"In this endeavor [Maxwell King, in "The Good Neighbor: The Life and Work of Fred Rogers,"] seems obsessed with Rogers’s sexuality—though to be fair, a lot of people are, with the apparent exception of his wife, Joanne, to whom he was married for fifty years. King seems to almost reluctantly settle on 'androgynous' when he might have just left it with what Rogers told a friend: 'Well, you know, I must be right smack in the middle. Because I have found women attractive, and I have found men attractive.' This would satisfy a preschooler but is too loose for King, who treats his subject’s sex life as if he were conducting a police investigation: 'There was no double life. And without exception, close associates concluded that Fred Rogers was absolutely faithful to his marriage vows.'... [In the film 'Won't You Be My Neighbor'], François Clemmons, the opera singer who played Officer Clemmons on the show, testifies that, as a gay man, he would have known if Fred Rogers was gay: 'I spent enough time with him that if there was a gay vibe I would have picked it up.' This statement turns out to be complicated by the fact that Rogers initially asked Clemmons to hide his sexuality for fear of scaring sponsors, and encouraged him to marry (which he did).... 'I’m thinking about many different ways of saying I love you,' Rogers tells Clemmons in [one] episode. 'You’ll find many ways to understand what love is,' Clemmons sings. Rogers then notes the way memories are called up by actions, like being in a pool. At the show’s close, Clemmons returns to sing a spiritual, with Rogers beaming. 'I’m so proud of you, François!' Rogers says at one point. It’s hard not to see it as an apology."
From "The Ministry of Mr. Rogers" (The New York Review of Books).
January 17, 2019
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
55 comments:
I miss all the odd, "asexual" characters we had, before everyone had to be classified.
The best commentary on Mr. Rogers is the Cheech and Chong bit.
A high school friend spent summers in Madaket and got to know Fred a little bit, roaring 20s knee length bathing suit and all. Report was he was the guy on the show- all earnest with no subtext. He loved everyone except for maybe the people who he tried to shoo off his ‘private’ beach...
I like that he doesn’t really fit into modern pc narratives and there’s no backstory they can use to wreck him.
"I miss all the odd, "asexual" characters we had, before everyone had to be classified."
You should watch the first half of "The Celluloid Closet."
I suppose simply ignoring Fred Roger's sexuality, as he seemed to want us to do, might be a bridge too far for today's intersectionalism.
Wait are you saying that an intellectual has endeavored to denigrate or besmirch a seemingly-good man in service of proving that anyone seen as "better than" or above the filth that is pop culture is in fact not--that everyone is just as scummy as they are?? Shocking and unprecedented!
Everyone is gay. The people who you like were all gay and if they said they weren't they were just lying. It's not wrong to be gay but it's wrong to not embrace your gayness, so all those people you like (all of whom were secretly gay) are bad for hiding their gayity and not celebrating gayhood and proselytizing for gayness to a sufficient degree.
No, all of this is not pathetic and tiring; why do you ask?
[It's nice that the author "calls out" the ridiculousness of the lengths people will go to shoehorn their own takes/perspectives (on sexuality, etc) in to stories like this, but it's so common now it's just expected, I guess.]
Finding someone of the same sex 'attractive' is now tantamount to being a closet gay? While no fan of Mr. Rogers, I have to protest this snide attack on his character.
But did Sweet Fred use a Gillette razor? And if not, why not. Maybe he was a closet eunuch which is not exciting at all.
Truth is that Mr. Rogers was acting out the role of the good grandfather. Why try to diss him now?
“a two-dimensional milquetoast who spoke in warm bromides.", not that there's anything wrong with that.
Jesus fucking Christ, is there no one that the rainbow mafia won't smear and try to claim after they die? They are the equivalent of the hotep idiots that claim that all historical figures and egyptians were black.
Leave Mr. Rogers the fuck alone.
As many people as possible have to be made gay so it can be considered normal.
“Leave Mr. Rogers the fuck alone.”
Exactly. Why does he have to be classified? How is that tolerant, broad-minded, or respectful?
When did "the love that dares not speak its name" become "the love that never shuts up"?
In my life, a long time ago.
FFS, leave the man alone. Why is this even a point of interest or discussion, because he spoke softly, had gentle mannerisms, and wore sweaters well?
Haven't these 'investigators' got anything better to do?
Why are leftwingers so obsessed with sexuality and sexual orientation? Is it their inner gay mafia?
To all of you who would profane our world - go back off in your own jackyard.
If you want to plumb the depths of Fred Rogers, take a look at Lady Elaine Fairchild.
Good neighbors make good fences. Know your own boundaries before ripping down others.
The forever war was prophetic, Mandella came back to a world where homosexuality was mandatory
I was too old to watch Mr. Rogers, so this doesn't matter to me.
Just hope they leave Captain Kangaroo and Mr. Greenjeans out of it.
Fred Rogers may have seemed nicey-nice and inoffensive, almost pathetically so, but he was actually a Marine combat veteran with over 300 confirmed kills in gorilla warfare. Daniel Striped Tiger was actually inspired by a real-life tiger that mauled him in Burma. He killed that tiger with his machete. He wore that cardigan to hide the many tattoos on his arms, including one that said "Born to Kill".
Oh, and he was gay.
Fred Rogers was never in the military.
The Marine story is false about Rogers.
Look, the agenda is clear. Mr. Rogers is known for being around kids, right? If they can make him gay, then who can argue against putting nice, kindly gay men around kids? Mr. Rogers wouldn't hurt a fly, right?
And next thing you know, you have a thousand gay male teachers molesting children, all while claiming that Mr. Rogers is their role model. The left would consider that heaven.
--Vance
Agree to disagree.
I read King's biography of Fred Rogers and strongly disagree with the reviewer. He wasn't obsessed with Rogers's sexuality at all. It garners only a few mentions even tangentially.
King exhaustively documents his evidence with lengthy endnotes. He was capable of anger and swore on occasion (e.g. affectionately referring to his wife as "sweet ass".) Rogers wasn't a milquetoast and King didn't gloss over his flaws. He just had an unusual personality.
Exactly. Why does he have to be classified? How is that tolerant, broad-minded, or respectful?
I remember in the late 70s when they tried to out one one of the other cast members too> I can't remember which cast member it was but I do remember they said Meow! Meow! Meowmeowmeow! Meow! Meowmeow! in response to the allegations.
Wow! Mr Rogers sex life. I can’t wait to learn about it. /Sarc
Do lefties in the mass media think about anything besides sex, Trump and climate change? Do Democrats?
I lived in the Oakland area of Pittsburgh for several years as a child--that was also where the PBS studio was located. Found myself alone for a few minutes in the studio one day (long story) and explored the Mr Rogers set. I also met him briefly as a teenager, when I volunteered in the child care area of a Presbyterian (?) church with a friend. He was there to pick up his sons after services; my friend's dad also knew him better because the dad was a minister. FWIW, he seemed like a quiet, religiously-oriented person who was attentive and gentle with his kids. If he realized that he could be attracted to men and also women, why does that mean that he couldn't take his marriage vows seriously and be faithful? I'm super-attracted to a certain type of guy too--a type that isn't congruent with my husband's type--but I'm also attracted to my husband and would never ever cheat on him. Even IF Ryan Reynolds became an ardent suitor lol.
At the show’s close, Clemmons returns to sing a spiritual, with Rogers beaming. 'I’m so proud of you, François!' Rogers says at one point. It’s hard not to see it as an apology."
Actually it’s pretty easy not to see it as an apology.
As long as he wasn’t diddling little boys, I don’t care. Unfortunately, I always had a mildly creepy spidey sense about him that reminded me of that parish priest who apparently poked some of my classmates at St Mary’s Academy.
- Krumhorn
"As many people as possible have to be made gay so it can be considered normal."
Well, it is normal. It occurs in every generation and culture, throughout history. It even occurs among animals. I am a redhead, a relative rarity among humans. Does this make my coloring abnormal? No, it is normal, but in the minority. Normality does not require a majority (or equal) rate of frequency.
An apology? Rogers knowingly and without hesitation employed a gay man around children -- an exceedingly welcoming point of view in an intolerant era. And Rogers was exactly right the they all would have lost their jobs if the truth had been widely known.
I missed out on Mr. Rogers. But Howdy Doody had a cast with interesting sex lives; princess summerfall winterspring and I think dayton allen. Curtains drawn in rehearsal out of deference to NBC tour groups.
Well, it is normal. It occurs in every generation and culture, throughout history.
Lots of things we would not regard as "normal" occur in every generation and culture, throughout history. And no, I'm not suggesting that homosexuality is akin to criminality, bestiality, pedophilia, etc. But that criterion for "normality" just doesn't wash.
You know what else is normal by that standard? Social ostracism and moral condemnation of homosexuals. That's occurred throughout the generations and in virtually all cultures.
Mr. Cook, I must disagree. While homosexuality has been known throughout history and across cultures, that does not make it "normal". By that criterion, cancer, mental retardation, insanity, and birth defects are "normal".
No one would consider any of those a "valid lifestyle choice".
Red hair is not abnormal, of course, it is simply unusual in most populations and completely benign, like having eyes of different colors, or even being left-handed.
Homosexuality is unusual, but it is not necessarily benign. Rather, it is grossly abnormal as can be seen by noting that it involves the abuse of parts of the body which were not, shall we say, intended for such duty.
Having said that, many homosexuals are perfectly unobjectionable people, as long as they keep it zipped up, as it were.
I suspect you know that all of this is perfectly true, but you are just being your usual contrary self. Bon appetit!
@Cook,
You are confusing the "norm" of a distribution with its "support." "Norm" is used in general speech to refer to a measure of central tendency.
You assume I am trying to say "normal" is always "good." I'm not. Plenty of objectionable behavior is historically normal, (criminality, the waging of war, slavery, etc.).
I merely took issue with the poster I quoted, who seems to think homosexuality is not normal, and therefore, not acceptable for that reason.
@Not Sure:
"Norm" as a measure of central tendency is also confused by many with "good" or "bad," acceptable or unacceptable.
Well, it is normal. It occurs in every generation and culture, throughout history. It even occurs among animals. I am a redhead, a relative rarity among humans. Does this make my coloring abnormal?
It does make it perverse. Boning another guy up the exit ramp is perverse, with or without a reach-around. And that’s not normal.
There! It’s been said.
- Krumhorn
Robert Cool: soulless ginger who favors communism and has never met somebody to his Left
Seems legit.
@Robert Cook,
Then just say "acceptable" instead of normal. Clarity is your friend if you've got a sound argument.
Well, Krumhorn, to be fair, we're all soulless.
"@Robert Cook,
"Then just say 'acceptable' instead of normal. Clarity is your friend if you've got a sound argument.
1/17/19, 12:03 PM"
That was not the point of my dispute with the other poster. My disagreement with his/her use of the word "normal" to imply acceptable/unacceptable was my point.
My disagreement with his/her use of the word "normal" to imply acceptable/unacceptable was my point.
So we're debating semantics now? It was pretty clear the original poster meant "acceptable." You would agree that homosexual acts have not historically been considered acceptable in most cultures and generations?
The rainbow is rarefied and diverse. The transgender spectrum is inclusive.
Cook, I never would've guessed you had red hair from your picture.
I thought Mr. McFeely was a little suspect.
Homosexual behavior is clearly perverse. Should we make it illegal among consenting adults? Of course not. But it's definitely not normal.
Is finding someone attractive mean you are attracted to them? I don't think so. I can consider another woman to be attractive or even beautiful, but am not sexually attracted to her. To me, the term just connotes 'good looking'.
Why can't people just accept that Mr. Rodgers was a nice guy who was good with kids?
Now to be fair, I always disliked Mr. Rodgers - I thought he was boring even when I was Five years old.
But what was his target audience? Maybe I was too old at five.
I didn't like Captain kangaroo either. Too boring.
In the old days being "chaste" and not wanting sex all the time was considered a virtue.
Now, we snoopy around in everyone's sex life and tut-tutting if they aren't humping everything in sight.
Some peeps are lusty. Some peeps have a low sex drive. Some want to be lusty but can't - too ugly.
What's it all about Alfie?
This kind of reminds me of the "Tell all" book about charles schultz - which I didn't read and no one else did.
Who want to hear about a Cartoonists sex life? Does anyone care about Scott Adams' sex life?
When i first, saw his periscope's I assumed Scott was Gay. He gives off that vibe. But no, it looks like he isn't.
Garrison Keillor, on "Prairie Home Companion," with the help of a voice impersonator, would feature Fred Rogers as a character, and Rogers would always be portrayed as kind of your "funny uncle" your parents wouldn't let you be alone with. Of course, these days Keillor has had his own problems to occupy his time.
John Farrier said...I read King's biography of Fred Rogers and strongly disagree with the reviewer. He wasn't obsessed with Rogers's sexuality at all. It garners only a few mentions even tangentially.
Oh John. Sweet sweet John. What are you doing?! She'll destroy us all.
Post a Comment