ThinkProgress: GLAAD’s Network Responsibility Index is one of the most fascinating and comprehensive looks at the on-screen diversity of American television, examining not just gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender characters, but racial and gender diversity as well. And the version of its report released today says a lot not just about which networks are doing well at integrating LGBT characters into their programming, but about generation gaps between viewers and which kind of gay people are most integrated into the American imagination.
3 comments:
Lately I've read a lot of articles about LGBT visibility on TV programming. In everything I've read lately, someone is not satisfied with a lack of visibility of certain "types" of LBGT people. It is undeniable, as evidenced by GLAAD's report this year, that more and more shows have written in gay characters. This is great progress, however some of the shows they site have a gay character who has a small role and follows no plot lines relating to their sexual orientation. Counting shows like White Collar as shows that are LGBT inclusive and raise visibility seems like a cop out to me, but I still support at least an LGBT presence on these shows. Within LGBT visibility, the characters often seem to be the same. There is little diversity among the LGBT characters - racially, socioeconomically, and stylistically. There's no doubt that these things are changing though, so I'm interested to see future GLAAD reports.
There's been a tremendous amount of progress towards the acceptance of the LGBTQ community in the past decade, which is of course reflected in pop culture. It would seem that GLAAD and other gay-rights organizations are dissatisfied by the stereotypical nature in which members of the LGBTQ community are portrayed in the media. That's understandable, but I also think this is being made into a much bigger deal than it needs to be.
The gays are funny. If there's a sit-com and there's a gay character, the point of that character is probably to get a laugh because they're gay. I'd argue that similarly, if there's a really ultra-masculine heterosexual character on that same sit-com, that character's point is probably also to get a laugh because they're ultra-masculine and heterosexual. As someone who identifies as a genderqueer lesbian (that's two queer aspects for the price of one, folks) I take a tremendous amount of pride in my ability to poke fun at myself. I am empowered by the surface-level self-deprecating humor I thrive on. So when GLAAD and other organizations get so nit-picky about the portrayal of the LGBTQ community in the media, I get a little offended. I don't want the power to make fun of myself taken away from me.
I think that GLAAD could focus on much more important issues, like advocating for gay marriage, trans* rights, and the inclusion of gay/lesbian/trans* sexuality into sexual education programs.
As far as representation of Lesbians on television, specically, many are critizing the sole vision of "femme" lesibans. AKA - they are all gorgeous, girly, tall women. My issue, is that most EVERYONE on television is a gorgeous, girly, tall woman. There are many types and kinds of people and groups on television, and the representation is still disappointing.
This index merely recognizes that an LGBTQ character exists - yay! Glee has gays upon gays, but it's also rife with tokenism, offensive and stereotypical portrayals. TLC supposedly is "adaquate", however that's because Honey Boo Boo or whatever has a "gay pig". Congrats, you're representing the LGBTQ, TLC the conservatively biased television network that also brought us, "the Palin's".
The fact that there is representation at all is inspiring and we are sure to see more progress through out the years.
Post a Comment