Dear Andrea Peyser,

by thelostboy
July 19, 2010 4:42 AM
2 Comments
  • |

I'm tired. And I almost decided to just ignore the homophobic, ignorant and considerably ridiculous story you wrote for The New York Post this weekend. But as the hours have winded down since I first read it amidst a jet-lag induced 4am wakeup call this morning, I feel this is more or less impossible.

In your article oh-so-cleverly titled "'The Kids' Aren't All Right," you rant on disturbingly about how Lisa Cholodenko's "The Kids Are All Right," is a "sort of a cross between 'Leave it to Beaver' and 'Kittens With Whips,'" promoting (gasp!) gay parenthood and going so far as suggesting the film is propaganda for the gay agenda. I won't link to the story in an effort to not bring traffic or ad money to your wretched employer, but have copied and pasted at the bottom of this blog entry so people can read it, feel disgusted, and write The New York Post (letters@nypost.com) telling them why exactly you should be fired (which, given its The New York Post, probably will never happen).

There's a whole boat load of bigotry I could touch base on (and not just homophobia... there's also some significant anti-feminism goin' on), but let me start with what seems to trouble you the most: gays as parents. You write:

For this film is set to go down in history as the first major motion picture to make a family led by gay women -- A-lister Annette Bening, as the control-freak doctor Nic, "wed" to A-lister Julianne Moore, as the weepy, infantilized Jules -- seem not just normal, but close to godly. It reaches further than the gay-cowboy romp "Brokeback Mountain," whose characters maintained a sense of otherness while shielding the kids from their shenanigans. In this movie, exposing kids is the entire point... It doesn't take a genius to glean the truth: Folks are happy with gays living together. But bringing children into the equation is a deal-breaker.

And how do you back up this bigotry? Well - in classic Rupert Murdoch empire form - you don't. You have a couple of random quotes from two moms of two (such vigorous research you do!):

"Hollywood has set the stage for the gay agenda, nothing new," said Laura Bailey, Brooklyn mom of two boys. "Why do you think they did propaganda films in the 1940s? They're setting the new norm."

"The movie industry is doing its best to undermine the American family," said Patricia Whitehead, Connecticut mom of two girls. "Hollywood -- we don't care about the sick lives you lead behind closed doors. Just don't bring children into it."

Then you suggest the kids have "almost no friends and no discernible religion" somehow as a result of their being raised by lesbians (without explaining why exactly this is the case), and question (enter the self-hating woman in you) why the kids come to discover why they don't need Dad either (which, quite clearly in the film, is because he is not their DAD, he is their sperm donor and they existed quite well without him for their entire lives).

And THEN you simply quote other people because you're too stupid to back up your own claims:

"The movie was released Friday in Manhattan and Los Angeles to stellar reviews. A.O. Scott of The New York Times made 'The Kids' sound like a cross between 'It's a Wonderful Life'' and 'Looking for Mr. Goodbar,' raving about the 'close to perfect' performances.

Only NewsBlaze's Prairie Miller wrote that a gifted cast 'salvages this story from a couple of contrived plot points demonizing heterosexuality in an otherwise problem-free world.' I went to see it in Chelsea, where the crowd was generally smitten. But therapist Karen Kopitz saw through the gay proselytizing. 'I'm not anti-gay,' she said. 'But I don't think you can compensate for the male-female role model.'

That doesn't mean Hollywood can't try."

First off, your pal Kopitz is not only anti-gay, but she's also anti-woman.

And you, well, you're just totally oblivious (or lazy): To use "NewsBlaze" and "Prairie Miller" as a comparable entity to the fucking New York Times and A.O. Scott is simply bad and unprofessional journalism... as is the suggestion that Hollywood as any real history of compensating for the male-female role model. Any slight observation of what it is that Hollywood does would tell you that 99.9999999% of Hollywood gives us the male-female role model. "Kids" is a lovely exception to the rule.

And lastly, is the fact that you saw the film in Chelsea supposed to suggest you did some sort of investigative journalism?? Like you're all "I went to the epi-center of gayness to find out how gays were reacting to the film." Pulitzer-fucking-prize, Andrea, pulitzer-fucking-prize.

Arguing with you any further is - as far as I'm concerned - like writing a letter to a mentally challenged chimpanzee, so I'll stop. But, seriously, I know you work for a newspaper that probably encourages this kinda shit, but you should maybe take a real hard look at how offensive you're being, and how your work is promoting hatred, and really re-consider who you are as a journalist, and as a human being.

Sincerely,
Peter

Read the whole article after the jump.

Shh! Hollywood is having a teaching moment -- this time in the bedroom, where, if you're straight, chances are you've been doing it wrong.
In the first frames of the new flick "The Kids Are All Right," two boys snort coke. Next, a dad tackles his teenage son so ferociously, the child can't breathe.
That boy soon tries to relieve himself on a dog. Gross. And a man with exceptional appetites proves that Cialis, not to mention heterosexual relations, is for losers.

That is how the most self-righteously moralistic movie to hit the big screen since "Forrest Gump" preaches an undeniable Hollywood truth: Men, and boys who will be men, are not just bad. They're corrupt, amoral horndogs.

And women, especially neurotic, lesbian mommies who drive Volvos, watch gay male porn (go figure!) and get plastered before lunch, are perfect.

These are the life choices presented in Lisa Cholodenko's "The Kids," sort of a cross between "Leave it to Beaver" and "Kittens With Whips." Choose your lifestyle wisely, moviegoers. For this film is set to go down in history as the first major motion picture to make a family led by gay women -- A-lister Annette Bening, as the control-freak doctor Nic, "wed" to A-lister Julianne Moore, as the weepy, infantilized Jules -- seem not just normal, but close to godly.
It reaches further than the gay-cowboy romp "Brokeback Mountain," whose characters maintained a sense of otherness while shielding the kids from their shenanigans. In this movie, exposing kids is the entire point.

And this is how Hollywood does an end run around morality.

"Hollywood has set the stage for the gay agenda, nothing new," said Laura Bailey, Brooklyn mom of two boys. "Why do you think they did propaganda films in the 1940s? They're setting the new norm."

"The movie industry is doing its best to undermine the American family," said Patricia Whitehead, Connecticut mom of two girls. "Hollywood -- we don't care about the sick lives you lead behind closed doors. Just don't bring children into it."

This brazen attempt at trend-setting comes as national polls show Americans oppose gay marriage, half of us strongly. Support for it was at 47 percent in this year's Washington Post/ABC News poll -- but fully two-thirds favored civil unions, in which gay couples enjoy most rights of marrieds without having to stand under the chuppah.

It doesn't take a genius to glean the truth: Folks are happy with gays living together. But bringing children into the equation is a deal-breaker.

That didn't stop the fictional characters in "The Kids." They produced seemingly normal Joni, 18, named for Joni Mitchell, and Laser, 15, evidently named by the wolves who raised him. The movie concerns the kids' hunt for their "sperm donor" -- a term used in place of "biological father" to diminish guys. The donor, Paul, is played by a scruffy and delectable Mark Ruffalo.

Inevitably, the kids, who have almost no friends and no discernible religion, find they don't need Dad either. They're tragically disappointed when Paul conducts a villainous affair with the neglected Jules. Oddly, straight sex brings the only hot and natural relief to this movie's stifling awkwardness.

But, for reasons never explained, Jules dumps Paul and animalistic sex, and resumes being emotionally abused by Nic.

The movie was released Friday in Manhattan and Los Angeles to stellar reviews. A.O. Scott of The New York Times made "The Kids" sound like a cross between "It's a Wonderful Life'' and "Looking for Mr. Goodbar," raving about the "close to perfect" performances. Only NewsBlaze's Prairie Miller wrote that a gifted cast "salvages this story from a couple of contrived plot points demonizing heterosexuality in an otherwise problem-free world."
I went to see it in Chelsea, where the crowd was generally smitten. But therapist Karen Kopitz saw through the gay proselytizing.
"I'm not anti-gay," she said. "But I don't think you can compensate for the male-female role model."
That doesn't mean Hollywood can't try.

get email updates
  • |

More: Queer, Annoyances

You might also like:

2 Comments

  • Marc Leandro | July 20, 2010 2:50 AMReply

    You are doing a serious public service here... you managed more than I did, but I enjoy the thought that maybem just maybe I'll make her feel a little bit bad about her pathetic self.

    ---->As a gay man who was married in Massachusetts this past May, I'm mortified, if also somewhat bemused, at your piece today. I long ago realized that what you publish is nothing but invective wrapped in a poor-normal-middle-class-me-in-the face-of-an-evil-and changing-world motif, but this takes the cake. A film that seeks to tackle two realities that, whether or not you approve, exist; the offspring of sperm donors and gay parents - comes off as some kind of run-of-the-mill propaganda piece. Cholodenko put into images and words things that are actually happening in this country, to, in the case of gays, populations that have been for years and years ignored, abused and often killed for simply being who they are. My bemusement comes from the fact that you seem to have a real visceral disgust that gays and gay families would want visibility, yet you live and make your living in New York, where gayness is so wholly part of the mainstream as to be a bore. But I guess you have a career to promote and red meat to toss to the morons out there, don't you? You're a serious embarrassment to your City, to your readers and certainly to your profession. But at least you're always reductive (or non-existent) in your reasoning, and reliably seek to stir up the worst in people. You've got consistency on your side. Maybe you could put some energy into finding a small slice of happiness for yourself, so that you might stop spewing your bitter venom all over the place. Marc

  • Theoretical Shopaholic | July 19, 2010 8:35 AMReply

    So I guess the only thing to do is spit in Laura Bailey's vegan cupcakes at whatever mommy-friendly Brooklyn cafe she frequents (if, indeed, she does exist).

Follow Me

Latest Tweets

Follow us

Most "Liked"