X-MAN AGAINST GAY TELEVISION

[Jeff Wrangler]

I'd like to say a bit more about this previous posting of yours.  I wonder if you might be seeing the issue with too tight a focus.

I don't think so, because I didn't say I thought it had no influence, only that I thought the influence on gay men has been exaggerated.

This is probably my fault; I should have been clearer.

Well. ...

I stand by my belief that the stereotypical way gay men are portrayed on television affects internalized homophobia.  I did not mean that ONLY a gay man's watching this directly would affect his internalized homophobia--although I do believe it exacerbates it--but that the same programs intensify the homophobia of others (family, friends, bashers) which is then picked up by the gay man,, and by others as well so the cycle is heightened, intensified.  Now the gay man we are talking about here may be the only one to see it on OUTtv, but programs like 1G5G, movies like Bird Cage and Cruising are carried by TV stations aimed at straight general audiences as well, and that is where non-gays will see and be influenced by it.

OK, I see sense here in what you have to say about the influence of stereotypical portrayals on non-gay audiences, but that wasn't what you said earlier, and I'm also standing by my belief that the influence on younger gay males who may just be finding their way is exaggerated.

[milomorris]

and I'm also standing by my belief that the influence on younger gay males who may just be finding their way is exaggerated.

I think the influences are rather moderate overall, but they go in several directions. Sure, media portrayals can add to fear, despair, and self-loathing. But I also think that these stereotypical media portrayals can also influence how emerging sexual minorities set their expectations of themselves, and be interpreted as a blueprint for how they think and behave. For example, "because I'm a homosexual, I should be more fashion-conscious," or "since I'm a homosexual, I should learn the gay lingo," or "maybe I should spend less time watching sports and more time watching Project Runway and Drag Race."

[x-man]

I say thank god for gay TV.  

How else would we lowly, unthinking, uninitiated straight white people know how to react, if a movie put out by a high-dollar Hollywood production company wasn't there to show us just exactly how we should feel and think and behave toward all the minorities...

We all just love The Bird Cage, just like all us white folk love The Help...

I especially liked the male maid in Bird Cage, what was his name again...oh yes, Agador...LOVE him...or her...whatever...

What show was that you gays were talking about?  RuPaul something?  Maybe I should watch...so I know what to say if someone should ask..........
 

Hey Butlers, Enjoyed the sarcasm very much.   

RuPauls refers to RuPauls Drag Race and  a spin-off RuPauls Untucked.  They are supposedly a reality series about drag queens competing for a title, some being "thrown off the island," bitching about each other and vowing to claw each other's eyes out.  You'll love it!  I, however.....

[x-man]

I'm also standing by my belief that the influence on younger gay males who may just be finding their way is exaggerated.

I hope you are right, Jeff, I really do.  I would give anything to discover that younger gay men are being spared,  I told you on your blog site that I was too grim--I hope that is the case here.  I may have told you that when I decided to get a "gay liberation" tattoo, I had the choice of a Pride flag--pointing to the the successes that have been made, or a Pink Triangle, to remind myself of not only what I went through but also the horrors of the Nazi death camps where so many of our brothers and sisters ended up in the ovens.  Glass half-full, glass half-empty?  That would seem to me to trivialize the issue.  You don't have to guess which tattoo I chose.

[Jeff Wrangler]

I hope you are right, Jeff, I really do.  I would give anything to discover that younger gay men are being spared,  I told you on your blog site that I was too grim--I hope that is the case here.  I may have told you that when I decided to get a "gay liberation" tattoo, I had the choice of a Pride flag--pointing to the the successes that have been made, or a Pink Triangle, to remind myself of not only what I went through but also the horrors of the Nazi death camps where so many of our brothers and sisters ended up in the ovens.  Glass half-full, glass half-empty?  That would seem to me to trivialize the issue.  You don't have to guess which tattoo I chose.

Well, that pink triangle is an important part of our collective history. When I was coming out, you saw them everywhere; now I can't remember the last time I saw one--and it's not just my poor memory. Perhaps it has something to do with the loss of a generation that's not around to tell the young kids about it and what it means.  

[serious crayons]

In fact, if anything annoyed me about the show it actually was the use of a gay male couple in the plot. First thing I thought was, Oh, God, now that we've got gay marriage in so many states, we're going to have show after show making hay out of marriage equality just to prove how up to date they are.

And that would be terrible because ...? If you ask me, there's a pretty fine line between a show featuring a gay couple "to make hay" or "just to prove" something -- as if they're only doing it as some cynical marketing move -- versus just happening to have writers, directors and producers who want to reflect modern culture and perhaps express their own ideas about inclusiveness. Neither case seems bad to me -- even the cynical marketing scenario supposes that they'd be responding to an actual public desire to see more gay couples, which is great.

First, you seem to me to be expressing a concern for the effect on straight people of portrayals of gay men as flamboyant RuPaul drag queen types--but then you turn around and say you don't care what straight people think of us. Sorry, but that confuses me.

I think I get it. You can be unconcerned about how straight people feel about you as an individual or a group -- in other words, you don't internalize or feel personally hurt by their homophobia -- but still know that for political reasons it's important to have straight allies.

Anyway, the stories I hear of young gay men killing themselves seem to have a lot more to do with the people around them--bullying in school, and so forth--than with what they see on TV.

OK, but who's doing the bullying? Here we come back to the idea that "normalizing" gay characters in the media is as important for adjusting straight people's attitudes as it is for gay kids'. The more the rest of the culture accepts gayness and condemns homophobia, the more that will be the case in high schools.

[Jeff Wrangler]

And that would be terrible because ...? If you ask me, there's a pretty fine line between a show featuring a gay couple "to make hay" or "just to prove" something -- as if they're only doing it as some cynical marketing move -- versus just happening to have writers, directors and producers who want to reflect modern culture and perhaps express their own ideas about inclusiveness. Neither case seems bad to me -- even the cynical marketing scenario supposes that they'd be responding to an actual public desire to see more gay couples, which is great.

You have more faith in TV writers than I do. "Cynical move" is exactly what I think is going on (don't know about the "marketing" part). And I doubt they're "responding to an actual public desire to see more gay couples." It's just being done now because it's timely. I expect that once gay marriage is an established fact throughout the nation and is no longer timely or newsworthy, those gay couples will disappear from scripted drama. That's the cynic in me. 

OK, but who's doing the bullying? Here we come back to the idea that "normalizing" gay characters in the media is as important for adjusting straight people's attitudes as it is for gay kids'. The more the rest of the culture accepts gayness and condemns homophobia, the more that will be the case in high schools.

X-man more or less said that in his follow-up elaboration, and I agree, but I still think the effect directly on young gay individuals is exaggerated.

[x-man]

Said by serious crayon's in response to Jeff's pointing out that I was saying I didn't care what straight people thought, but at the same time did appear to care:

I think I get it. You can be unconcerned about how straight people feel about you as an individual or a group -- in other words, you don't internalize or feel personally hurt by their homophobia -- but still know that for political reasons it's important to have straight allies.

OK, but who's doing the bullying? Here we come back to the idea that "normalizing" gay characters in the media is as important for adjusting straight people's attitudes as it is for gay kids'. The more the rest of the culture accepts gayness and condemns homophobia, the more that will be the case in high schools.

I want to comment on your 2 paragraphs quoted here separately.  

1) You summed up and clarified my feelings about this very well.  Thank you.  But I must add that as a gay man who has been in one door of homophobia --including internalized homophobia and out the other, and suffered at the hands of other people--I can tell you that I no longer wince and internalize it--I speak out LOUDLY, and subject the person I heard it from to a rant (and I am fairly articulate about it) and use the pink triangle tattooed on my left inner wrist as a "visual aid."  I always back them down.  However the homophobic words or the homophobic crap you see on television still are like a knife in the heart.  It is just now that the wound heals very quickly.  About "straight allies"  I am still uneasy.  I hope what I am going to say doesn't have the same effect as my "two kinds of straight people" did, but the grimmer part of me tentatively believes that if a straight person, even the most gay-friendly, had the chance to get rid of the LGBT problem for good, by simply pushing a button and we would all disappear--no one would get hurt, we would just disappear--that they would push the button without hesitation, believing they were doing the world a favour.

2)Your comments suggesting that by showing LGBT characters in a more favourable light in media will help change the beliefs of straight people watching them I have to agree with, but I do wonder how effective they would be in this case, AND more importantly, how long do you want us to wait?

In your defence, your words remind me of the work of the American sociologist Kurt Lewin of the middle of the last century, whose work provided a lot of help to those fighting for black civil rights.  His work demonstrated rather conclusively that legislation COULD change morality.  He showed, rather counter-intuitively, that if you change a person's behaviour in a certain area their beliefs about the area will change to fit the behaviour--not the other way around.  I GUESS it works, but oh so slowly.  And I have castigated you guys before for only looking at North American and western European culture  for your evidence of progress.  If you look beyond that, the situation is still pretty bleak, and shows no sign of brightening up soon.

[Jeff Wrangler]

Networks such as OUT and LOGO don't exist to provide services or resources for the GLBT+ community, they are in business to target the GLBT+ dollar.

Amen, Brother!

LOGO isn't a success and viewer numbers prove it. Recently it shifted its programming strategy. Citing research that indicated that LGBT people were becoming increasingly less likely to prioritize highlighting their sexual orientation or identity, the channel entered into partnerships to produce programs that focused less on LGBT-specific interests and more on general cultural and lifestyle subjects.

Lefty Huffington Post sums it up, R.I.P., Gay TV: A Not-So-Sad Reality.

That's very interesting. I wonder if that indicates--and flows from--gays and lesbians becoming more "mainstream" in general?

Incidentally, the Wheel of Fortune reference reminded me that not too long ago a contestant on Jeopardy! very matter-of-factly mentioned his "husband," and as far as I know, nobody blinked an eye.

[milomorris]

And that would be terrible because ...?

Because it is disingenuous. There is no sincere caring about the issues affecting sexual minorities, only a profit motive to exploit the demographic . "Gay" is nothing more than a market segment to the corporate world.