9 Responses to “Watching shows featuring Gay/Lesbian characters could lessen homophobic prejudices”

1. alphabitch Writes:
   April 19th, 2005 at 7:14 pm

   I like the name; glad you’re keeping it. - And good post; always glad to see an interesting study out of my alma mater!

   This comment was written by alphabitch.
   Report this comment to the moderators
   
2. audio-visual Writes:
   April 19th, 2005 at 7:56 pm

   Pseudo-Adrienne wrote:

   Slowly but surely, seeing characters who belong to the LGBTQ Community is becoming less taboo and contraversial. Sure we’re given characters who display some of the over exaggerated stereotypes of Gay men and Lesbian women; Gay men are hyper-effeminate and Lesbian women are “butch.”? Still, television and Pop-Culture have made significant strides in portraying the people of the LGBTQ Community in a positive and non-homophobic fashion.

   First, an observation: there are no butch-dyke main characters on TV. None. Sometime a butch will show up as a minor character, but no main characters are really butch in any major way. Just pointing that out. What it means that our pop culture will let men be girly but not let women be manly is open to debate.

   Next, I want to say that although I am overjoyed that some of the media is helping improve the social acceptance of some GLBTQ people, I take some issue with your above comment. I ask: is it always bad to have major characters who fit a stereotype? Is it possible to portray in a positive manner characters whose personality type happens to fit J. Random TV-Viewer’s stereotype? Are effeminate men and butch women less deserving of representation because they fit the queer stereotypes already floating around in pop culture?

   I do not think that characters who fit a stereotype are by nature a negative thing. Rather, I think that it is limited, shallow, and otherwise negative portrayals that are bad. Why can’t an effeminate gay man be intelligent or emotionally strong? Why should a butch-dyke always be a dumb thug? Is femininity by nature stupid or weak, or masculinity violent? I think it is these shallow portrayals of femininity and feminine men, and masculinity and masculine women that are the real negative things here. I think that a better way of combating negative social reactions to queer people would be to have both stereotype-y and non-stereotype-y queers, and portray both as the complex people that their real-life counter points are. Please recall that it is still the butch women and effeminate gay men who get the worst social prejudice, although I do not mean in saying that to diminish the social prejudice that ’straight-seeming’ queers get.

   Oh, one more thing. Amp and I decided not to change the blog’s name. So all of you can stop planning a coup d’etat against us. Thank you :-)

   I’m glad! Reading Alas just wouldn’t be the same if it wasn’t Alas :-P

   This comment was written by audio-visual.
   Report this comment to the moderators
   
3. Sarah Writes:
   April 20th, 2005 at 2:47 am

   I agree with PA’s comments. But it will be nice if eventually we can see more characters who just happen to be gay, rather than gay characters, if that makes sense?

   I’m thinking of the similar situation regarding women characters, in some television/movie genres more than others. You feel sometime that by trying to create a “woman character” the writers have written the character into a much more constrained and stereotyped personality and role than if they’d just developed the character and then let it be a woman.

   Science fiction has been particularly guilty in this way, I feel, though it’s certainly not alone and has improved immeasurably in recent years, with things like the remade Battlestar Galactica. This is an interesting example, because it really is a case where roles were originally written for men (and by extension, written as full rounded human characters rather than the writer’s idea of what a woman should be like) and then played by women in the remake. But this is a drift, sorry.

   This comment was written by Sarah.
   Report this comment to the moderators
   
4. Pseudo-Adrienne Writes:
   April 20th, 2005 at 3:23 am

   audio-visual,

   What Sarah said in her first paragraph pretty much echoes my point. I don’t think those stereotypes are negative either, but they do seem to constrict and limit the personalities and aspects of the character. Not to mention they’re a “dead giveaway” of the character’s sexual orientation and they make the viewers say to themselves, “oh yeah, he/she is definitely…,” and the focus remains on that rather than anything aspect of the character. The character becomes solely defined by their sexual orientation and not by anything else they do or are. Even if they’re the protagonist or their character is a judge or a doctor, and the show supposedly centers around the “goings on” of a courthouse or a hospital. I’ve really never seen a show where a hetero-character is constantly defined by their heterosexuality and that’s the only thing the show focuses on. Maybe the show focuses on the hetero-person having lots of sex, but we don’t get the reinforcement of “they’re hetero, they’re hetero, they’re hetero,…” in the way that we do with shows with LGBTQ characters.

   This comment was written by Pseudo-Adrienne.
   Report this comment to the moderators
   
5. Amanda Writes:
   April 20th, 2005 at 5:24 am

   The problem with portrayals of people who “fit the stereotype” is that in the shallow world of TV, it’s difficult and time-consuming to unwind the stereotype in the viewers’ minds and get them to see another side of it. However, it can be done. Witness the way “Buffy” evolved the character of Cordelia from a stereotypical beauty queen to a nuanced person with courage and humanity.

   This comment was written by Amanda.
   Report this comment to the moderators
   
6. Jay Sennett Writes:
   April 20th, 2005 at 9:39 am

   Great post and comments, too.

   I echo one of your points:

   How does a reduction in prejudice translate into access to healthcare, marriage and so on?

   As a transsexual man and lifelong activist, I’ve seen people change their attitudes towards individuals through TV (and its reality equivalent “The Panel Discussion”). I wonder though if they know what to do with it afterwards.

   People understand that Will and Jack are great. But do they understand how, well, heterosexist they are, or more importantly, how do they actively reduce/relinquish/give up/turn over their privilege?

   Thanks for all your hard work on this blog. It such a breath of fresh air.

   This comment was written by Jay Sennett.
   Report this comment to the moderators
   
7. Jasper Writes:
   April 20th, 2005 at 11:44 am

   OK but all this completely ignores the “other” side of the equation–how do these characters affect GLBT people? I mean if their presence on tv reduces prejudice, that’s good, but let’s not pretend that what straight people think is the only important part of the equation. Sometimes it seems a message is sent to young GLBT people through these representations, “you can be cool and accepted too, if and only if…you fit into one of these stereotypes, the entertaining gay man, the sexy lesbian chick, etc.”

   This comment was written by Jasper.
   Report this comment to the moderators
   
8. Jay Sennett Writes:
   April 20th, 2005 at 12:12 pm

   Jaspar, I think your post begs the larger question: how does TV make any of us feel?

   For me, it makes think evil things about people so I don’t have cable.

   After thinking about this post more, I realize that the ability to reduce homophobia is not the same as ending heterosexism.

   I agree that reducing homophobia is a good thing. But until TV addresses systemic oppression (imagine a TV show where a het couple honestly addresses the heterosexism currently imbedded in marriage) merely reducing negative feelings will not end oppression.

   This comment was written by Jay Sennett.
   Report this comment to the moderators
   
9. Amanda Writes:
   April 20th, 2005 at 12:35 pm

   Reduction in prejudice in the majority group has tangible benefits for a minority that has to petition the majority for rights. Anti-marriage propaganda, for instance, tries to make it seem like gay men are blood-sucking monsters who molest children. The sheer hysteria of the propaganda leads me to believe that average Americans already think it’s sort of unfair not to extend marriage to everyone and they have to have gays and lesbians dehumanized in their minds to justify the anti vote. If they can think of gays and lesbians as human beings, it will be harder to propagandize them into voting for unfair treatment.

   And you don’t need to convince more than 51% of people. Pro-gay-rights is standing in the high 40%, so a little warm TV programming doesn’t have to make a massive difference.

   Not trying to sound cold, just the hard, cold politics of the issue.

   This comment was written by Amanda.
   Report this comment to the moderators
   

Leave a Reply

If you have questions about the moderation policies here, please read this post. Short version: treat other posters with respect.

If your submitted comment fails to appear, without even an error or "waiting for moderation" message, then our spam-blocking software may have blocked your comment. Please contact the moderators immediately so we can rescue your comment. If this happens repeatedly, you might visit Akismet's comment form to tell them they're falsely identifying you as a spammer.