As I’ve watched the candidates in this election cycle come and go, and their powerful friends step up to give endorsements, I’ve found myself developing more of an opinion about the endorser than the endorsed.
So now how should I feel, even though a Presidential candidate isn’t on the line, about the fact that my heroine Margaret Cho has come out on behalf of Tila Tequila?
She wrote this today on her blog:
“I love Tila Tequila and in many ways I consider her my spiritual daughter. She is a beautiful Asian American woman with a head for business and a bod for sin. She rules and she’s got tattoos!! Oh and she is bisexual!! She’s great and I think her show “A Shot at Love” is groundbreaking and fabulously entertaining…
Sometimes people complain and say that the show is all fixed fake and that Tila isn’t really queer and it’s all bullshit, but I don’t believe them. I think it is real, and even if it isn’t – who fucking cares? We have a major hit TV dating show that revolves around a queer star. The real identity of the players or the legitimacy of the game isn’t important to me. What is important is that people like Tila, which means people like me, are no longer invisible. We are here, we are queer, and everyone is getting used to it.”
The thing is, I don’t know if I care more about the fact that Margaret got behind Tila (not lit-rally, but like the Kennedys for Obama), or her casual willingness to dismiss the importance of the identity of Tila’s sexual pawns. I’m all for high-visibility gays and bis but without identity, attention is just bullshit. And should we really celebrate exploitation without real progress? I dunno, maybe we should ask mid-century Black performers that got to dance and sing for white folks but couldn’t enter through he same concert hall doors.
How should I feel about this? Maybe I’ll just introduce Margaret to Chuck and call it a day. That’ll kill two stones with one burn.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.