Adventures in Queer Land

by Katie Kish on Nov.27, 2006, under Queer Community

As I was watching Sex and the City I got to thinking (get it!?) about how homosexuals are portrayed on television, especially women. It prompted me to research the number of gays and lesbians that are actually on television. I would first like to point out that there are no shows on network television, that is - not cable, that have GLBT people, and out of all the homosexual characters on cable television 78% are lesbians. In 2005 there were 13 lesbians and 9 bisexual women on scripted television. And on non-scripted television, aka reality TV, there were 17 lesbians and 10 bisexual women

In teen stories there were apparently 3 coming out stories. I only saw one of them, apparently. It was on Degrassie The Next Generation when the super duper cute jock came out. If I knew the show better, or had finished watching the episode I could tell you how the rest of the cast took it, but I didn’t.

Of these 27 lesbians and bisexual women 20 of them were white, 4 multiracial and 3 were Latina. Keep in mind that the Latinapopulation is the fastest growing population in the United States, in real life.

On the L-Word there is a Latina lesbian, but her ethnicity is never part of who the character really is. There is no expression of her heritage, not even a Latina accent. This could be positive or negative; I’ll let others decide for themselves as I have no opinion on it. In one sense it could be worse – it could be 100% white women, but on the other hand “it could be worse” is the worst defense for under representation. “Women get $0.78 to the male dollar, it could be worse!” yeah, but it could be much better.

One of the many things of which I do have an opinion on is that out of this obviously huge lesbian and bisexual population on TV (please catch my sarcasm…) there is no expression in gender differences. Lesbians and bisexual women (especially bisexual women) are always hyper feminine. There is little diversity amongst their personalities because butch women challenge gender boarders too much.

This leads me into the real problem with GLBT characters on television; they are completely misrepresented as a population. I’ve only seen one transsexual story line, and that was on the L-Word. The word transsexual begins with ‘trans’ for a reason; transition. There was very little transition in the actual story line of Max in the L-word. His transition from being a woman to being Max happened very quickly. There was little to no discussion of the inner conflicts that Max experienced while becoming who he really is on the inside. I personally, have never been conflicted with a transsexual life but something tells me it’s a lot harder than just waiting a while for all the hormones to kick in.

With bisexuals they are usually portrayed as indecisive and promiscuous. They are shown as confused individual who are just trying to “make up their minds” about sexuality. In the end they usually do float toward one or the other sex permanently. It’s never simply a case of a woman or a man being flexible about gender.

Not to mention that bisexual women are always portrayed through the male gaze. The biggest example I can think of right now isn’t on television, but in the movie Dodgeball. At the end of the movie the super hot banker makes out with a super hot cheerleader and it’s this sexy, promiscuous and spontaneous moment that all the men get hard-ons from.

This of course follows into the commonly expressed concern that women as homosexuals are much more accepted than men as homosexuals. If it had been two really hot men kissing at the end of the movie it wouldn’t have been deemed as a “sexy” moment.

I’ve contemplated this problem a lot, because I can’t simply be satisfied with the answer that women are seen as merely more emotion and touchy so it’s more accepting for them to be with their own gender. I’m starting to think that it was spawned from early day journal-ish letters by women who describe themselves getting into fights with their husband and ‘laying’ with their best friends. I don’t know, I’m working on it. But there must be more history to it.

It’s scary that the hegemonic powers of heteronormativity have the ability to change what is acceptable and offer pleasure…I want you to consider this Diane Raymond quote:

“Pleasure its self is never innocent or neutral and there is a danger in valorizing pleasure without looking at its context.”

In other words, it’s not just entertainment. Everyone is seeing the movie Borat, except for Alon and I. But all Borat offers is pleasure through the harm of another class/race/ethnicity/character of other people. The black representation in porn as big, scary and white woman stealing men is dangerous pleasure. Sex and the City is a consumeristic and stereotypical guide to how we shouldn’t live our lives. Yet so many of us get pleasure from these things anyway. We create a false sense of entertainment and representation for gratification.

The Queer community on television is the same problem. Just as we incorporate false representations of countries into tourism we incorporate false representations of the queer community into our “Queer Land Adventure”. We’re given the ability to drop in, take a look around and see not what the Queers of Queer Land want us to see but what the Governmen…err Corporate America wants us to see of the Queer people.

It doesn’t matter to us, as visitors of Queer Land, how Queer people are represented just as it doesn’t matter to us that Hawaii has been glamorized and consumed as a false representation of Hawaiian heritage. But it matters for the Queers of Queer land. This is how the knowledge of their culture is going to be remembered. As flamers like Stanford on Sex and the City, Jack on Will and Grace and Anothy on Sex and the City. Television and media corporations are systemically shaping the lives of the GLBT communities. This shaping isn’t an attempt to view the queer population as whom they really are, but it is an attempt to spice up broadcasting.

And until the wellbeing of people’s lives, character, representation and heritage is more important than money we’re going to continue seeing this.

Some may say that most of the heterosexual people on television are being stereotyped as well. But there is a big difference between stereotyping those who have the hegemonic advantage over the stereotyping of those that are the mercy of the hegemonic system. Heterosexuals are in power of the dating community and the world population, it doesn’t matter how they are portrayed on television.

The hegemony has nothing to fear.

4 comments for this entry:

vern
November 27th, 2006 on 8:34 pm
On the L-Word there is a Latina lesbian, but her ethnicity is never part of who the character really is

Not to be rude, but WRONG!!!

Carmen took Shane home to meet mama and the home/family life of her hispanic (no offense to anyone) family was extremely evident and was played very well.

Granted there isn’t a lot of her “latina”-ness displayed in the rest of the show, but her family and her interaction with them are very much played out on the screen.

it could be 100% white women

Jennifer Beals is not 100% white.

Nor is Pam Grier.

And I think you’re off-base on Max/Moira. When the character was brought into the show it was presented as a given that the character had already made the decision to have the change. Moreover, there was a certain amount of turmoil expressed in the character, but I don’t know any transgenders to know if it was accurate or not.

BTW: I don’t know if you ever saw it or even heard of it, but there was a show on several years ago (in America anyways) called thirty-something that had a gay male couple. I don’t recall enough of it to be very helpful, but it was a broadcast television show…

And I don’t think Shane is represented as hyper-feminine.
Roni
November 27th, 2006 on 10:29 pm
Good post. You are correct in that the depiction of lesbians and gays is coming from the viewpoint of the hegemony. The power structure tells us what we are, should be and can be, regardless of orientation, color, creed, etc. We are as they say we are. At least on “celuloid”. The only real lesbians that the MSM can handle at this time, apparently, are comics. Although I have great admiration for Rosie and Ellen, the fact that they are funny buffers their sexuality and makes them more palatable for the mainstream. When Rosie, for instance, speaks outside her funnygirl role, she is skewered. Any and all comments are seen as coming from the “liberal”, “leftist”, “radical homosexual agenda” perspective.

In the fictional realm there is an ultrafeminization of lesbians. Fits with that male fantasy you speak about. Dykes don’t. Butches don’t. Unfortunately, even the movies made specifically for the lesbian viewer or that we consider “lesbian friendly” are femme-ified for the most part. Even the butches are pretty on some socially acceptable pretty scale.

Regarding the L-Word: the reason I stopped watching it is that I simply could not identify with the women on the show. No more than I could identify with the women on Sex in the City. Certainly there were some central issues that were universal to everyone, but I wanted to see my relationship in some of these women and I couldn’t. None of them were butch, not even Shane. None of them were middle-age or aging. None of them were dealing with children of past relationship issues. None of them were dealing with coming out to older children and aged parents. Those are the realities of so many that I know. How do we deal with our churches when they reject us? How can we find jobs when our look is a bit different than the typical woman in business? How do we deal with aging partners and the potential for a survivor losing everything if one of us dies? Insurance? Medical care? Family rates on car insurance? These are issues that far exceed the importance of the look, but their resolutions are intertwined with society’s acceptance of physical differences.

Nuff rambling… thanks for the thought provoker.
Alon Levy
November 28th, 2006 on 1:18 am
Pleasure its self is never innocent or neutral and there is a danger in valorizing pleasure without looking at its context.

The ability of radicals to subordinate every single thing in life, especially sexual pleasure, is at times breath-taking. Orwell documented how a crucial part of totalitarianism is suppressing sexual desires, so that sexual energy will instead be directed toward propping up the state. This applies not only to overtly totalitarian ideologies, like fascism or communism, but also to deconstructionist ones; even Susie Bright can come off as someone who’s into wild sex not just because she enjoys it but also because her ideology mandates it, to say nothing of Andrea Dworkin.

While it’s legitimate to ask why people are drawn to certain sexual practices, the sort of intellectual tools provided by Foucault are a dead end. The only reason people keep using them is that they can yield any ideological result you want. For example, if you want to show that lesbian porn is all about men’s fantasizing about harems, you will want to write a factless theory predicated on radical feminist principles, because if you actually try gathering evidence, your theory will collapse.
Kian
November 28th, 2006 on 10:31 am
Vern, you’re reading me incorrectly here.
I’ve never watched the L-Word, but I was told that her Latinaness comes up in the show about 3 times, but its not about who she is as a character.
Also, when I said “100% white women” i wasn’t refering to the L-word without the latina character. …I meant it as an …extreme or whatever. Like, it can be 3% non-white, but 0% non-white would be worse.

I did talk more with a women about the transition in the L-Word, and she stands firm that thats not what a transexual goes through at all. …That her transition was extremely fast. This woman is a trans herself and used the word “disgusted” when discribing her reaction to the transexual story line of the L-Word…

I’ll have to take your word on Shane not being hyper feminine… The case studies I read never mentioned her. Actually one may have, and I believe it said “with the exception of the mock-masculine character”… So it seems to be no inbetween.

Roni -

“Any and all comments are seen as coming from the “liberal”, “leftist”, “radical homosexual agenda” perspective. ”

I couldn’t agree more, it is the same with Ellen. I was talking to someone about political views and I mentioned Ellen and the guy I was discussing with just said “Yeah, well she’s a dyke of course she thinks that”…

These questions that you bring up in your last paragraph are sort of eye opening for me, I must admit. Never having had gone through the coming out process I didnt enough think of those things you’re bringing up. But I’m defintiely going to be talking to a few of my friends about their coming out stories and hopefully I can make a post about it.

I know 2 of my friends had to move from America to canada to be together… They ahve a really great story.

Alon - I don’t overtly disagree wtih any particular point you bring up except to say that you’re almost trivializing any sort of research in sexual pleasure… Factless theories, although they don’t get a person to far academically, can still explore.