The World Beyond BetterMost > The Culture Tent
Are "Dallas Buyers Club" critics guilty of "respectability homophobia"?
milomorris:
--- Quote from: serious crayons on November 17, 2013, 12:11:12 pm ---I'm not sure I get your point. White people should distinguish, and heterosexuals should distinguish. But of course there are lots of people in both groups who can't or won't, possibly because they aren't exposed to a wide enough range of types in whatever minority group it is. And a lot of public exposure these days inevitably comes from the media.
So intelligent, well-informed people distinguish. When the article refers to "respectability homophobia" it's talking about people who don't just distinguish, but also believe only the "respectable" version should be presented in the media. They might argue that it's to educate the aforementioned ignorant white or straight people who don't know any better.
It's an understandable and well-intentioned motivation, but in finding the less "respectable" version of whatever group unfit for media presentation, they're also expressing bias and, if in a position to do so, practicing discrimination against that group of people. Lack of prejudice means being able to accept flawed people as well as perfect ones, and not thinking that either one represents the group as a whole.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: serious crayons on November 17, 2013, 12:11:12 pm ---I'm not sure I get your point. White people should distinguish, and heterosexuals should distinguish. But of course there are lots of people in both groups who can't or won't, possibly because they aren't exposed to a wide enough range of types in whatever minority group it is. And a lot of public exposure these days inevitably comes from the media.
So intelligent, well-informed people distinguish. When the article refers to "respectability homophobia" it's talking about people who don't just distinguish, but also believe only the "respectable" version should be presented in the media. They might argue that it's to educate the aforementioned ignorant white or straight people who don't know any better.
It's an understandable and well-intentioned motivation, but in finding the less "respectable" version of whatever group unfit for media presentation, they're also expressing bias and, if in a position to do so, practicing discrimination against that group of people. Lack of prejudice means being able to accept flawed people as well as perfect ones, and not thinking that either one represents the group as a whole.
--- End quote ---
To clarify my point, I would say that I disagree that accepting the flawed individuals is required. You see, the prejudice is no longer centered on the race or sexual orientation, but rather on the character/behavioral/etc. flaw in question. Once one removes race or sexual orientation as the deciding factor, the decision can no longer be called racist or homophobic.
serious crayons:
--- Quote from: milomorris on November 18, 2013, 08:04:41 am ---To clarify my point, I would say that I disagree that accepting the flawed individuals is required. You see, the prejudice is no longer centered on the race or sexual orientation, but rather on the character/behavioral/etc. flaw in question. Once one removes race or sexual orientation as the deciding factor, the decision can no longer be called racist or homophobic.
--- End quote ---
If we were talking about whether you like somebody, then of course you would be entitled to make that judgment based on a potentially infinite number of factors.
But what this article is about -- and what I meant when I said "accept flawed people" -- is whether it's OK to show flawed people as members of minorities in movies (whether DBC is "problematic with regard to its treatment of queer characters," and more generally about "the notion that art about AIDS or any other fraught topic must meet a list of pre-determined political criteria").
Walter White is a flawed person. But nobody's complaining that Breaking Bad is "problematic with regard to its treatment of straight white men" or that Walter White unfairly makes white men as a group look like ruthless drug kingpins.
With minority groups, people are understandably more sensitive, because their media portrayals have been scarcer. But this writer is arguing that viewers should get over their political correctness and accept characters of all kinds -- not as best friends, necessarily, but as valid characters.
In short, you may or may not like people like Rayon for whatever reason. But the author is arguing that those aren't valid reasons to say filmmaker should not make a movie featuring Rayon as a major character because it's "bad for the gays."
x-man:
I wonder if it might be helpful to look at the Lowder article as being in 2 parts. In the first, he pretty well makes his point that DBC should and can be seen as accomplishing its purpose in presenting real characters living out difficult lives, and this being shown in an acceptable way regardless of how PC it may be. But then Lowder slips in the final paragraph about "respectability" homophobia which has caused all the fuss. I think serious crayons has summed up Lowder's second point very well:
--- Quote from: serious crayons on November 17, 2013, 12:11:12 pm ---
So intelligent, well-informed people distinguish. When the article refers to "respectability homophobia" it's talking about people who don't just distinguish, but also believe only the "respectable" version should be presented in the media. They might argue that it's to educate the aforementioned ignorant white or straight people who don't know any better.
It's an understandable and well-intentioned motivation, but in finding the less "respectable" version of whatever group unfit for media presentation, they're also expressing bias and, if in a position to do so, practicing discrimination against that group of people. Lack of prejudice means being able to accept flawed people as well as perfect ones, and not thinking that either one represents the group as a whole.
--- End quote ---
Where I part company with her is her sentence "With minority groups people are understandably more sensitive because their media portrayals have been scarcer." I wonder if "scarcer" really captures the entire issue. I fear that some people will see "respectability homophobia" as focusing on questions of artistic authenticity or aesthetic distaste for stereotypical portrayals of LGBTs on some very intellectualized level. I don't think that is why many of us are apprehensive when confronting portrayals of our LGBT brothers and sisters as troubled, desperately unhappy, freaks. These portrayals are "scarcer" as serious crayons says, but this scarcity leads other people to generalize these specific incidences to LGBT people in general. This, in turn, leads to an acceptance of homophobia when these people, I might as well say it, when many straight people, make judgements about equal marriage, gay-bashings, and whether or not the situation for us now in Eastern Europe, Africa, the Arab World, much of Asia, and parts of the US is really all that much to be worried about.
Lowder seems to be trying to go beyond this kind of paranoia--although many of us would say "legitimate concern." He is asking for a great deal of trust on the part of the groups affected, and contains the optimistic view that we are all headed into the "broad uplands of a brighter tomorrow."
Serious crayons' point that "in finding the less 'respectable' versions of whatever group unfit for media presentation, they're also expressing bias, and if in a position to do so, practicing discrimination against that group of people," is at first compelling, but are the right words being used here? "If in a position to do so, practicing discrimination?" Hold on a minute. First of all, they are NOT in a position to do so, and being 5% of the population, never will be, and more importantly, any such discrimination you might imagine would be a reluctance to show LGBTs as stereotypical and clownlike disgusting perverts, and in a very real way to try to avoid the actual discrimination that leads to the dangers we all know really exist out there for all of us in that community.
In this thread, comparisons and contrasts have been made with gays and blacks. I think a more proximate comparison would be between LGBTs and Jews. The Holocaust was 60 years ago; times have changed supposedly. But would any serious person complain about a Jew taking offence at seeing Jews being portrayed on the screen as deceitful, money-grubbing "kikes?"
I have toned down my rhetoric regarding straight people, but still I ask you to be more patient with LGBT people who do not think it is time yet to be so forthcoming about the imperfections we all certainly do know exist within our community. Not all of us are as confident as Lowder seems to be.
serious crayons:
--- Quote from: x-man on January 29, 2014, 05:36:23 pm ---Where I part company with her is her sentence "With minority groups people are understandably more sensitive because their media portrayals have been scarcer." I wonder if "scarcer" really captures the entire issue. I fear that some people will see "respectability homophobia" as focusing on questions of artistic authenticity or aesthetic distaste for stereotypical portrayals of LGBTs on some very intellectualized level. I don't think that is why many of us are apprehensive when confronting portrayals of our LGBT brothers and sisters as troubled, desperately unhappy, freaks. These portrayals are "scarcer" as serious crayons says, but this scarcity leads other people to generalize these specific incidences to LGBT people in general. This, in turn, leads to an acceptance of homophobia when these people, I might as well say it, when many straight people, make judgements about equal marriage, gay-bashings, and whether or not the situation for us now in Eastern Europe, Africa, the Arab World, much of Asia, and parts of the US is really all that much to be worried about.
--- End quote ---
I don't really understand this, I guess. But I will say that I don't think I've seen many media portrayals of LGBT characters as "troubled, desperately unhappy freaks." Could we be talking about a sort of dated genre? When I think of stereotyped media portrayals of LGBT characters, I think of "Will and Grace" -- glib, funny, nonserious. Perhaps those portrayals are offensive in themselves, but they're a long way from "The Boys in the Band."
But x-man, are you saying you DO find Rayon's character unacceptable? When I first posted this article, I hadn't seen the movie. Now I have, and I can say that I found Rayon's character very sympathetic, and an appealing foil to the Ron Woodruff character. I don't think the movie would have been the same without her. Yes, she's a drug addict, but I wouldn't describe her as a freak.
--- Quote ---Serious crayons' point that "in finding the less 'respectable' versions of whatever group unfit for media presentation, they're also expressing bias, and if in a position to do so, practicing discrimination against that group of people," is at first compelling, but are the right words being used here? "If in a position to do so, practicing discrimination?" Hold on a minute. First of all, they are NOT in a position to do so, and being 5% of the population, never will be, and more importantly, any such discrimination you might imagine would be a reluctance to show LGBTs as stereotypical and clownlike disgusting perverts, and in a very real way to try to avoid the actual discrimination that leads to the dangers we all know really exist out there for all of us in that community.
--- End quote ---
By "if in a position to do so" I meant if they make films, write books, etc. People, gay or straight, who are in a position to present LGBT characters in the media.
--- Quote ---In this thread, comparisons and contrasts have been made with gays and blacks. I think a more proximate comparison would be between LGBTs and Jews. The Holocaust was 60 years ago; times have changed supposedly. But would any serious person complain about a Jew taking offence at seeing Jews being portrayed on the screen as deceitful, money-grubbing "kikes?"
--- End quote ---
Whoa!! Are we even still talking about DBC here? It's hard to imagine anyone seeing it and thinking of Rayon's character as a "clownlike disgusting pervert" or the gay equivalent of a "deceitful, money-grubbing 'k---.'" Aside from being a drug addict, she's appealing, funny, dignified, smart, highly sympathetic. She is shown winning over two straight people, one of whom is a blatant homophobe. She's hardly the gay version of Dickens' Fagin.
I get the feeling you're thinking of something different from what this conversation was initially about. We're talking about whether movies should occasionally contain warts-and-all portrayals of gay characters, not insidious homophobic propaganda.
Jeff Wrangler:
Unfortunately "warts and all" can sometimes look like "insidious homophobic propaganda," but that's life, I guess.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version