In Our Words: In recent months, there’s been a lot of chatter on the interwebs about this thing called “gaycism” on the TV. As defined by Lauren Bans of GQ, gaycism is “the wrongheaded idea that having gay characters gives you carte blanche to cut PC corners elsewhere.” In her example, Bans cites shows like Modern Family and freshman comedy Partners as emblematic of this trend. Modern Family is an Emmy-juggernaut, a critical darling and a much-lauded champion of LGBT characterization on TV, but that progressivism comes at the expense of Gloria, the lone woman of color. Sofia Vergara is a terrific comedienne and kills in the role, but the brunt of her jokes revolve around her flimsy command of the English language. Gloria’s B-story FOR AN ENTIRE EPISODE revolved around her use of malapropisms, like “doggy dog world” and “don’t give me an old tomato,” because being foreign and sexy is her whole purpose on the show.
9 comments:
Until lately I've been pretty nonchalant about homophobic and transphobic remarks - I thought to myself "I'm at the top theatre program in the country, so obviously all of my peers are educated and sensitive to the problems the queer community faces."
The other day someone brought up why they couldn't say words that are offensive to certain communities, e.g. "bitch," "fag," and "nigger," but are used by those communities. I responded that I can only speak in terms of the first two terms, but I was okay with people using them, as long as the people using them were using them the same way I do: as a statement against those who use them to oppress me. I call myself a "fag" all the time because I've decided that in order to protect myself from others using that word against me, I have to own it. The easiest way to do that is to use the word myself, in reference to myself.
So I said that they could use those terms when in conversation with me, but that I would be offended if they used them when talking to someone who wasn't female-bodied or homosexual. But then the conversation sort of got derailed when they tried to explain to me that "fag" didn't even mean "gay," it just meant "fag."
Excuse me? Fag is my word. I'm a fag. It means gay. It doesn't mean someone stupid or dumb or someone who's being weird. It means a guy who likes to fuck other guys or a girl who likes to fuck other girls.
I'm tired of all the heterosexual and cisgendered members the Carnegie Mellon School of Drama community patting themselves on the back for being so tolerant of/sensitive to issues in the queer community. Because you guys really aren't. You have no idea. I only feel comfortable posting this here because I know that no one is really going to read it. If I brought this up in public people would just roll their eyes and chalk it up to Pia being that crazy feminist that always makes everything about gender roles. The reality is that I have to live up to that stereotype because if I presented any of my feminist agenda seriously, people would just laugh at it.
Living in the world as a queer means that everything I do has to be constantly justified because its not considered normal. It just so happens that they route I've chosen is self-deprecating humor. I'm so exhausted from it, though. I just want my sexuality and my gender-orientation to be as mundane as everyone else's.
This doesn't even touch on bringing race/ethnicity into this. I can't speak to that at all because I have absolutely no grasp of what it means to live in this world as a person of color.
So no. You can't call me a fag. Only I can.
I am intrigued that this article not only addresses the issue that TV is full of prejudice even now, but it also talks about the idea that as long as all groups are being attacked that it is alright to do that. In a way, isn't that how South Park has been able to function? People think it is fine because South Park makes fun of all groups of people without excluding anyone. Does this fact make it okay to make prejudice jokes about groups of people by putting their stereotype on TV?
I think that these stereotypes on TV, whether they are about color or orientation or religion or ANY group of people, they have large effects on our society. Pia, I read your comment even though you don't think people will and I think it is increasingly saddening that so many people feel the same way Pia does, that they have to protect themselves by taking ownership on what is used as an attack against them. People shouldn't believe that they "understand" what others are going through, and they shouldn't believe that just because they have struggled by being stereotyped in one group that they can turn it around and do it to others. It's a vicious cycle and the media is a huge factor in that cycle.
This article really bother me. I understand that there is a limit to what we should and shouldn't say and I agree with some of what pia said (though I would never call my self a nigger because I feel that it would just make i more okay for other to call me that and it's not), I don't think the show, the new normal is offensive simply for the sake of being offensive. My main problem with the article is that it argues that the new normal is a bad show because of it's dependence on stereotypical characters. Stereotypes are part of TV, watch any show and you will find them. The problem the article seems to have is that the gay characters are so stereotypical. I know for a fact that I have friends that are exactly like the characters in the show, does that make them any less real? Stereotypes were created to give people something to connect to when watching TV. Now I'm not indulging Racism or prejudice, but I think that the use of stereotypes is fine in TV so long that it is not taking to the point that it is plain rude. Also, regarding their comments about the black woman in the show (Bryan's assistant), as someone who is half black I find nothing wrong with their portrayal. Its just a character. If I want to see a show with a strong black business woman I'll watch Suits. Its the same as watching Raising hope to see a not so bright (white trash) family dynamic and then watching Mad Men. Furthermore, I don't think the gaycism is the proper word. The article was more about racism and I actually find the word gaycism more offensive then the TV show they were referencing. The new normal is a very good, funny show and I find it bothersome that they would bash the show for its use of stereotypes.
Words can hurt worse than anything in the world. I agree with Pia you can't call me a fag. It hurts whether you mean it as a joke or you are attacking me, but unlike Pia I won't even call myself that. It is not my word it is not anybodies. So when I hear comments and term that are supposed to be hurt it makes me sick, because T.V. and art work DO NOT CREATE CULTURE. IT REFLECTS IT! So to know that people out there still find it ok to use these terms whether they have faced prejudices or not, does not make it ok. Yes, CMU is more tolerant than most but you are still not there. I have heard countless comments that people have thought were ok to say but in the end they were not. Heck I sometimes even make them, but I know I do and I try not to make them ever again because I know they can hurt. CMU may never truly be tolerant unless people continuously tries to be and learns from the things we say. And so when Pia and I ask to have our sexual orientation, gender identity or anything else treated as mundane it is not use bring crazy feminists it is people asking so fucking human dignity from everyone.
What really hit home for me in this article was the point that The New Normal is doing exactly what parodies and spoofs of gay men did 10-20 years ago, but the only difference being the people producing it. Does it make it okay that Andrew Rannells plays an over-the-top stereotypical flamboyant gay man because Rannells is gay in real life? Does it make it okay if Justin Bartha's character is more traditionally masculine? The point of view of the characters is vital and can change the world. We see Andrew Rannells and Justin Bartha as "right" and Ellen Barkin as "wrong" because of the point of view. But without changing any dialogue, the show could very easily be turned into a show about a woman abandoned by her family and disgruntled by lower generations engaging in the same behavior that ripped her marriage apart without remorse. Easily. Because they're all trope characters. It's just all about the point of view. And I'm not sure that that makes it okay.
I found this article hilarious.
"Modern Family is racist like that friend you have who wears Native American prints from Urban Outfitters until you say something about it and then they apologize and never do it again."
It's pointing out the normalization of stereotypes, racism and "gaycism". These comedic television shows are focusing on certain issues.
Sophia makes a good point about the marginalization of different groups. South Park does that successfully because it "makes fun of everyone". These television shows are touting a single group at the expense of others. Then again, these shows are focused on that goal - and so are many others that perpetrate the opposite focus. Television shows that marginalize gays, while furthering a larger discussion of racism.
Or you could just make fun of everyone.
Everyone read Pia's comment. Truth.
This article shows great examples of the gaycism and tracism that is in television today that we take as not only tolerable but completly acceptable and comical. However this article is pointing out the blantant problems in television today that most people dont even nnotice they are subjecting themselves to. I think it is a major social issue how much the media not onlyportrays but perpetuates society and its way of thinking.
Regarding what Jenni said about stereotypes: the problem isn't so much the stereotypes themselves (sometimes), as it is the fact that usually those are the only representations of the people portrayed in media. There is noting inherently negative about the portrayal of, say, a flamboyant gay man, the problem becomes when ALL portrayals of gay men are of flamboyant men. On the other hand, stereotypes of white people aren't as harmful because for every negative stereotype you see, there are a good 2 or 3 portrayals of non-stereotyped characters. So the damage to both people's sense of self and the public's view of the stereotyped group is much less.
Post a Comment