Subject: Correction/Resend Roberts' Rules
From: "Shelly Roberts" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 15:46:11 +0000

ROBERTS' RULES
by Shelly Roberts

GLAAD TIDINGS

Read this and tell me what you think:

"In the current Warner Brothers movie My Fellow Americans, lesbians
and gay men play a vital role in saving the lives of two former
presidents. James Garner (as the Democrat) and Jack Lemmon (as the
Republican) portray the two former leaders who are forced to go on the
run after the cover-up of a scandal involving the current president
(Dan Akroyd), leads to attempts to assassinate the two. At one point,
Lemmon and Garner duck into a West Virginia gay pride parade to escape
the bad guys. When one of the parade participants (who is in a
marching band entirely made up of drag versions of Dorothy from the
Wizard of Oz) befriends them, he arranges for a group of Dykes on
Bikes to take them to safety. At the end of the ride, a lesbian gives
Lemmon a freedom ring (gay pride) necklace, and Lemmon notes that
after spending time with the lesbians, he has rethought the issue of
gays in the military and thinks that "the military could probably use
several of those women." Later in the film, the Marching Dorothy
heroically returns.

Please let Warner Brothers know that their non-exploitative and jovial
inclusion of lesbians and gay men in My Fellow Americans is
appreciated."

Transitions are confusing. 

There.  I've said it and I'm glad.

Or in this case GLAAD. As in the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against
Defamation. which self-defines as "the only national lesbian and gay
multimedia watchdog organization. GLAAD promotes fair, accurate and
inclusive representation as a means of challenging all forms of
discrimination based on sexual orientation or identity." 

This is from one of their alerts.

A good and helpful organization over all. But apparently also having
difficulty with transitions. Reading their special alerts and
operational manifesti, I am lately reminded of the poor TV anchor who
has broken the latest disaster, but has too much air time, and  no
news to follow with. You can practically feel the poor patsy making it
up as s/he goes along, inventing details, escalating the importance of
minutia, and interviewing random passersby, to fill.  

Sometimes it seems GLAAD seeks media gay bashing of major proportions,
real or imagined, and escalates its importance to fill its agenda,
which is to find discrimination, then slay it. Or laud it's absence.

Just on the face of this alert, we have, as I read it, a movie with a
parade full of drag Dorothys, leather lesbians on Harleys, and an
aging misogynist making bad stereotypical jokes about us.

  Am I hallucinating here? Isn't this what GLAAD is usually up in arms
  about? Don't they usually incite personcotts over these kinds of
  movies?

Only now we are supposed to cheer Warner Brothers for, what? Oh, yes.
"Non-exploitative and jovial inclusion of lesbians and gay men."

I'm confused.  Enough so that I went to see this light little flick. 
Paid my own money. (Although, not wanting to take out a second
mortgage to buy the theater's, I did bring my own popcorn. Shhh. Don't
ask.. Don't tell.)

And, yup. GLAAD's description is absolutely accurate.  Up to and
including the fact that the hero is a definite Dorothy.  The only
difference is that we don't die in the end. That's it. Our most
extreme images, our only representation, win the day and save the
respective derrieres of the film's big-name protagonists.

Okay, so the film is aimed at Seniors, using cliches and terminologies
that 70 and 80 year old's can relate to.  For a change, we seem to be
on the right side of the dramatic tension for this demographic, which
does have the most trouble reversing their long-taught unpleasant
beliefs about us.

But did I miss something here? What exactly is it I'm cheering about?

Well, okay, the idea of an Oz marching band playing Over The Rainbow
IS kicky. I hope baton carriers everywhere are rushing to buy bolts of
blue gingham. But non-exploitative? Wake up and smell the latte.

In the absence of actual lesbian and gay leadership to tell us what
we're really supposed to think as we transition from outlaw
underground to mainstream commonplace, GLAAD tells us this is good.
And I admit it.  I'm baffled.

About the best thing I can say about this movie is that it's cute.
Lemmon and Garner are always a treat to watch, even if the material
isn't exactly Mr. Roberts (no relation) or a Polaroid commercial. And,
mercifully, most people won't plunk down good bucks to bother. 

As I said, transitions are confusing. I can't figure out whether I'm
actually supposed to thank Warner Brothers for this cartoon depiction,
or picket them. Just because they don't kill me. Especially in an age
when I thought what we were after was non-exploitative and jovial
inclusion in federal and state laws, not caricature myth continuations
with unexpected happy endings, as bones to our own "watchdogs."

One thingI am certain about.  Although amusing, this is one movie I
found with not all that much to be GLAAD about.

________________________
(C) 1997. Shelly Roberts. All rights reserved.
May be reprinted only in its entirety with written permission.

Shelly Roberts is the author of the #1 best-selling
Roberts' Rules of Lesbian Living. (Spinsters Ink.)