I think your defense is true in broad strokes, but Seinfeld definitely parodies LGBT+ folk very directly and repeatedly. The hyper-aggressive hyper-camp gay couple who target Kramer, the worries from Jerry about being seen wearing a fur coat because people might make assumptions about his sexuality, the “female version of Jerry” that George dates and worries about how it’s perceived, Jerry’s handbag, and a hundred less plot-pivotal jabs which really do add up.
Some of those are pillorying the main characters, saying that the concern from the characters is petty and ridiculous, and others less so. As I see it, they aggregate into what feels to me like punching down. You do still need to view it in the timeframe and social attitudes in which it was written, too, but I don’t think it earns total carte blanche. “Tasteless” might be a balanced conclusion.
I think your defense is true in broad strokes, but Seinfeld definitely parodies LGBT+ folk very directly and repeatedly. The hyper-aggressive hyper-camp gay couple who target Kramer, the worries from Jerry about being seen wearing a fur coat because people might make assumptions about his sexuality, the “female version of Jerry” that George dates and worries about how it’s perceived, Jerry’s handbag, and a hundred less plot-pivotal jabs which really do add up.
Some of those are pillorying the main characters, saying that the concern from the characters is petty and ridiculous, and others less so. As I see it, they aggregate into what feels to me like punching down. You do still need to view it in the timeframe and social attitudes in which it was written, too, but I don’t think it earns total carte blanche. “Tasteless” might be a balanced conclusion.