TMC Volume 2, Issue 1
Section I: And a Happy New Year
I took a break during the week of new year's...though I don't know from what exactly.
The gay card is the most misplayed card in the race. I'm including both lesbians and gays in this. they are portrayed so stereotypically in both "independent" and "mainstream" (quotations here used to signify that I'm referring to the most colloquial of definitions for these terms) media that it's shocking to me that they aren't more offended by these portrayals. Gay males are largely effeminate, emotional, and impulsive (essentially the female stereotype), while Lesbians are stubborn, selfish, and aggressive (the male stereotype). What bugs me the most is that this "progressive" practice of portraying homosexuality in the media fails to address what I believe to be the central issue with the Gay/Lesbian movement: there is no Gay/Lesbian stereotype.
The gay/lesbian stereotype, as portrayed by the media, is no more than a slight distortion of firmly established heterosexual stereotypes. Gay males are straight females in male bodies; Gay females are straight males in female bodies. Physiological influences aside, these are far from revolutionary or "progressive" depictions of non-traditional sex roles...in fact, I'd say that they are as oppressive, if not more so because of their deceptive nature, than traditional sex role stereotypes. After all, where are all the young budding curious homosexual individuals going to learn all their ideals from? Is there some kind of "school for gays" that no one knows about? Unlikely...what is rather more likely is that they'll learn it from the same place that all the straight boys and girls do: television.
I need to stop for a moment and fully disclose my personal position on homosexuality before moving on, as a matter of conscience. I personally don't agree with homosexuality. I do consider it deviant (in a strict sense, and I apologize for any negative connotations that word may conjure in your mind), and I consider it a largely psychosocial issue rather than a biological one (mostly because the jury is still out on the science of it all). What I'm trying to discuss here, and what has really bothered me all this time is how this topic continues to be treated on an individual as well as a societal basis. Homosexuals are fighting for equality. Anti-homosexuals are fighting for tradition. What I'm saying is that currently, Homosexuals are fighting for entry into a tradition that oppresses and excludes them. It's ridiculous.
But not every portrait of the homosexual has been so unfortunate. My favorite example of a realistic, logically sound, socially competent portrayal of a homosexual is Paul Smecker, Willem Dafoe's ace dick from the independent film "The Boondock Saints". In a single scene, he sums up my argument quite nicely, (excerpted by the good folks over at IMDB)
[after Smecker gets a phone call in bed with his gay lover and slaps him]
Paul Smecker: What are you doing?
Hojo: I just wanted to cuddle.
Paul Smecker: Cuddle? What a fag.
The gay card is the most misplayed card in the race. I'm including both lesbians and gays in this. they are portrayed so stereotypically in both "independent" and "mainstream" (quotations here used to signify that I'm referring to the most colloquial of definitions for these terms) media that it's shocking to me that they aren't more offended by these portrayals. Gay males are largely effeminate, emotional, and impulsive (essentially the female stereotype), while Lesbians are stubborn, selfish, and aggressive (the male stereotype). What bugs me the most is that this "progressive" practice of portraying homosexuality in the media fails to address what I believe to be the central issue with the Gay/Lesbian movement: there is no Gay/Lesbian stereotype.
The gay/lesbian stereotype, as portrayed by the media, is no more than a slight distortion of firmly established heterosexual stereotypes. Gay males are straight females in male bodies; Gay females are straight males in female bodies. Physiological influences aside, these are far from revolutionary or "progressive" depictions of non-traditional sex roles...in fact, I'd say that they are as oppressive, if not more so because of their deceptive nature, than traditional sex role stereotypes. After all, where are all the young budding curious homosexual individuals going to learn all their ideals from? Is there some kind of "school for gays" that no one knows about? Unlikely...what is rather more likely is that they'll learn it from the same place that all the straight boys and girls do: television.
I need to stop for a moment and fully disclose my personal position on homosexuality before moving on, as a matter of conscience. I personally don't agree with homosexuality. I do consider it deviant (in a strict sense, and I apologize for any negative connotations that word may conjure in your mind), and I consider it a largely psychosocial issue rather than a biological one (mostly because the jury is still out on the science of it all). What I'm trying to discuss here, and what has really bothered me all this time is how this topic continues to be treated on an individual as well as a societal basis. Homosexuals are fighting for equality. Anti-homosexuals are fighting for tradition. What I'm saying is that currently, Homosexuals are fighting for entry into a tradition that oppresses and excludes them. It's ridiculous.
But not every portrait of the homosexual has been so unfortunate. My favorite example of a realistic, logically sound, socially competent portrayal of a homosexual is Paul Smecker, Willem Dafoe's ace dick from the independent film "The Boondock Saints". In a single scene, he sums up my argument quite nicely, (excerpted by the good folks over at IMDB)
[after Smecker gets a phone call in bed with his gay lover and slaps him]
Paul Smecker: What are you doing?
Hojo: I just wanted to cuddle.
Paul Smecker: Cuddle? What a fag.
