Glee and Construction of Gay Men

My first piece for PopMatters was published while I was on vacation, so I'm a little remiss in publishing it here.  It takes a look at Kurt Hummel and the construction of gay men on television.  Enjoy!

Hetereonormalizing Gay Relationships

 I have (as is usual) been consuming a lot of media recently.  What is interesting is the amount of that media that works to heteronormalize gay relationships.  I've been catching up on Modern Family (a show I have really grown to enjoy and am teetering on the brink of calling myself a fan) and well, the gay relationship between and Cam and Mitchell is not so modern.  And it has nothing to do with the idea that they have not kissed, although there is a Facebook group of more than 13,000 people who want that to happen.  No, it has more to do with the way in which the producers of Modern Family have constructed this couple along "traditional" tropes of the family.  

Companies Don't Necesarrily Want GLBT people, Just Their Money

Once again, a company tries to court the gay dollar to help their fledgling business.  To Amtrak, I say, kiss my ass!  Where has Amtrak been on other important issues for GLBT people?  As far as I am concerned, epic fail.  Not to mention that for most gay people, the only way they travel by train is the subway system. 

White Washed Broadway

In the interest of full disclosure, I work in marketing and public relations and fully understand niche marketing.  That, however, in no way means that I like the concept or that I think it's valuable from a consumer/user perspective.    

The consumer me sees niche marketing as a ploy by companies to get me to spend my money and most of the time I tend to reject that sort of marketing/outright ploy.  The primary reason I do so, is that it rarely means that the company supports your "community" but rather that there is market research that shows you and your "community" are an "untapped market" or is a growing consumer segment.

What's with all the Lady GOGA?

It's always been my contention that female sexuality is far more fluid that male sexuality.  We've graduated from the days where lesbians were portrayed as psycho killers and have moved on to an era where the idea of lesbianism is primarily presented for the titillation of heterosexual men.  So, is it any wonder that we are bombarded with images of faux lesbianism in media?  From Chaka Khan and Patti LaBelle on the BET Awards to Miley Cyrus, female celebrities seem to be embracing their inner Lady G.O.G.A. (that's "girl on girl action" for the uninitiated.)

Interviews

I have been a slacker and haven't posted the interviews I've done over the past few weeks with media outlets.  I was interviewed for a story for Forbes.com about the changing role of fathers on television.  I was also interviewed for a story for Christian Science Monitor about celebrity and youth cultures. 

What Are the Rules for Celebrity Forgiveness?

A conversation I saw on Facebook caused me to think: what are the rules for celebrity transgression (and subsequent forgiveness)?  Last night's BET Awards featured performances by both Kanye West and Chris Brown.  For those who have been living under a pop culture rock, Kanye West famously interrupted Taylor Swift's acceptance speech at the MTV Music Awards and ended up looking like an asshole to just about everyone.

Elena Kagan is NOT gay says friends

So, Elena Kagan is not gay according to her friends.  While this may, or may not be true, it brings up an important question: "Why does it matter one way or the other as it relates to her ability to be an effective Supreme Court Justice?"     

Why I Hate CNN: Gay in America

I will tell anyone who listens that I detest CNN (and all the other 24 hour news networks including CNBC, MSNBC and FOX News) because I believe they do a disservice to Americans seeking unbiased news coverage.  But my recent giant glass of ice cold Haterade is lifted to CNN not necessarily for being biased, but for simply being dumb.  Now, I am never one to deny someone a check, so hats off to Soledad O'Brien for getting hers, but really CNN?  You have the nerve to call a series Gay in America and then treat us (and I use the word VERY loosely) to a documentary on one gay couple's (anticlimactic) journey to having a baby. 

Fame Monster

Before I even start this post, I have to go on record saying that I am not a fan of Lady Gaga (or Lady Caca as many in the media call her).  I don't find her music particularly interesting or innovative.  What is innovative and interesting in many ways is the way in which she has creating the Gaga brand.  Let's not forget that before she created Lady Gaga, she was just a singer/songwriter toiling away trying to make it big (like thousands of people before and since her rise to fame). 



With a few crazy costumes and a danceable beat, she has become a worldwide phenomenon sparking college courses and treatises on her persona and female empowerment.  Now she's has even been banned from the Yankees' clubhouse and was accused of upstaging her sister's graduation while "attempting" to not upstage her.

On one hand, one could argue that Lady Gaga is in some ways eschewing the idea of a culture industry, developed by Theodore Adorno and Max Horkheimer which says that pop culture is an industry that produces standardized good for mass consumption, but that would only be true if she really pushed music forward and I don't believe she does that.  Perhaps she is pushing boundaries with her elaborate costumes, but one could argue that Sarah Jessica Parker's Carrie Bradshaw from Sex in the City accomplishes that as well with her often ridiculous outfits. What I think is really at work is that, to borrow her own words and use them against her, she's become a fame monster.

It seems that she just can't stay out of the spotlight. It seems the antics she tries to pull off as "just being Gaga" feel calculated for maximum publicity value.  What makes it grating for her and somewhat endearing for someone like Kathy Griffin is that at least Griffin will admit what she's doing.  Certainly, we (collectively speaking) are not without fault.  If we cease to buy magazines that print stories about Lady Gaga (and other celebrities) or watch the endless parade of newsertainment programs that report every detail of a celebrity's life, maybe it'd all just go away.           

Everything's Coming Up Gay

This is a great article from The New Yorker about the increasing number of gay (or at least gay-ish) young men in media and an attempt to figure out what it means culturally.  I think it just means that tween girls tend to like fey-ish young men rather than that there is necessarily a greater acceptance of gay folk on television.  But what is still troubling is that the identification of gay and gay-ish young men (or the "mark of gayness") still traffics heavily in stereotypes of what it means (or doesn't mean) to be gay.  Gay young men on television are still overwhelmingly showtune-loving, high-kicking and twirling representations (full disclosure: I was one of these young men) but isn't it time for a broader range of representations?  Certainly shows like Greek and Will & Grace (as problematic as the show is) have broadened the range of gay men seen on television, but these are adult men. 

I am a believer that television is a socialization tool and while we're televisually celebrating letting our freak flags fly, we're also limiting the construct of what young male gayness is and can be. 

Today in Political Theatre

Today in Tomfoolery

I often rail about higher education and how it disservices students and is really a business first and a place to get educated second.  I also know a thing or two about publicity stunts.  My belief is that some undergraduate degrees are useless largely because they require advanced study to be applicable in a line of work.  So, along come this guy who graduated from Purdue with a degree in Science (one of those degrees that often requires advanced study to be applicable) and chooses to try to sell said degree on ebay.  While this attempt could be construed as innovative, it also has the possibility to make future employers stay away.  Here's a guy who is so dissatisfied with something that is his fault (and perhaps the economy/job market), not Purdue's who believes that his degree is completely worthless and takes to the Internet to try to publicize that.  The link could be made that he might do that to an employer when things don't go his way. I'm just saying...

Why Asking "Why Can't 'Successful' Black Women Find Good Men?" is a Stupid Question

Why can't "successful" black women find a "good" man? It seems to be a controversial and thought-provoking question on the surface. But when examined more closely, it's a question that is bound up in heteronormative, reproductionist and sanguinuptial notions about men and women and family.  First, it is heteronormative in that it assumes that the role of women (and men) is to couple through the bonds of the socially constructed institution of marriage.  It also presupposes that women want or need to be married.  As if there is something wrong with women who either chose not or are not "honored" with having a man ask them to be married.  The whole premise assumes that for these black women, there is a problem because they can not find suitable mates.  And while it may be true that some women bemoan the unavailability of "good" men (often anecdotally blaming gay men and incarcerated black men), there are other women who are financially secure, have fantastic friends and as such, don't worry about finding a "good" man.

A Woman's Worth

I am one who believes in the power of media to socialize us, particularly children.  So, when I saw this "cartoon" I first laughed and then was taken aback at how true it rings. It's interesting to think that most (if not all) of the Disney classics featuring female lead characters are about the pursuit of a man. And while it'd be foolish to think that children (and specifically girls) think about femaleness and marriage in these terms, they still internalize its messages and start to play those out in life. 

I think there could also be a correlation between some of these characters/cartoons and the way in which modern day weddings have become expensive spectacles that are removed from the initial intent of a marriage ceremony -- which is simply to join two people in a legally binding contract in front of family and friends.

So, the next time you sit your son, daughter, niece, nephew, grandchild or the kid you're babysitting down in front of a Disney film to keep them entertained for a couple of hours, think about the unintentional message they may be absorbing.  

Quote of the Day

"Oh, the gays are getting miffed! Don't tell us we're too gay or not or whatever. Oh lord, what is gay, anyway? Find me the line -- find me the defining line between gay and straight. Find me the defining line between male and female. There is no line. You cannot draw this line in the sand. Yes, there are plenty of people way over there who will never partake in anything straight and there are people way over there who will never partake in anything gay, but there's a whole lot of gray in the middle. Where's the line? Behind all of it is sexual insecurity. It's sexphobia."

-- Melissa Etheridge on the Newsweek "controversy" over Sean Hayes being "too gay" to play straight.

Where's the Rainbow?

I watched a documentary on LOGO called The Butch Factor on logo which purported to examine ideas (and ideals) about masculinity among gay men.  What struck me when watching was that the documentary presented a monolithic idea of masculinity, or to speak in the film's terms, butchness.  The masculine men played sports, participated in rodeos and were police officers while the less butch (read: feminine) representations were of men who had more artsy professions.

Is The Color of Beauty White?

A friend hipped me to this video and it is truly heartbreaking.  Apparently the color of beauty is still white (and will always be if we are to believe those people interviewed in the video. 

Before I am accused of being too Afrocentric, I am not advocating that the fashion industry is "blackened" just for the same of having black people on the runways and in the pages of mainstream fashion magazines. Rather, I am advocating at least an openness to representing blackness rather than having designers request "no black girls."  Particularly when they are willing to allow white models to don blackface or act as props to showcase white beauty.  Which recalls one of the quotes in the film that says people in the industry essentially want white girls dipped in chocolate. 

Xenophobia Reins Supreme in Arizona

I sometimes cannot believe my eyes.  I knew this legislation was in the works, but for it to be signed into law is a completely different thing. (Deep breath!)  OK, in Arizona it is now illegal to teach ethnic studies courses because, well, let me just put a quote here from State schools chief Tom Horne who says:

"...A Tucson school district program promotes 'ethnic chauvinism' and racial resentment toward whites while segregating students by race.'"

The first problem is that these "ethnic studies" programs are the only place where minority students can get a comprehensive history of their ancestors. When I was in elementary school, black history in the larger history books consisted of Harriett Tubman (she helped free slaves) and Martin Luther King, Jr. (he led the Civil Rights Movement) -- pretty insufficient. 

Contrary to belief, American isn't a melting pot.  Rather, we demand that people assimilate -- which adapting to "the American Way."  But even as people of color, we are constantly reminded (particularly in today's political climate) that we are different and in the eyes of those who largely hold power, inferior.  As such, ethnic studies is a necessary part of educating students.  (Not to mention that there are non ethnic students who take these courses as well because they want to expand their knowledge -- isn't that what education is supposed to be all about?)

Today in Police Inaction News

I truly cannot wrap my head around this story.  An off-duty police officer stands by as an employee of a CVS in Chicago's Little Village neighborhood is choked to death for allegedly stealing toothpaste. 

"As the correctional officer pointed a weapon at Kyser and told him to stop struggling, Kyser repeatedly pleaded that he couldn't breathe, the witnesses said.
[Chicago Police Lt. Lt. Maureen] Biggane said a surveillance video shows the correctional officer in the alley, speaking on a cell phone, but does not show her pointing a weapon. The officer waited for an ambulance to arrive, but left before uniformed Chicago Police arrived, Biggane said.
Police wouldn't release the correctional officer's identity. Sheriff's spokesman Steve Patterson said there is nothing for the sheriff to investigate, based on Chicago Police's account of her actions."

This truly boggles the mind... Not to mention that it seems like Chicago has turned into some kind of war zone lately.

Separating Church and State

This is why what Donna Brazil says about ridding ourselves of pundits rings so true.  Sarah Palin is a woman, who I believe, deserves some degree of respect.  She has managed to cobble together a very financially lucrative career by stringing together a bunch of buzz words that don't always add up to something intelligible.  She has certainly managed to speak to/for a segment of the population to whom her folksy charm and good looks appeal.  And while I disagree with about 90% of her political positions, I'm usually willing to hear her out.  But I draw the line here.  Palin is an advocate of going "back to what our founders and our founding documents meant -- they're quite clear -- that we would create law based on the God of the bible and the ten commandments."

Donna Brazil: Speaker of Truth?

I am usually not a fan of Donna Brazil, but she has spoken the truth.  Brazil says that if she could get rid of one thing in the world, that'd be pundits.  Amen!  She says:

If a single move could restore civility to politics, that is it. Get rid of the left-vs.-right commentators who are just out scoring points for their team. This sort of opinion-mongering is not only boring and predictable, it is destructive of the truth. If your only credentials are "GOP shill" or "Democratic hack," you've no business cluttering up the airwaves or the op-ed pages. My momma always told me that if you don't know what you're talking about, it's best to keep your mouth shut. That's good advice.

Whom do we put in their place? I say replace the pundits with people who have genuine expertise -- whether from their academic work, professional life or personal experience -- on the key issues of the day. Instead of partisan talking heads or mad hatters from the "tea party" preaching their views on, say, health care and taxes, let's hear from doctors and insurance professionals, or the number-crunchers from the Congressional Budget Office. They're much better equipped to help viewers, listeners and readers wade through the facts, arguments and data.

 We'd have a much more informed public if we could just get rid of this one thing.  But we won't. And the reason we won't is because many will make the argument that regular folk and those with actual knowledge (not to infer that ALL of the pundits who are "approved" by producers don't have knowledge) don't make for "good TV."

Today in Oxymoronic News

An Oklahoma Republican congresswoman sent a campaign mailer out to her constituents decrying government spending, which she says, is out of control.  But the flyer was paid for with taxpayer dollars.  Really?  WTF? 

Police Brutality in Seattle

In what can only be described as an abuse of power, a Seattle Police Officer kicked a suspect in the head once he was already on the ground and being compliant.  As if that weren't enough, it turns out that the man, who was suspected of committing a robbery by the police, was innocent.  Now, of course, the office has gone on his "I'm Sowwy Tour" apologizing for saying he would "kick the Mexican piss" out of the suspect (but not for kicking him in the head).  There is a line between doing your job and being an asshole and this office crossed that line. Is it any wonder that many members of minority groups dislike and/or fear the police?    

CNN Does it Again: Gary and Tony Have a Baby (UGH!)

CNN continues to prove just how useless and inane its coverage is/can be with the announcement that they will air a CNN Special Report called Gary and Tony Have a Baby in June.  I find it useless because I continually question the wisdom of a very middle class, assimilationist thread that runs through and dominates gay rights in America.  The major way that many gay rights organizations attack those who oppose gay rights is by trying to show how much gay couples are "just like the 'rest' of us" (i.e. normal, whatever the hell that is!).  Not to mention that a special like this does nothing to unseat the idea that gayness = whiteness.  As someone who does research on gay black men on television, I know that the universe of gay men of color on television is small, particularly when you discount unscripted and cable television shows, but white gay men appear on many network shows like Modern Family and Brothers and Sisters.

Lena Horne goes to that Emerald City in the Sky

Legendary singer, actress and activist died at the age of 92 yesterday in New York.  Sadness...

But, we'll see what effect this has on her career.  As Chris Rojek reminds us in his brilliant book Celebrity, death can be the greatest thing for a celebrity's career.   

Rip out the Front Page: Breaking News! Journalism isn't Neutral Says Professor

I mean, really?  Did we really need someone to tell us that the "news" we receive isn't neutral? Despite the claims of shows and networks to have "No Bias, No Bull" and be "Fair and Balanced" the opposite is true. This goes for both right and left media.  As Pierre Bourdieu tells us in his fantastic book On Television

"It explains why real information, analysis, in-depth interviews, expert discussions, and serious documentaries lose out to pure entertainment and, in particular, mindless talk show chatter between 'approved' and interchangeable speakers."

From "The Voice" to "Punchline"

How in the hell did Whitney Houston go from "The Voice" to (inter)national punchline?  While Maya Rudolph pales in comparison to Debra Wilson's Whitney Houston, the out of breath "Whitney" is Hi-Larious particularly given her (reportedly) horrible concert performances as of late.

WWW: The White Women's Workout; or So Funny, It's Kinda Sad

I saw this video and was torn -- it's actually laugh out loud funny, but also incredibly sad, particularly as I inhabit my black male skin daily.  Certainly media, including music, movies, television (both the news and television shows) and even art to a certain degree (and the Reagan administration) has helped to perpetuate the idea of the menacing black man.  But at the same time, this manages to skewer the sheer absurdity of a monolithic idea of black male menace (as well as monolithic ideas about any group of people).

Unpacking a Racist Harvard E-mail

A friend of mine tipped me off to this e-mail that purported to defend the idea that black people are genetically less intelligent than other people (presumably, mainly white people).  I won't even try to unpack this nonsense because Feministe does it far better than I could.    It's a long read, but it's well worth the time and energy to do so.  Unfortunately, these are the kinds of serious, and well-informed conversations that need to be had about race in America, but that we simply are not well-equipped enough to have.  But is more troubling is that, as Feministe points out, this woman is going to be charged with making and upholding the law some day. No doubt, those who believe in her particular brand of "logical" thought will herald her as one who reads the law as it was written while those who seek to uphold the rights of those less advantaged will be seen as "activist judges."   

When Rhetoric Fails

We have evolved (or devolved) into a society where rhetoric and soundbites rule the day.  And we also largely, get our soundbites from media outlets that support our ideas and ideals and regurgitate those soundbites to people who ideologically share our beliefs.  It's a great opportunity for us to feel smart and well-read.  But it's when you are challenged by someone who is your ideological opposite that problems tend to arise. 

Who's Can We Blame for Being Fat? Certainly Not Ourselves

This is another fantastic editorial about the argument that we "haven't got time to cook."  When in fact, we do have time to cook, we just chose to use that time doing other things that are "more important" to us.    The same can be true for those of us (myself included) who don't work out (or at least don't do so regularly).  Certainly part of the problem is that the media helps to validate us by constantly telling us that we don't have time to cook and food companies use a products "convenience" as a way to market products to us that help to make not making time to cook much easier for us. 

Is Homosexuality an Abomination?

Fantastic editorial about Leviticus as related to homosexuality.  What is particularly interesting is the author's central thesis, which is why do we care about homosexuality more than we do other things forbidden by the bible? I think it says a lot about our culture of heteronormativity that we fixate this one aspect of sexuality, and people like Joel Olsteen says things like homosexuality does not represent people being "God's best" (as if he or anyone for that matter truly knows what "God's best" is rather than our interpretation of what we think it is.

Today in "People Are Stupid" News

Humans never cease to amaze me with their idiotic actions.  This story out of Australia may actually take the cake (at least for the day) in stupid people doing/saying stupid things.  A visually impaired man was refused service at a Thai restaurant because staff thought his dog was a gay dog versus a guide dog.  Really?  A gay dog?  How does that work in the real world? The store's owners claim that the waiter thought the dog had been desexed to become a gay dog (which proves again that people are stupid as if that had happened the dog would be asexual, not gay).  And that, my friends, is what's new in "People are Stupid" news today.

Framing Homosexuality via Archie

The comic strip Archie announcing that it would introduce a gay character to Riverdale was met by me with a yawn. But then I saw this video and this video



and then I realized the damage that media can do and that homosexuality is (and will always be) othered in our allegedly unbiased media culture.

Why is the Prophet Mohammed Sacred in Media?

The question about the sacredness of the Prophet Muhammad in media is a fascinating one.  That is in no way a slam to Muhammad, but rather, it is interesting given the lack of scrutiny that has been given to other things on South Park including God and the Devil.  I don't know the answer, but this New York Times editorial is certainly worth reading.  It questions why the Prophet Muhammad is off limits (and many would argue that he should be) but God or the Devil or even Barbara Streisand and Tom Cruise, are/have been skewered by South Park.

PSA: More Than One Source Needed to Develop a Political Position

I never really care what political bent one has, all I ask is that you REALLY know what your positions are and be able to stand by them when asked to elaborate on your "talking point." That is not the case in this video and it shows why we have such a politically uninformed populace in the United States. Certainly FOX News is not the only culprit, CNN and MSNBC are guilty as well (While Hilary Clinton should have exited the presidential race earlier, I think the overwhelming pressure came from 24-hour news stations like CNN and MSNBC).

KFC Doubles Down on Calories?

This is not for the faint of stats, but it makes for an interesting read.

"...the Double Down is indeed quite unhealthy, but some other sandwiches are just as bad. The Burger King Chicken Tendercrisp (1.00 DDs), which has less cholesterol but more fat and sodium, is comparably unhealthy to the Double Down on balance. The chicken ranch sandwiches from Sonic (0.94 DDs) and Jack-in-the-Box (0.98 DDs) are close. And surprisingly, some sandwiches from "fast casual" restaurants that have a reputation for healthy food do even worse. Panera's Chipotle Chicken checks in at 1.49 DD's -- it has almost 50 percent more bad stuff than the Double Down -- and Boston Market's Chicken Carver at 1.14. So do some products that stretch the definition of "sandwich". A chicken burrito from Chipotle with rice, black beans, cheese and corn salsa will cost you 1.16 Double Downs: load it up with sour cream, guacamole, and picante salsa as well and you're up to 1.69. A pack of five McDonald's Chicken Selects with a side of ranch sauce is worth 1.23 Double Downs."

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/04/double-down-by-numbers-unhealthiest.html

Liberal Special Interests vs. The "Right" Thing to do

I can't figure out why supporting social issues is a "liberal special interest" but being opposed is "right." (Sarcasm)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/17/us/politics/17hospitals.html

Welcome to Confederate History Month

Here's a fantastic editorial by Frank Rich that in many ways illuminates the "new racial" times in which we live.  All of the talk about Obama ushering in a new phase of post-racial-ness has been bunk. In many ways, I think we live in a far more racist society than we did before the Civil Rights Era. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/opinion/18rich.htm

What Traffic Jams Can Teach Us About Social Issues

Sitting in traffic on I-35 today, I came to a conclusion.  As I sat in traffic for miles only to find out that traffic slowed down only for people to look at the flashing lights on the side of the road.  And as I saw no one, myself included, stop to help, I wondered why can't people just mind their own business?

The Politics of Activism

Justice John Paul Stevens pending retirement from the Supreme Court has been met with a collective yawn by most Americans.  But his retirement offers a great opportunity to examine how the judicial system, an entity that is supposed to be free of politics, tells us more about party affiliation than we like to admit.  In recent history (particularly during the Bush II administration) we heard a lot about so-called activist judges.  But when we deconstruct the term "activist judge" all it really means is someone who disagrees with our position. 

Entertained to Stupidity

If a celebrity (or fauxlebrity) makes a statement in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? The answer to the question is only if we follow them on Twitter and it then gets reported all across the Internet. As someone who has worked in PR for more than 10 years, I certainly know a thing or two about manufacturing news, but the proliferation of the Internet as a growing source of information seems to have multiplied this to the nth degree. We are constantly bombarded with news of mistresses "speaking out," explicit email revelations and encouraged to take sides in celebrity and fauxlebrity splits.

Framing Homosexuality and Pedophilia

This week has been terribly interesting to watch the story about sexual abuse and the Catholic church unfold (again).  What's interesting is how approved "talking heads" (and the media by sanctioning/allowing their viewpoints) have worked to frame the Catholic church's problem as not one of pedophilia, but as one of homosexuality.  In other words, the media is complicit in recycling misinformation by continuing to allow certain guests on their programs and, in large part, failing to correct the misinformation.  As the brilliant Pierre Bourdieu states in his work On Television, 

"There is a backstage process of shaping the group that ends up in the studio for the show, beginning with the preliminary decision about who gets invited and who doesn't... The set is there in front of viewers, and what they see hides what they don't see-- and what they don't  see in this constructed image, are the social conditions of its construction." (Bourdieu, 34)

The Thrill is Gone: The American Idol and Dancing with the Stars Backlash

Since the Industrial Revolution, our culture has been driven by consumerism and consumption.  VHS became passé so we culturally moved on to the "superior" DVD.  The same argument can  be made for American Idol and Dancing with the Stars this year.  For American Idol, my belief is that the argument holds true as early as Season 5, but I won't get into that.  I don't think American Idol's problem this year is a true lack of talent (there are certainly contestants on the show who have vocal talent) rather the problem is that culturally, we're simply over it.  The newness has worn off and American Idol has become just another reality show. 

It's All in the Context: Erykah Badu and Nudity

Erykah Badu has never been one to suppress her artistic side.  And she is making news for being "artistic" in her new music video for the lead single from her new CD The New Amerykah Pt. 2: Return of the Ankh.  In the video for Window Seat, Badu strips naked while walking through downtown Dallas to the site where JFK was assassinated before herself being assassinated and bleeding the word "group think"  then in a voiceover says:

"They who play it safe, are quick to assassinate what they don't understand.  They move in packs, ingesting more and more fear with every act of hate on one another. They feel more comfortable in groups, less guilt to swallow. They are us. This is what we have become, afraid to respect the individual."

Whose Side Are You On? Celebrity and the Culture of Binaries

We live in a world that is often black and white with no shades of gray. You're either for health care reform or against it. You either support war or you're unpatriotic. We are constantly asked to choose sides in our culture. But never is choosing sides more absurd than when it comes to celebrities. I was reminded of this penchant for the news media to choose sides and then in their reporting make us chose a side as well when I (begrudgingly) watched CNN last week. The "impartial, just delivering the news" anchor Kyra Phillips decided to call Jesse James, Sandra Bullock's husband, a jerk in the course of delivering the news that Sandra Bullock had moved out of the family home in Los Angeles. Kyra Phillips was definitely on Team Sandy.

It's not just limited to coverage of marital/relationship discord (although there are many examples like Team Jen or Team Angie) but also reared its head when we were to chose between Team Coco (Conan O'Brien) or Team Jay (Leno). What's puzzling is that we make these decisions in a knowledge vacuum. As Chris Rojek says in his brilliant book Celebrity "one peculiar tension in celebrity culture is that the arousal of strong emotion [for celebrities] is attained despite the absence of direct personal reciprocity." In other words, we refer to celebrities by first name or by nicknames yet we have so little knowledge about them that would offer us the license to refer to them on friendly terms. For example, Mariah Carey is Mimi, Jennifer Aniston is Jen and Sandra Bullock is Sandy (maybe it's a female thing?). In addition, we have unimonikered people in our culture who go by their first name only: Beyonce, Madonna and for some (or most) gay men when you hear Liza, Bette, Diana, Tina, or Barbara, there can be no doubt about the person being discussed.

There have been some pretty nasty things written about Tiger Woods in light of his extramarital affairs (as well as Jesse James and many other celebrities who have admitted to having sexual relationships with people with whom they are not attached). But the fact remains that we know nothing about them. Perhaps Tiger Woods and his wife had an agreement that sexual monogamy is not an important aspect of their marriage (like Mo'Nique and her husband) and the media's focus on the relationship is really about Elin being embarrassed that the sexual dalliances of her husband have come to light. Maybe Sandra Bullock isn't really America's Sweetheart and is a bear to live with who refused to have sex with her husband. I doubt this is the case with either Tiger Woods or Sandra Bullock, but it illuminates that we just don't have enough information to be able to make the call about who wins when Team Sandy is going head to head with Team Jesse, or Team Tiger vs. Team Elin.

This binary also speaks to the way in which our culture has socially constructed marriage and monogamy. Culturally, we give Mo'Nique the collective "side eye" when she says that one of the partner's "infidelity" is not necessarily a reason to dissolve the relationship -- particularly if we believe that about 50 percent of marriages in the US end in divorce. Who said marriage (or serious relationships for that matter) had to be based on monogamy? We have culturally tied something carnal (sex) to something emotional (love) when the two are not really related. Maybe it is for the best that we live in monogamous relationships, but it's our modern creation and it hasn't been around "forever." And even in the Mo'Nique monogamy situation, we're asked to be on Team Monogamy or Team Open Marriage. Stories on the Internet urge us to make a choice with titles like Are Open Relationships Better?, Is Mo'Nique's Open Relationship Sexist? and Do Open Relationships Equal Insecurity? As Matt Bianco asks us, whose side are you on?

Health Care Reform Post Script

My head is still reeling from watching C-SPAN for most of the day yesterday and watching the "debate" unfold about health care reform. What I think became abundantly clear over the weekend (and arguably through the whole debate process) is not just a difference in ideology, largely going along party lines, and not just the suspicion that we have elected a bunch of 3 year olds to represent us (could they have been less mature) or that our political process is really a time drainer (did it really take all day to get to the vote when largely no one was moved to change their vote by debates, but rather by deals).

Rather, a real socio-economic ideological rift was exposed. I believe health care reform isn't really about access to health care as much it's about the classic American battle between the haves and the have nots. Those who have, want to keep things they way they are because "they work hard for their money and don't want to give it away to those lazy ne'er do wells who only want government handouts." Those who have not, just want access to healthcare for themselves and their family members.

This was crystallized this morning when I went on Facebook and a "friend" invoke the old Reagan line about "the welfare queen" and how she lives on the southside of Chicago (which implies that she's black) and gets $150,000 per year from the government through handouts and use of her four assumed names. Sure, there may be "welfare queens" who do abuse the system and I in no way condone their behavior, but there are also hardworking people who simply cannot afford health care coverage. There are also hardworking people with life threatening diseases who are either uninsurable or are forced to keep jobs for fear of not being able to get coverage from a new employer.

For those who opposed (and still oppose) healthcare reform, I'd be interested to see how they feel about "socialized" medicine and government handouts if they lose their jobs. Or when (and if) they reach age 65 and want to take advantage of "socialized" medicine in the form of Medicare and/or Medicaid.

Perhaps I'm a bleeding heart liberal, but I don't mind paying a little more in taxes to ensure that all American citizens have access to adequate health care. The racial and sexuality-based epithets that were thrown around over the weekend illuminated how important and necessary this reform really is. If it wasn't people would not have been so passionate about it. It wouldn't have been so divisive. This legislation has a 50/50 chance of failing. But if it fails, at least we know that we tried to fix a broken system.

American Caterwauling

"This... is American Caterwauling" should be the way Ryan Seacrest introduces American Idol.

What's become clear to me is that I watch American Idol for vastly different reasons than the producers of the show intend (in a nod to Stuart Hall's encoding/decoding). I like the show and watch, but it's not because I am looking for the next great artist, but because it is so ingrained in our pop culture sensibility that to not watch is to cut yourself off from the "water cooler sessions" the following morning. With the exception of Kelly Clarkson, Fantasia Barrino (which I bought and promptly sold at a used music store), Jennifer Hudson and Allison Iraheta, I've not purchased music from any other American Idol winner/finalist. The singers I like (and whose CDs I have purchased) all have one thing in common: they are belters.

I'll tackle the last point first. I like a good belter as much as the next gay, but American Idol has suffered from the desire to applaud singers who employ what I call vocal pyrotechnics. (I know, the argument could be made that Jennifer Hudson was given the boot relatively early, but Fantasia, another belter, went on to win the competition in one of the most mismatched American Idol finals in history). When a singer can hit a "glory note" that is reason for us to applaud him or her -- foregoing any sense of nuance related to singing. When someone sits and sings a slow song, it's deemed "sleepy" by the judges. But when someone like Season 9 contestant Siobhan Magnus hits notes, we stand up, cheer and take notice.

siobhan 12 @ Yahoo! Video

I admit, Siobhan delivered a WTF moment for me last night and we collectively forgot about most of the contestants who came before (or after) her because we have been trained to focus on things like, "wow, did you hear that note?" "he has a great falsetto," etc. rather than that was a really solid vocal. It seems that we want/expect "good singing" to be loud and long. In other words, can you hit a note and then make it last until we think you are within seconds of passing out from air deprivation? The thing most of us remember from Mariah Carey's early career is her ability to hit the "dog whistle" note, not that she is really a great singer and interpreter of music.

Healthcare in America

If there is any doubt that we need to seriously consider health care reform in America, here it is. This is truly sickening!

http://tinyurl.com/yj5gkom

Whose Fat is it Anyway?

I've listened to the debate over childhood obesity with interest. I've been interested because I am conflicted about how I really feel about the solutions that have been posited about "curing" childhood obesity.

My immediate "go to" is that parents need to take responsibility for what their children are putting into their mouths (and bodies) most of the time. Sure, kids are going to eat junk at school (and trade away or throw away the healthy options packed in their lunches), but parents can control what their children eat for breakfast and dinner. Parents also have the ability to limit what food they bring into the home because they buy it. I know that the counter argument here is that parents are busy and more homes than ever are run either by a single parent or two working parents. I grew up with two working parents as well. And you know what they did? On Sunday, they cooked for the whole week. That's what refrigerators and freezers are for. That's not to say that we didn't have junk food and fast food, but it was eaten in moderation. But we also were forced to go outside and play, which got us doing some kind of physical activity rather than sitting in front of a computer or game console for hours on end.

In other words, the media (and the Obama administration) are making the food manufacturers the evil bandit in this scenario. Which is not to say that the food manufacturers don't have some culpability but the last time I checked we were free to make choices about the foods that we eat. That was one of the thrusts behind giving more information on food labels (including fast food), so that we had the information about what we were putting into our bodies and could make decisions based on those labels. But the bottom line is that Coke, Frito Lay, McDonald's and all the other businesses that make junk food are publicly traded companies. If we stop buying, they stop making because they're all about making money and making their shareholders happy.

Taxing us into allegedly not wanting to purchase fattier foods is a lame idea as well. While it may have an impact, my hypothesis is that it'll largely affect lower income people who perhaps won't be able to afford to buy these fattier foods. So, we'll have a slew of higher income level obese people? What does that really help? But as we have seen with cigarettes, higher prices/taxes haven't really stopped people from smoking. In Chicago, when the tax on cigarettes was raised, many smokers drove to Indiana to "stock up" where the tax on cigarettes was not as high.

I think the real solution is to make healthier eating more affordable and accessible. I am grateful that I can afford to make healthier eating decisions, but I pay for the decision I make. Whenever I go to a healthier grocery store like Trader Joe's, Sprouts, or Central Market, I pay more. A bag of fruit is oftentimes more expensive than a bag of chips. A gallon of water is often the same price as a 2-liter of soda. The price of ground turkey escalates as the amount of fat decreases, which is more expensive than buying ground chuck or ground beef. A bag of almonds (with their anticarcinogen properties) is more expensive than a bag of candy. Trader Joe's, Sprouts, Central Market and other health food stores are often located in the tonier neighborhoods and communities -- and for good reason. The residents of those tonier parts of town can afford to shop there while if a person with less economic resources wants to shop there, there are the added costs of travel as well as the physical expense of buying the food. So, for many, it's cost prohibitive. That is not to say that the Dominick's, Randall's, Jewel's and Kroger's of the world don't offer healthier eating choices. But the fact is, it'll cost more. So, let's focus on that disparity and perhaps when healthier eating choices are more affordable, then people will chose that as an option more frequently than they do now.

What TV Teaches Us About Higher Education

I had a conversation with a friend yesterday about the notion of undergraduate education is a bit of a racket. The reason I believe this to be so is largely because we award degrees to students for completing a degree but we rarely have any deep understanding of the subject matter of our major. Most people don't necessarily use their degree to work in the field in which they are allegedly supposed to be "masters." Rather, I believe undergraduate education is designed to essentially reward those who can afford (or are willing to take on the debt) to attend college to get a degree in something. For instance, my second career was in public relations and those working in the field had degrees in English, Journalism, Business and other degrees that did not necessarily prepare them for a career in PR.

That haven't been said, undergraduate education is still important. And that was underscored in an episode of the new NBC show Parenthood in its second episode. In it, Sarah, played by Lauren Graham, is out of work and looking for a job. Through nepotism, she gets an interview with a company who ultimately chooses not to hire her because she doesn't have a college degree. (Skip ahead to 21:45 for the interview and 28:40 for the post-interview/decision call).

.

So it begs the question, what's so special about a college degree? My opinion is that it is a way to weed out less desireables. In every way, Sarah on Parenthood seemed to be qualified -- except that she doesn't have a college degree. That college degree kept her out of the club, even though she had the experience doing what she was being hired to do. The deficiency? She didn't have the stamp of approval from an institution of higher learning to show that she had paid a lot of money (or gone into a lot of debt) and "paid her dues" in order to gain admittance into "the club."

I believe that the educational system is rife with classism. But what TV shows like Parenthood teach us is that if we want to get ahead, we have to play the game. Afterall, the income disparity between American workers and CEOs, while down, was still 317 to 1 in 2009. And there are few CEOs that don't have college degrees.

Are White Dolls Worth More than Black Ones?

For our allegedly being in "post-racial" times (if we're supposed to believe the line the media feeds us), I am routinely astounded by some of the things I see/hear. We've seen/heard about studies that demonstrate that when presented with a black doll and a white doll, black girls most frequently chose the white doll. But these studies can often be dismissed because they happened "back in the day." Which is why I was so shocked to hear that Good Morning America replicated the study in 2009 and found that some, not all, of the devaluing of black dolls by black girls still existed in "modern times."



It's quite easy to shake our collective heads and discuss how fashion and fashion magazines often advance a Eurocentric image of beauty which can perhaps lead to lowered self esteem -- a nod to Charles Cooley's looking glass self concept which asserts that a person's sense of self is derived from the perceptions of others. Just like the reflections in a mirror, the self depends on the perceived responses of others. It was just a few months ago that many were outraged that Vanity Fair featured all white actresses on its "The New Hollywood" cover.

But then comes this story, also from ABC that showed that a Walmart, presumably in Louisiana, set the price of a Black doll at 50% of the cost of the White doll. The spokesperson quoted in the story asserts that the Black doll was on clearance while the White doll was not citing anecdotal sales lower sales figures for Black doll. In addition, the spokesperson cited a desire to clear out the inventory of the Black doll to make way for new spring inventory.

I tend to believe everything Walmart does is evil, but in this case their stated reasons may be true and their intentions may have been innocent, but it's important to realize the message delivered -- The Black doll is worth less than White doll. It's important to know that the message sent is not always the message received (remember the game of telephone from childhood?).

The One Where Meredith Vieira Does Not Like Man-on-Man Hugging

The places that one sees, if not homophobia, at least someone questioning male-to-male affection, is astounding. This from the Today Show wherein Meredith Vieira implies that two men hugging is cause for concern and essentially not normal. Her coded language is really saying, "That hug was really 'gay'. Are you gay?"

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I do like how Anthony Mackie shuts her down and essentially, to borrow a phrase from South Park, calls shenanigans on her ludicrous line of questioning. And kudos to Al Roker (words I never thought I'd type) for incredulously asking, "Why would you ask that?!?!?!?"



Why does our society still support such antiquated notions of masculinity? Why does this (or Adam Lambert's AMA performance) raise eyebrows in a way that two women hugging/celebrating doesn't?

Fiscal Responsibility vs The Poor

Today, the Senate voted not to pass a bill that would have provided 500,000 temporary jobs to youth in America as well as a $1.3 billion extension of enhanced subsidies for poor families with children. Essentially citing the need for more fiscal responsibility/deficit reduction, the John Kerry/Patty Murray amendment failed to pass with the needed 60 votes. There are many problems that I have with the failure to pass this bill, but what I think is most important to note is my belief that this is classism disguised as principle.

My belief is that the modern Republican party (and quite honestly the modern Democratic party) doesn't care about the underclass in America. Certainly a lot of their opposition also has to do with a general disdain for the Obama administration but I think it's easier for politicians to find a fake, yet logical-sounding reason (i.e. fiscal responsibility) to mask what they are really feeling (i.e. a disdain for all things poor).

This bill , if passed, would have impacted politicians or their families and friends in no way, shape or form. Their well-heeled friends and family have the connections to ensure that their children have summer jobs (ones that pay more than minimum wage).

The bill would have also provided subsidies for vulnerable families with children via the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. Again, not a constituent who truly matters to politicians. These families are not going to financially contribute to their next campaign and conventional wisdom says that poor people don't vote anyway or vote against their best interest.

I don't know the solution to our broken American political system. I do know that even as a middle class person, I don't feel like my interests are always reflected by the people I have voted for who are supposed to represent them. Part of the problem is that the people who run for public office are already wealthy enough such that they can afford to take time off from their jobs without pay (assuming they are not already politicians) to campaign and they are connected enough with well-heeled folk to gather donations. These people are theoretically wealthy enough already that they can't possibly really understand what it is like for Americans to live day-to-day. Maybe when we have a political system where money doesn't rule the day (which will likely never happen) we'll start to get people in office who represent the real Joe and Jane Q. Public.

Black Women and Hair

My mother is currently undergoing treatment for breast cancer. While undergoing chemotherapy, like most people, she lost her hair. As a man, it wasn't really a big deal to me, (I thought she had a great bald head and could, as Tyra Banks would say, "rock it!" but to her, it was a big deal.

Hair is so important to women (and to culture). As I mentioned in a previous post, hair, particularly among some black women, is of the utmost importance. I really started to notice how much hair meant to some women when I got stuck in an America's Next Top Model Cycle 6 hole a few weekends ago. Jade, a self proclaimed "biracial butterfly" kept belaboring the point that she didn't have long hair (skip to 1:11 and 1:30 in the video below for evidence).



Then I saw this photo from Huffington Post that showed a bald woman starting a fashion show in India.


The accompanying headline was "Bald Model Kicks Off Lakme Fashion Show." And it literally stopped me in my tracks. Without the qualifier "bald" the headline is unremarkable. We are to believe that something about baldness is remarkable. In this case we're supposed to say, "A bald model? It can't be done!" And ooh and ahh over the novelty of it all. Certainly, this could have been a PR stunt meant to drum up publicity, but the fact is that it worked. Why does hair equal femininity/femaleness in our culture? Why is hair, particularly long hair so rooted in ideas about attractiveness? When asked why she shaved her head, the model said she just felt like it. Maybe all women should just do what feels right to them when it comes to their hair rather than worrying about what others (particularly suitors) think.

And while it's often assumed (or at least theorized) that black women straighten their hair to submit to European ideas about beauty, it's interesting that in the film, Something New, that it is a white man who asks his black girlfriend why she wears a weave:

Brian: Can I ask you one more question?
Kenya: Hmm?
Brian: [grabs a piece of her hair] Can you take this off?
Kenya: [opens eyes] What do you mean?
Brian: I mean, its not a wig, right? But its not your real hair either, is it?
Kenya: [stares at him for a moment, then sits up] I can't believe you just asked me that.
Brian: I'm sorry, I'm just curious.
Kenya: Its a weave, if you must know. I thought you dated black girls.
Brian: They had real hair.
Kenya: I have real hair too.
Brian: Underneath?
Kenya: Yes, underneath!
Brian: So what, they just... they sew it in?
Kenya: Something like that.

The White Savior in Hollywood

Last night I got into a discussion about Sandra Bullock winning an Oscar(R) for her role in The Blind Side. The person with whom I had this argument railed against Sandra Bullock's win because she felt that it reinforced the idea of the "helpless black" waiting for a good white person to come and make their lives better.



Before I dive into any argument, I like Sandra Bullock and most of her work. I also liked her work in The Blind Side. That having been said, the movie, while based on a true story, does work to continue the stereotype that white people, and white people alone hold the power. The Touhy family, as depicted in the film, introduced Michael Oher to football (also perpetuating the myth that black people -- especially black men -- excel at sport, not academics) and gave him the tools to be able to succeed. In the film, he also came from a broken home where the father was not present and the mother was a drug addict. In fact, no black person was shown as being "upstanding" setting up what Herman Gray calls black exceptionalism as difference in his book Watching Race. "blackness is figured as cultural and personal qualities that transcend and, from the position of dominant spectatorship established... reinscribe whiteness as the normative site of everyday life... this exceptional blackness has to be harnessed and ultimately placed in the service of good (Gray, 168). In other words, in the cinematic adaptation of the story Michael Oher is made "good" by "white saviors" rather than by other blacks within the community from which he comes. And we must assume that the film largely gets it right as Michael Oher hasn't publicly said otherwise (at least not to my knowledge).

In movies like The Blind Side, blacks continue to be portrayed in ways that became ingrained in our cultural fabric during the Reagan era: uneducated, violent, and "welfare queens." That is certainly not to say that this is the only representation of black people in film, but with two of the most high profile movies of the year featuring black actors (Precious and The Blind Side) featuring the Reagan-ist depictions of blacks, it is worth paying attention to the images we are being shown and the ideology that is being reinforced by the film industry.

Movies and Financial Education

Here's a story for bankrate.com for which I was interviewed to discuss what movies teach us about money.

What is Maleness and Femaleness?

There's no need to rip out the front page when I say that we live in a gendered society. And even though we are more than 100 years past the events most often associated with the start of the Women's Rights Movement and about 50 years from the start of second wave feminism, gendering all things in life is, unfortunately alive and well.

As a male, I sometimes forget just how gendered society is and on the occasion that I do forget, it's usually something like the image for this week's cover of Life & Style magazine that slaps me back into reality. In the interest of framing, Life & Style is not The New Yorker. But with a circulation of nearly 500,000, it is certainly worth taking seriously from a media message dissemination perspective (not to mention the millions of people who at least see the headline as they are checking out at the grocery store).

This article is particularly egregious by implying that there are things that are uniquely male and those that are uniquely female -- namely haircuts. Or more to the point, it seems that the editors of Life & Style are implying that short hair equals masculine. While it extends far beyond the issue of race, the trailer from Chris Rock's film Good Hair, provides a great example of how hair is constructed as feminine.



Certainly, from a Marxist perspective one can look at hair as a capitalist endeavor that lines the pockets of beauticians and manufacturers (bourgeoisie) who specialize in hair extensions and weaves while simultaneously exploiting those (proletariat) women in other countries who sometimes cut their hair for religious reasons only to have it sold/used for capitalist reasons. And let's be clear, women of all races and ethnicities participate in this marketplace.

But beyond that, our society is set us as a host of binaries that always privilege one binary over the other: Men/Women. Heterosexual/Homosexual. White/Black. These binaries help us to frame things where we define things by what they are not. In other words, a woman is not a man or a homosexual is not heterosexual -- effectively setting up those things that are "not" as somehow deviant or less than the thing to which they are being compared.

So, why is Shiloh Jolie-Pitt considered less female because she has shorter hair? Why can't she rock a pair of jeans and a polo without having her "girlness" called into question? And most importantly, why would Life & Style question whether or not her (and her parent's) refusal to wholeheartedly adapt to gender norms might somehow harm her?

Certainly, Life & Style knows that news about Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt sells magazines, but they also have to be aware that they are helping to brainwash a nation of people into believing that by wearing certain things, or looking a certain way you are able (and rightly should) perform gender. And as icing on the cake, Life & Style also have a story about how Vienna "tricked" Jake on The Bachelor positioning her as cunning and sneaky -- but that's another conversation altogether.

Tiger Woods: Celebrity Endorsement Counterpoint

According to Chris Rojek, one of the reasons that the concept of celebrity has increased recently is because of the commodification of everyday life. And Tiger Woods, in addition to his status as a world class golfer, has also become a world class commodity -- that is, until it was revealed that he has had a number of extramarital affairs. According to some of his sponsors including Accenture, Gatorade and AT&T, this "lapse of judgment," "violation of his marriage," "battle with sex addiction," or whatever one wants to call it, has tarnished his once pristine, monogamously married image as a marketing gimmick. And as such, they have chosen to sever ties with him as a celebrity endorser.

Maybe I am among the minority of people who don't buy a product simply based on a celebrity endorsement, but marketing expert Robert Grede believes that it is still a great way to attract attention, create excitement for products, and build awareness among prospects and customers. So, perhaps those companies who have dropped Tiger Woods are not necessarily damning him and his actions per se as much as positioning [insert company name here] as a company that stands up for "traditional family values" and "the institution of marriage."

But while some, like Laura Kipnis assert that marriage is an equal-opportunity oppressor, trapping men and women in a life of drudgery, emotional anesthesia, and a tug-of-war struggle to balance vastly different needs, others believe marriage is an institution that needs to be preserved and protected (especially from the gays). These opposing positions largely support a Western ideology. Watch maker, Tag Heuer is continuing its use of Tiger Woods in its advertising, particularly in China, where the number of mistresses one has increases street cred.

But what really should be the test is whether anyone was less likely to drink Gatorade (or prohibit their children from doing so) simply because Tiger Woods, adulterer extraordinaire, endorses the product. Did it really come down to the fact that these companies were not seeing the return on investment from the Tiger Woods endorsement deal and this scandal provided an easy way out? After all, our culture is all about consumption and businesses are all about making money.

Sex and the Singing: American Idol and Gender

The real competition portion of American Idol starts tonight. As such, there has (for whatever reason) been a blitz of American Idol judges giving interviews about the show. One such interview was Randy Jackson appearing on the Ellen Degeneres Show. And while the interview was fairly inane one comment he made struck me: he said that they (the judges) wanted a girl to win this year. (Skip ahead to 1:50 in the video below)

And when you think about him favoring a girl to win and why he might say that, one only has to look at American Idol's track record. As Jon Caramanica points out in his New York Times piece, Idol's track record as a bonafide star-making machine has been spotty at best with Kelly Clarkson and Carrie Underwood the only winners who have emerged as real music stars. Other Idol successes include Chris Daughtry and Jennifer Hudson (although her singing success has been eclipsed by her success as an actress). So, it's really no wonder that Randy Jackson wants a girl to win (and my guess is that he'd like a white girl to win since Idol's success with girls of color has not been stellar either; see Fantasia and Jordin Sparks).

Arguably, American Idol has become less of a singing contest and more of a vehicle for exposure, thanks in large part to contestants who haven't even cracked the top 24 (or 36) like William Hung and General Larry Platt, but most damaging have been Chris Daughtry and Jennifer Hudson who finished seventh and fourth respectively -- who proved that you don't have to be named the next American Idol in order to achieve success. Jennifer Hudson went on to win almost every acting award imaginable for her role in Dreamgirls and Chris Daughtry, as front man of the band Daughtry, was one of the most successful artists of 2007.

With those two glaring exceptions to the rule and other Idol winners (and runner-ups) being dropped from their labels and heading to Broadway (Fantasia in The Color Purple, Ruben Studdard in Ain't Misbehavin', Diana DiGarmo in a host of Broadway productions, and Taylor Hicks in Grease) it makes sense that Idol would want to try to capture any remaining music industry cred by having a bonafide star emerge from the show. The problem isn't talent -- the person who emerges victorious on American Idol can always sing (despite the efforts of websites like Vote For the Worst) but that most bonafide musicians aren't auditioning for the show. When those who are voted off the show (or any reality show for that matter) claim that we'll hear from them again, in most cases we won't. And for those who thank their fans when they are voted off, you don't really have any fans. You have spectators and as we've seen with American Idol winners, just because millions of people voted for you to win the competition, those same millions are not going to go out and buy your record.

A Kiss is Still a Kiss: White Heteronormativity and the movie Valentine's Day

Garry Marshall you owe me $6!

Every bad experience is supposed to be a learning experience, right? So, I learned something from the cinematic crap fest called Valentine's Day. But I'm sure it's nothing that the writers, actors or producers expected me to get out of it. As someone who studies representation of both black people and gay people in media, I never expected Valentine's Day to shed any light on my studies, but it did -- and I guess that makes it worth the $6 I wasted seeing it. For the first half (or so) of this seemingly three hour movie I noticed that neither Jamie Foxx or Queen Latifah were getting any romantic play. Jamie Foxx's character was too cynical to be romantically involved and Queen Latifah's character was focused on her career. But then toward the end of the movie, Jamie Foxx became interested in Jessical Biel, culminating in an interracial kiss. The problem? "The kiss" was shot in such a way that you couldn't really see their lips becoming one, but just had the "idea" that they were kissing. I tried finding an image of said kiss, but when I put in the search terms Jamie Foxx Jessica Biel kiss, the first result was this and after scrolling through five pages still didn't see a screencap.


According to Erica Chito Childs, author of Fade to Black and White, "interracial stories may be appealing to show without mentioning race, and in particular, by showing interracial possibilities that promote the idea that society is color-blind while affirming the problems with crossing the color-blind color line." But by the way in which the sole interracial kiss was filmed in Valentine's Day, it shows that there is still taboo as well as perhaps some revulsion related to interracial couplings. And while the relationship was new, it's also interesting to note that they are one of the only couples not shown in bed together.

Viewers were also supposed to be shocked by Eric Dane's character's admission that he is gay and is subsequently in some kind of relationship with Bradley Cooper. The what, where or how of the relationship is never explained or defined but they're two gay characters in a movie so they must be together, right? But what is also cowardly about the portrayal of this relationship is that it is played solely for shock value. We were supposed to be shocked when we find out that Eric Dane is gay and then shocked again that Eric Dane and Bradley Cooper are a couple. And how do we know they are a couple? Because Bradley Cooper walks in and brushes a flower on Eric Dane's cheek while he's sleeping. When Eric Dane awakes they don't kiss, they just look at each other lovingly and then we fade to the next scene. While every other couple (including high school students) is shown kissing at some point.

I don't expect gayness in every movie I see (in fact, I'd probably hate it) but when you are going to have gay characters, at least have them kiss and don't just use it as a tactic to (allegedly) shock your audience. It very well may have been a shot at inclusiveness (after all, Valentine's Day is a film with a multicultural cast), but don't include a gay couple and then cop out. Sure, it may have outraged a few heterosexual viewers whose delicate palate is offended by seeing two dirty homos kissing (unless it's Jessica Biel and Jessica Alba or two equally hot women), but either go all the way or leave it out. Frankly, Valentine's Day was so craptastic, that it could have been left out entirely and the movie would have remained its level of crappiness.

Modern Day "Brownface"

When I was on vacation in Amsterdam late last year (shortly before the American Christmas holiday), I began to notice blackface dolls in storefront windows. Later in the trip, I asked a tour guide what it was all about and she retold the story of "Black Pete" who is a servant of Saint Nicholas. There are several stories about Black Pete. One is that his face is black because the Dutch expect the face of the devil to be black. Another story has Black Pete punishing bad children. Still another story purports that Black Pete is the one who actually places gifts for Saint Nicholas (and subsequently that his face is black because from sliding down the chimney, which covers his face in black soot). In current times (as when I was in Amsterdam) Black Pete's face isn't so much black as it is brown, presumably to get away from the idea of blackface. Aside from this representation of Black Pete, I (idiotically, apparently) thought blackface was largely a thing of the past since people like Ted Danson found out that most people (especially black people) don't see the "LOL" potential of blackface these days.


So, imagine my surprise when I saw this photo spread from L’Officiel Hommes, a men's French fashion magazine from 2010.


Are there really not enough black male models? I think not. And perhaps it's just for the sake of creating controversy because certain segments of the internet are abuzz about this photo spread. If that is/was the aim, then mission accomplished. But what it says is that in the high fashion modeling industry, black still isn't good enough. Despite Tyra Banks' best efforts with America's Next Top Model, there are just not a lot of black people who grace the pages of fashion magazines. The cover of Vanity Fair's most recent cover featured thin, white actresses as the future of Hollywood. What this recent attack means is that not only are blacks not good enough to be featured in fashion (along with women who are heavier than a size 6) but even when (on the rare occasion) an editorial calls for people of color they aren't even good enough to fill those few slots.

Some could make the argument that we are living in a post-racial world now that American has elected an African American president -- to which I say BULLSHIT! Try telling a black man (who is not the biracial Barack Obama) that race no longer matters. Even as a reasonably well-educated black man, no one can convince me that race no longer matters. Tell me we are post-racial when the woman on the "El" in Chicago gets up and moves to a different car when I sit down within 20 feet of her. Try telling me we are post-racial when the woman clutches her purse when I get onto the elevator with her.

Although we rarely do this is any way that has real impact, it's time for us to get outraged about our failure to have a real, honest conversation about race and ethnicity. We will always be plagued by these problems unless we get it all out in the open. Once we have had an honest conversation about race, we'll understand why brownface is as offensive as blackface and instead of giving people a forum to use it to titillate and intrigue us, we'll just yawn and look the other way and dismiss it for the publicity stunt that it is.

Pop Culture and the Familiar: Take 2

Another example, courtesy of Entertainment Weekly, of Hollywood's constant recycling of ideas. Not only was The Last Dragon a terrible (if black cult classic) movie, and the argument can be made that Vanity couldn't act, so why not throw Rhianna at the film, but can we please get something new at the cineplex? Please?!?!?!?!?!?

Joseph Stack, Politics and Celebrity

Celebrity is a crazy and arbitrary thing. Joseph Stack entered a realm of celebrity today when he crashed his plane into the IRS building in Austin. Before today, the public at large knew nothing about Slack. His six-page suicide note details a man who has railed against big, corrupt government and taxation for nearly 30 years. His act has spurred (as of this writing) 10 Facebook groups, many of which position him as a hero.

But Slack offers an opportunity to look at the creation of celebrity. To paraphrase Chris Rojek, transgression is a tried and true route to acquire celebrity and Joseph Stack has become an overnight notorious celebrity-- at least for the short term. What appears to be a solo act of frustration with taxation has been co-opted into a treatise on all that is wrong with the way taxes and government work in our country. And many people, myself included, believe that there is something wrong with the way our government is run, but I believe it often boils down to the idea that as Americans we are lured by the concept of politician as celebrity, not who will do the best job per se.

Television forever changed the way we elect public officials. The overarching complaint most people had with Al Gore during his run as president was that he wasn't charismatic. What does that really have to do with whether or not he would be a good, effective leader? Barack Obama is certainly smart and charismatic but the jury is still out on how his presidency will be remembered. We've never had a truly unattractive president since the dawn of the TV age and we've also never had an obese president (although some of the Clinton Big Mac years got very close). So, in effect, we vote for the most popular one, who also sometimes happens to be the one with whom we'd most like to have a beer.

In a week, we will have forgotten all about this incident (if it even takes that long) but for now, Joseph Stack has become a celebrity and the face for the Tea Party movement to signify all that is wrong with government as people, particularly small business owners, decry the injustice of being "taxed twice." And we will continue to vote for the one who is most attractive and charismatic while continuing to get the same result while expecting something different -- which coincidentally is the definition of insanity.

Pop Culture and the Familiar

As consumers of pop culture and media we often decry that we want something new and unique -- something we haven't seen before. But our consumption practices often tell us differently. When I looked at the grosses for Broadway shows in New York for the past week, I was struck at how few shows are original. In fact, of the top 10 grossing shows, only one, In the Heights, is an original show. The top 5? Wicked (based on a book), The Lion King and Billy Elliot (based on a movies), West Side Story (revival and a retelling of Romeo and Juliet) and Jersey Boys (based on songs made famous by The Four Seasons). One could certainly argue that Broadway theater is hardly the barometer of taste and class, so let's look at movies.

Avatar was such a worldwide hit that we are going to get a second cup of Avatar. Despite being essentially called a cinematic crap fest by most critics, Valentine's Day beat expectations to be the number one film at the box office last week largely because we "know" the boldface stars whose names appear on the marquee. We are constantly subjected to movies based on books, stage musicals (mostly with little success) and remakes of old movies (see Eat, Pay, Love; Iron Man 2, and Alice in Wonderland, just to name a few).

We even see this replication of the old in music. We Are The World was remade to show support for Haiti, Alicia Keys "remade" Empire State of Mind without the rap from Jay-Z. And it extends outside of rap or R&B. Even Feist remade Nina Simone's See Line Woman as Sea Lion Woman (all in the pronunciation, I guess).





We often reject things that are new (contrary to the lip service we pay to wanting new things). With very few exceptions, television repeats the same formula. How many shows have we seen that employ the hot wife/sloppy husband construct? How many four female friends (the smart/witty one, the slutty one, the dumb one and the bitchy one) have we seen? Even one of my current favorite shows, Glee is a bit of a rehash in the sense that it is pretty close in premise to High School Musical.

All this is not to say that a rehash or cover or remake is inherently bad, but it does beg the question: where's all the new stuff that we are supposed to consume. Or maybe dissonance theory has it right because it asserts that new information causes people mental discomfort.