New York Times Writer Shocked That Judy Garland No Longer A Popular Gay Icon

For the younger generation of gays, saying you’re a “friend of Dorothy” is a clever way to express your homosexuality while not being too obvious to the straights.

I, a twentysomething gay, figured that it meant that Judy Garland was super-fierce in the Wizard of Oz, not that she has some sort of enduring tragic legacy that is special to the gays.

For older gay guys and younger gay guys who want to seem old-school, there is a thing called Judyism, and it is worth preserving. New York Times writer Robert Leleux has just realized that Judyism is dead—which, hasn’t it been that way for a decade or two?

Leleux is genuinely astonished that his fellow thirtysomething gay friend Brodie doesn’t really give a shit about Judy, and the NYT deems this fit to print:

I have this theory that because of the holocaust that was the AIDS epidemic and its annihilation of the previous generation of gay men, the faith of our fathers risks extinction. Today, Judyism, like Yiddish, is little more than a vague cultural memory…

But then, and I never thought I’d be asking this, is Judy Garland still a gay idol?

“Not to me, she isn’t,” Brodie said, after the show. “I mean, I know she used to be important to gay guys, but I don’t see what she has to do with being gay anymore, except she did sort of remind me of Whitney and Lindsay and Britney. You know, train wrecks. The whole play was like that YouTube video where Britney goes after that car with her umbrella. Some gay guys do seem to like that kind of thing.”

Thanks for educating your friend that Judy Garland has been irrelevant except in her role as Dorothy for a long time, Brodie. Now what did we read in Star magazine about Britney calling off her wedding with Jason Trawick?

Photo via Mark Rain