crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters
Last Saturday, I posted a classic episode of The Jeffersons that presented what I thought to be a positive look at the transgender community.
I received such a positive response from it that I've decided that, from time to time, I will post clips of past movies and television episodes to give a feel as to how lgbts were and are represented in the media.
Today, I am posting something less positive.
In the 1970s, actress Angie Dickinson starred in the successful Police Woman television series. This particular episode, Flowers of Evil, was so controversial that it was only shown once due to protests by the lgbt community.
It dealt with Dickinson getting to the bottom of a case in which three lesbians running a retirement home were stealing money from their residents, drugging them, and then gruesomely murdering them.
As this minisode (an abridged version of a television episode)shows, there is a lot to be desired from this particular episode:
Trust me when I say that the full episode is much worse, specifically the stereotypical portrayals of the three villains:
The Bitch (Gladys) - The ringleader of the trio. Beautiful and sleek enough to sup posedly "fool" men about her sexual orientation. She is the one who commits the only murder shown in the episode and it's not a nice scene. Her sadism is only matched by her lust; a quality that leads Dickinson to successfully go undercover at the retirement home.
The Butch (Mame) - Coarse, crude, and detached to a fault. She enjoys watching Gladys commit the murder.
The Femme (Janet) - The supposed "true woman" of the trio and as such, the one with a conscience and the "weak link." While Gladys strangles the victim and Mame watches, Janet stands outside in the rain crying in guilt. She can be prodded with kind words or a hard slap by Gladys.
Always good news to see LGBT legislation moving forward, which is one of the reasons why I appreciate living in California so much. From a joint press release from Equality California and Assemblymember John A. P?rez:
The California State Assembly passed the LGBT Domestic Violence Services Bill along party lines, with all 44 Democrats present voting in favor while all 17 votes against were cast by Republicans. Sponsored by Equality California (EQCA), the bill, AB 1003, will increase and expand services to lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) survivors of domestic violence."By passing this bill, we are expanding innovative and proven program models already being pioneered by LGBT centers and organizations across the state," said Assemblymember John A. P?rez (D-Los Angeles), the author of the bill. "Now more people will have greater access to the services they need - in a safe, comfortable environment."
Rates of domestic violence in same-sex relationships are equivalent to those in opposite-sex relationships. However, support for LGBT survivors continues to lag far behind those available to non-LGBT couples. "We must do all in our power to ensure that LGBT survivors of domestic violence have access to culturally competent services and resources," Geoff Kors, executive director of EQCA. "EQCA is extremely grateful to Assemblymember P?rez for his leadership on this important issue and thank the California Assembly for helping move us one step closer to making this goal a reality."
The LGBT Domestic Violence Services Bill is designed to correct this inequity by expanding access for LGBT service providers to a state fund within the California Emergency Management Agency, which supports LGBT specific domestic violence programs across the state. The fund, originally established as part of another EQCA sponsored bill in 2006, is subsidized by a $23 fee on domestic partner registrations. The new bill also eliminates the requirement for providers to offer shelter - an impediment to many smaller LGBT organizations that inadvertently keeps several California communities from providing any services for LGBT survivors of domestic violence. The bill previously passed the Assembly Public Safety Committee by a vote of 5-2.
There's more to treating same sex and same gender couples with parity to opposite sex and opposite gender couples than just with marriage equality. I'm glad that when it comes to domestic violence, this is one way my home state gets this.
The absurdity of the answers Press Secretary Robert Gibbs is forced to deliver in defense of DADT (or rather, the President's "helplessness" to do anything about the continuation of discharges on his watch), is pathetic. Here is today's jackassery, via Kerry Eleveld @ The Advocate:The first questioner Friday lumped President Obama's failure thus far to address the gay ban into a group of other pledges that the president has changed course on, such as his decision this week not to release the photos of detainee abuse. In other words, some in the mainstream press are starting to view the president's inaction on "don't ask, don't tell" as the reversal of a campaign promise. Gibbs avoided answering the DADT piece of that inquiry by responding more directly to the issue of releasing the photos.And here's the exchange from the official transcript, which just landed in my inbox.But the second questioner was more direct.
Q Well, the President says that releasing the detainee photos poses a danger to our troops, but doesn't dismissing otherwise qualified soldiers also pose a danger? Is it a question of degree?The White House is backed up against the wall and cannot give a reasonable, logical defense to continue a policy that is hurting our military effectiveness. He can stop the discharges right now, while Congress moves in its not-so-deliberate speed on the matter.
MR. GIBBS: No, no. What I talked about in terms of "don't ask, don't tell" was the President -- the President, as you know, supports changing that because he strongly believes that it does not serve our national interest. He agrees with former members of the Joint Chiefs in that determination.But unlike photos, the only durable solution to "don't ask, don't tell" is through a legislative process, and the President is working with Congress and members of the Joint Chiefs to ensure that that happens.
Q But couldn't he in the meantime put a moratorium on these discharges until that can be accomplished?
MR. GIBBS: But again, the President has determined that that's not -- that's not the way to seek any sort of lasting or durable solution to the public policy problem that we have.
Q &n bsp; Then how would you respond to the criticism, though, that dismissing a qualified linguist endangers the troops?
MR. GIBBS: I think I would respond by saying that the President has long believed that the policy doesn't serve our national interest.
This is embarrassing for the "fierce advocate", but quite frankly it's irresponsible as commander in chief to act as if he can't do anything right now.
Related:
* Report: Obama can stop the discharge arge of openly gay and lesbian service members now
* The White House has nowhere to hide from MSM equality questions as Gibbs blows it at presser
* The Obama admin doesn't know how to respond to the marriage equality dominoes