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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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