Times haven't really changed.

I found it so very, very interested that a show from a little while back is so similar to shows depicting gay men today. Such as the show Happy Endings. Max, the gay male in the group of friends, is depicted as your average guy, lazy, doesn't like to do much cleaning, but when it comes to certain things he is depicted as completely feminine. The way the media shows gay men hasn't changed very much at all. If they aren't flamboyant and promiscuous, then they are masculine in most occasions.

My question is when are we going to have lesbians depicted in a show as a main character? When are we going to have a popular television show that is beloved by most of America that involves lesbians as main characters that aren't there just for some sexual context?

Sullivan - Ch. 11

Sullivan spends a lot of chapter 11 talking about the context of “camp,” and symbolism of the generic gay, male representation of imitating feminine characteristics, and how the stigma has transpired into popular culture as a seemingly accurate representation. He also spends a lot of depth talking about the context of “Batman Forever,” which apparently has a lot of underlying homoerotic symbolism that I was unaware of. Another representation of “queering popular culture” was generally highlighted in the Austin Powers movies, which is seen to many as a satire of the US perception of homosexual stigma. Has anyone heard of the BLO social experiment of switching the voice boxes of the Barbie’s and the G.I. Joe’s? I am shocked that I have never heard of this and nearly fell out of my chair laughing when I read that someone took the initiative of actually doing this.

Binaries, Binaries, Binaries, OH MY!

In the selling out article I read the words, "The poor necessarily hate the rich, so much that the rich have reason to fear the poor. Moreover, the rich deserve to have civil government protect them and, by extension, their God-given right to happiness via property ownership. One critical function of liberal democratic government, then, is to defend wealthy people against poor people"

This statement is true applied to every binary. Black and Whites, or more realistically whites and non-whites for example. Even omnivores and and herbivores ( you knew I was going here.) Just look at  the Hardees ad that says "No one gives a high five after eating tofu." The meat eaters are purposely conditioned by the media to be against people who don't eat meat. The straights are conditioned to be afraid of gay people unless they are in an "appropriate" service position that serves women exclusively. But when that gay man is trying to sell you a rifle at the sporting goods store, now you have a problem. This is all the media conditioning us. Just like it does to fear black people and even mentally challenges people, who are often portrayed as murderers, like in The Long Hot Summer by William Faulkner.

Do you think it is impossible for people to break through this social conditioning that causes us to fear each other? It sounds like we need to hijack the media if we ever want social change.

Objective vs Subjective Freedom

First, I really want to say that I appreciate Chasin's contribution to this topic. I really think she has touched on some important issues. However, as I was reading, I did have a question for her: Is the problem here that the gay movement is fighting for rights in general or is it that even if they gained those rights, not all could access them equally?

To me, this is extremely important and it points to a distinction between objective and subjective freedom. The gay movement is pushing for objective freedom because they are asking for the same rights as everyone else. What seems more important, though, is the subjective freedom to actually take advantage of those rights. Chasin touches on this, though she uses slightly different language. It seems like her critique of the gay movements rests more on the need for subjective freedom rather than objective and she's right to say that the movements would need a lot of re-focusing in order to achieve this. This would require a more systemic change than simply passing a bill that grants rights to gays and lesbians. In order to be subjectively free, there has to be some measure of equality that enables access to carry out one's rights. Like she mentioned, it may be great to have rights, but if I don't have a lawyer to defend those rights or the education to understand them, then what has really been accomplished? So, basically, I agree with her on this point. The gay movement needs to go beyond rights if we expect social change that can really make an impact for everyone and not just a select few at the top. I also think that the way to do this is for all of the social justice movements to come together and start fighting together as one movement toward achieving not just rights, but subjective freedom for all.

Gay Characters in Conventional Spaces

This article discussed how gay characters on television, though they give more visibility to LGBT people and give people who may or may not have been exposed to an LGBT person a chance to understand at least a little of queer culture, are often often quite stereotypical or are forced into heteronormative story lines. For example, Will and Grace was used as an example to show how Jack is portrayed in a very stereotypical manner and gay relationships and life experiences are often forced into a heterosexual mold. A square peg in a round hole if you will. (Didn't mean that to sound as dirty as it did.) My question is: Because this article is a little bit dated since it focuses mainly on shows that are no longer on the air, do these ideas still apply to television shows which feature gay characters today? Or has it gotten more progressive?

My opinion is that just because LGBT visibility on television is greater today does not necessarily mean that things have changed very much. Shows that I have watched such as Glee, Project Runway, True Blood, etc. that feature gay characters still portray many of them in stereotypical ways. I mean, not all gay guys like showtunes and haute couture. No, really. Many lesbians on these shows are portrayed as the white, porn star ideal that has become so popular. Also, many LGBT characters are still being forced into heteronormative story lines where relationships are meant to evolve in the same manner that many heterosexual relationships do. While not bad per se, this forces many viewers to see LGBT people in situations and scenarios that may not be accurate to a queer identity or reality and may harm many people's perceptions of LGBT people when they realize this.

Selling Out

My question comes from Chasin's 'Selling Out.  'Targeting' in advertising is a fundamental term that means you zero in on where you want to spend your money based on who(m) you want to reach to spend their money on your product.  In the early 1970s, talk began in the ad world discussing the possibilities of reaching the gay and lesbian target audience.  Initially, belief was that the gay community had double the money and no children and were buying everything they saw with all of that discretionary income.  Some of those facts were of course wrong, but it was forgotten temporarily in the panic of the 1980s that was known as AIDS.  Later, the ad world became more versed in their facts and began in earnest to make the distinction between the gay and the not gay market.
My question is this: Chasin seems one of the more credible sources on the subject, both as an observer and a subject-did I just miss it or did Chasin decided the audiences were one and the same?

Sullivan and Gay Batman

First, I have to say when I read Wertham's hypothesis about Batman and homoeroticism, I was skeptical. Reading the comic books, playing the video games, and watching the newer movies always gave me a permeating sense of hegemonic masculinity. Thinking about it more, however, Batman does not kill people, which is the ultimate manhood act. His character traits do conflict with stereotypical masculine behavior. What I thought was most interesting was how she showed that even though Batman himself displays homoerotic behavior, the "campier" characters are vilified and often take their homoerotic roles over the top to emphasize that this is what you should not do or be. It is to the extreme that one assumes Batman is straight because his behavior is the polar opposite of his villains.

I wanted to get your all's opinion on this theory, because I have read it to multiple groups of people who would argue against it. I think she made a sound argument though.