Margaret Cho

April 4, 2007

So I watched some of Margaret Cho and her comedy.  Needless to say, in the future when I want to laugh, I probably won’t be going back to Margaret Cho.  After I was done watching Margaret Cho I had to go and watch some Jim Gaffigan, just to get a couple laughs in.

Margaret Cho spoke a lot about homosexuality in her comedy.  In her first bit she described, a word for homosexuals that I’m not going to use, as “my kind of guy.”  She also commented on how attractive she found the men in gay porn, a stereotype she felt should be perpetuated.  She feels that all Chippendales dancers are homosexuals because it is not possible for any heterosexual male to be that attractive.  To try and tie this in with Butler, Cho is putting homosexual men into gender roles.  She is saying that all homosexual men are attractive and they always get along with women, both of which are stereotypes.

She also talks about how she took on a very negative self image of herself after she had been told she was seen as too heavy for a television role.  She turned to drugs and alcohol as well as becoming very promiscuous.  On page 2491 Butler writes, “‘the body’ as so much inert matter, signifying nothing or, more specifically, signifying a profane void, the fallen state: deception, sin, the premonitional metaphorics of hell and the eternal feminine.”  It seems that Cho fell under this belief.  Upon hearing that she was not attractive enough, she saw her body as a void, which is why she turned to alcohol and men, as an attempt to feel wanted.


2 Responses to “Margaret Cho”

  1. bastianm said


    I think you may be the only one that I’ve read that didn’t like Cho. You didn’t find her funny, but at least you were able to apply some theory to it. You argued that Cho perpetuates the stereotypes that apply to gay males. What if the males in regular porn were gay too? Fly with me for a second…and they used some kind of drug to keep them going. And, if the women were lesbians…then it’s all just an economic discourse. It is the selling of gender roles performed. Sex is objectified. Desire is eradicated and the action is what defines it. The consumer has had the wool pulled over his/her eyes and somebody’s making money asking someone else to act in a way that they normally wouldn’t. My ideas are still formulating so I’m sorry if none of this made sense. Maybe you can help to better navigate. Peace.

  2. sherrig12 said

    I was the loner who hated Watchman, now its your turn with the Cho piece. I think you make a strong point with your interpretation of how Butler helps us understand Cho better. I wanted to add that I think your point is directly related to Foucault and the discourse of sex and its perpetual cycle. It seems that Cho’s change in her body was caused by a desire by the network for her to be more physically attractive. In becoming more physically attractive she is appealing sexually to an audience. The more the audience appeals to her the longer the show will remain on the air and the longer that she will continue to try to remain skinny. I hope this makes sense to more than just me. It was kind of a “barfing” as Kim would say, of my ideas. Sorry if I was confusing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: