharmaceutical sales reps, because for the past 10-15 years pharm companies have been preferentially hiring women in that position. What the show apparently doesn't get is that women are hired as pharm sales reps if they are hot, because hot women are able to sweet-talk the (majority) straight male doctors into ordering more of their products. The only doctors those guys would be able to sweet-talk would be the ones that masturbate to Tootsie. How many could there be?

Posted by: Three-nineteen at December 22, 2011 3:42 PM

"I'm sorry if I'm missing some kind of intentional irony here, but 'screaming like a bunch of ninnies' doesn't seem like a much more sensitive description of GLAAD than 'screaming fairies' would be."

Well, the former is opining that their reaction is idiotic, while the latter is a homophobic slur. "Ninnies" and "fairies" are not synonymous, as even a cursory glance at a dictionary will tell you. GLAAD and the LGBT community are not sacred cows, completely immune from any and all criticism. We do, in fact, sometimes behave like screaming ninnies.

Posted by: Craig at December 22, 2011 8:11 PM

"The only doctors those guys would be able to sweet-talk would be the ones that masturbate to Tootsie. How many could there be?"

*fapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfap*

...what?

Posted by: American Medical Association at December 22, 2011 8:13 PM

I get that "ninny" isn't the homophobic slang du jour, but I don't necessarily think that using that term excuses the sentiment. There are lots of ways to endorse stereotypes without explicitly using one of the "bad words."

There is merit in the content of this article, and I'd never suggest that GLAAD is immune to criticism. I just think the point could be made without implying histrionics, since that's something that's often attributed to activist communities (and gays, and women) to discredit them when they're trying to make a point (even calmly and rationally and all that.)

Posted by: Amanda6 at December 23, 2011 4:19 AM

Perhaps if one does not want to have histrionics implied, one should not indulge in histrionic behavior.

Posted by: Craig at December 23, 2011 10:04 AM

I can understand GLAAD being upset if these character were supposed to be two actual transgendered people, and they were made the butt of the joke. But that's not what's happening here. These characters are two regular guys who dress in drag to get a job. The humor, and doubtless there is much, will be centered around these two "fish out of water".

It looks awful but GLAAD is blowing this way out of proportion. Is the entire concept of a man dressing like a woman verboten, unless it's a serious drama about the struggle of the transgendered? So no Milton Berle, no Big Momma's House, no Madea movies, no White Chicks(okay, so losing those last three examples might be a good thing)?

If anyone should be upset here, it's women. Seeing those two guys in drag and expecting the audience to believe an office full of women would buy the gimmick strains believability.

Posted by: Deave at December 24, 2011 3:19 PM

GLADD's only concern is to find things to complain about so that they remain relevant. They make a LOT of money off of donations and a lot of the people working there have never had any other real job. The best thing to do for job security.....is to keep convincing people that your services are needed.....even if you make them up.

Posted by: Michael at January 16, 2012 9:34 PM