cultural appropriation

[thatotherperv]

so as much as the stagegay/bandom debate (*cough*kerfluffle*cough*) raised as much ire and interest in me as a slice of unbuttered toast, I really enjoyed reading this post on appropriation of "the gay lifestyle" in the media. it's good food for thought on a subject that my mind has been circling distantly for some time now. especially since I started watching QaF and Emmett's conflict over being the sexless clown.

I've been debating with myself the degree to which certain shows, specifically Will & Grace and Queer Eye, help or hinder the mainstreaming of homosexuality. on one hand, they both do follow the pattern of cultural appropriation...reducing an oppressed minority to a comedic stereotype, washed clean of all the "scary" aspects and made more harmless as a result.

on the other hand, anything other than sexless comedy would never have made it to network television when Will & Grace began. it's as old as the argument between Booker T and DuBois...probably older than that: are such half-measures compromise or victory?

my brain isn't up to full-fledged meta thinkiness for my own post, but I'd love to hear your own thoughts on this. no-holds-barred victory, necessary compromise, or more of an insult than a blessing? you decide :)

Comments

[lilithbint.livejournal.com]

well I missed the kerfluffle darn it and I love both FOB and MCM and it never even occurred to me why they acted they way they do on stage. I just enjoyed it and never even wondered about their sexuality (colour me oblivious)

With television it is all about the timing. Will & Grace, Ellen they were a big deal for the time and yet I remember the fuss when Ellen came out. The fact that Will was played by a straight actor and I think there was one same sex kiss in the entire run is what amused me. I also read that John Barrowman auditioned for the role of Will without concealing his sexuality and was turned down for not being camp enough.

Then you get shows like QaF which is choosing to portray and certain aspect of gay life most likely to titillate just as any soap opera does.

I think the reason I like the show Torchwood so much is that aside from being SciFi it doesn't make a big production of the sexuality of the characters. Sometimes homosexuality is used for comic effect and other times for dramatic romance the same way that the heterosexual pairing are.

The thing that amused me most was the outcry everytime there was a same sex kiss as if it was some sort of gay agenda instead of just being a normal expression of affection between two characters.

I think I became a slash writer because the characters I was writing seemed better suited to each other than their heterosexual pairings. (and just being hotter anyway)

I think I am rambling now so should stop. It does interest me that any group in society that has a large number of males in close contact with each other (military and sports) are the ones crying out the loudest that they are not gay.
I much prefer the bands attitude.

[thatotherperv.livejournal.com]

god, yeah, I remember the whole Ellen thing. insane. and think how trendy lebianism is now. pfft.

The fact that Will was played by a straight actor and I think there was one same sex kiss in the entire run is what amused me. I also read that John Barrowman auditioned for the role of Will without concealing his sexuality and was turned down for not being camp enough.
yeah see, these are the exact things that make it cultural appropriation.

I think QaF was nakedly honest about a certain segment of the gay community, and the subject matter happened to be titillating. especially since it was a truth that was so shielded from most straight people before.


The thing that amused me most was the outcry everytime there was a same sex kiss as if it was some sort of gay agenda instead of just being a normal expression of affection between two characters.
yes. yes.

[yourlibrarian]

are such half-measures compromise or victory?

They're a compromise and I wouldn't call them victory so much as visibility. But visibility is important, making it into the lexicon is important, becoming a cultural touchstone is important. Its absence contributes nothing at all.

[thatotherperv.livejournal.com]

very true

[laisserais]

hey fancy!

i just got home and so am a little bit mashed, but, yeah. the bandom posts were fascinating. i sent that one that you linked and another one to one of my teachers. haha.

i think i'd go with (or, i do go with) the idea that stuff like will and grace is a compromise. it sucks, but the reality is that things like that are kind of necessary. i always forget this is so, until i see some stupid program on tv that reminds me how isolated and willfully ignorant a large percentage of the american population can be. 15 years ago our cultural climate would have been in no way ready for something as explicit as queer as folk.

it's lame, but it's true. and it sucks that the ignorant people are the ones who get coddled, but the upshot, imo, is that these compromises do advance equal rights, and as long as no one is ready to rest on their laurels with the half-measures, but everyone keeps pushing toward true civil rights, then eventually the compromises will add up. you know?

but this is something we argue about in class all the time. the neutered gay, the invisible minorities, media representation, and the sanitization of queers from within the community (i.e., HRC)

i don't think that this argument is solvable, but it's still necessary to have.

in so far as the 'gay lifestyle'... man. i'll come back to that one some other time. :) there's a lot there.

[thatotherperv.livejournal.com]

HAHAHAHAHA your icon. awesome.

I guess that's the conclusion I'd go with too. funny thing is, I'm fairly willing to accept that kind of baby-step for media representation, but the same logic can be applied to civil unions, and I am like...viscerally against that compromise, because I think it's so fucking homophobic. and stupid. it makes my head spin off my body. sanctity of marriage, my asscrack.

there are plenty of arguments like that. another one being, wth do we do in Iraq at this point. though there, the fact that there *is* no good solution is...problematic. heh.

in so far as the 'gay lifestyle'... man. i'll come back to that one some other time. :) there's a lot there.
exactly.

[laisserais]

Yeah... why is media representation so different i wonder? maybe we feel like it's kind of ... i dunno a luxury? like, the right to marry is more fundamental somehow? Because ITA: a couple of years back when Newsom granted gay marriage here and there was this big thing, i was in the car with my former SO's parents, and they're nice people. good people. they mean well, and they're christian in the 'real' way - you know, like, they literally follow the spirit of christ, and so try to be kind.

anyway, they were all, "i don't know about marriage though. it should be for a man and a woman. they can have civil unions."

and i kinda blew up at them. i did the 'water fountain speech' as i call it now. separate but equal, you know, that whole thing. i said that in twenty years most people are going to be as embarrassed about their stance on this issue as they are now about where they stood on lunch counters and bus segregation. etc.

poor things, their eyes kind of bugged out of their heads a little. haha, it was a long, awkward car ride.

so yeah. they do kinda seem to be different things, and i wonder if that's appropriate or not.

and maybe it's because i'm a liberal or a pragmatist or something, that i agree that there need to be small victiories that add up in most issues. like Iraq as well. Or maybe it's just empathy. if i can imagine what it must be like for the average person in Iraq right now, and i can imagine that the US leaving all at once would be as much of a catastrophe as the army showing up in the first place, then i think that's why small steps are a good thing.

i think the right wing disagrees with half measures (they want no measures usually) and it's interesting that some radical parts of the left have a similar ideology. i think that's what's fracturing the left at the moment.

uh. and here i just went on a ramble, huh? ;) oops.

[shapinglight]

I missed a kerfuffle? Good.

I agree with yourlibrarian that programs like Will & Grace are probably necessary to prepare the ground.

Am now trying to think of the UK equivalent and failing miserably. There were stereotype gay characters in sitcoms here in the 70s, who were of the 'screaming queen' but essentially sexless variety and I can remember a big hoohah about an on screen gay kiss between two men in the 1980s but generally here the audience seems to be reasonably accepting now -to the extent that a soap opera aimed at teens/20s that airs at 6.30 pm has gay characters and actual boy kissing and no one seems to bat an eyelid while an out (very out) gay actor like John Barrowman is thought perfectly acceptable to be a romantic male lead in a TV show (albeit one aimed at adults).

However, since I haven't seen the kerfuffle and don't know what it was about, I've probably grasped the wrong end of the stick and this is all totally irrelevant.

[thatotherperv.livejournal.com]

well, in this case the kerfluffle is totally irrelevant. I only read that one post, recc'd to me. I hadn't looked at all the rest. I just think cultural appropriation of gays is an interesting topic.

man, I hope we can get there eventually. I'm tired of knowing that half of hollywood is in the closet.

[laisserais]

I'm tired of knowing that half of hollywood is in the closet. Word. What's funny to me is the majority of america's willingness to go along with it.

how do we have these two opposing sterotypes existing at the same time? 1) theater geeks are gay and 2) all the actors in hollywood are straight.

have i ever told you my theory on jennifer aniston? ;>