Tuesday, February 23, 2010

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.

Monday, February 22, 2010

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.

Thursday, February 18, 2010

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.

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

New Blog: American Idol and Celebrity Familiarity

First and foremost, the word "celebrity" is being used very loosely when talking about American Idol -- it is more appropriate to call them celetoids because their fame is most often compressed and concentrated. More brilliantly put (thanks to Chris Rojek), "celetoids are the accessories of cultures organized around mass communications and staged authenticity." But that is not the purpose of this blog post. It's to talk about the idea of celebrity and familiarity as it relates to American Idol. As I sat watching American Idol last night I realized that the show is not necessarily about singing talent. Presumably as the judges whittle the contestants down to the 24 finalists, they all have some degree of talent. But as I watched last night's two-hour episode (thank god for the DVR!) I realized how little singing there was and how much "back story" there was or humanizing the contestants. So we hear more about the girl who has brothers with Down Syndrome or the guy whose wife delivered a baby while hew as away at his audition for American Idol. Which begs the question: Why do we care?

The answer is that in our culture we have a desire to "know" celebrities -- which is why there is no shortage of entertainment media that look at the minutiae of a celebrity's life so we can see how they are "just like us" -- except more talented and wealthier, but they're just like us! But what we never (or rarely) consider is that these people (through the producers of American Idol) are framing their celebrity for us. The theory is that we are more apt to buy music from (or at least vote for) this person if we know that they overcame some adversity or if they are a "good guy or gal." But as we have seen on several occasions when dealing with the celetoids of American Idol, long lasting fame is often fleeting. Anyone remember Tamyra Gray from Season 1 or Latoya London from Season 3? How about John Stevens, also from Season 3? All have released records and none have achieved anything that could be called success as singers. (Tamyra Gray is allegedly writing and producing and Latoya London was in The Color Purple -- it seems theatre/Broadway seem to be the refuge of Idol contestants -- see Diana DiGarmo, Ace Young, Taylor Hicks, Fantasia, Ruben Studdard, Frenchie Davis, Clay Aiken and probably a ton more that I can't remember.

Monday, February 15, 2010

New Blog: Joe the Plummer was Used, Used I Say!

Sam Wurzelbacher (a.k.a. Joe the Plumber) has come to the realization that he was used by John McCain during the 2008 presidential campaign. And in the vein of all attention-seeking fauxlebrities (I'm looking at you Kate Gosselin), he feels the need to "speak out."

There are two issues at play here. First, I can't imagine that he is vapid enough to just have come to the realization that he was merely a mascot for John McCain's campaign. But second, and perhaps more importantly, the general premise of his argument doesn't hold water. Had John McCain not "used" him, he wouldn't be a fauxlebrity and he would be just another guy trying to make it in tough economic times. So, to trash John McCain (and Sarah Palin) is disingenuous, at best.

Third, Joe the Plumber "speaking out" illuminates another issue we have with media and our cultural obsession with celebrity. Media reports on these seemingly inane stories for our mass consumption. Theoretically, the media is giving us what we want because if they reported it and no one watched or read or otherwise paid attention, they'd move on to something else, but we've never really been good at consuming what is good or right for us.

Framing Phobias

Whether we will admit it or not, media, at its core, works to frame events for us. Most often, news media works to frame blackness as a symbol of deviance, destruction and generally all things horrible. And as sociologist Herman Gray notes in his fantastic book Watching Race, "... the demonization of blackness -- welfare queens, the aggressive black female, the menacing black criminal -- in the public sphere of media spectacle... enables[s] the mobilization of counterimage of blackness -- the figure of individuality, competence, exceptionalism -- as difference." (See Harry Reid's comment about President Obama for more on how educated blacks are framed as different than "others."

In addition to this framing of blackness as menacing, the news media also work to frame phobias for us. Erica Chito Childs, in her book Fade to Black and White, asserts that the media frame fear of interracial relationships for us and that whenever these unions occur three things happen:

1) The relationship is often doomed from a long-term perspective;
2) The white person in the relationship is shown to be somehow deviant; and
3) The opposition to the interracial relationship is centered on black opposition rather than white opposition.

It's this third point that is most important for the purposes of this post. This framing can also be used as a way to look at homophobia. There is, without a doubt, homophobia that exists among white people. We see it nearly everyday in evangelicals and conservatives using scripture to denounce gay rights or by using "slippery slope" arguments about how gay rights will create a social Apocalypse. And one can either agree or disagree on their position by saying they are right or wrong -- and it is largely determined on where you stand on social issues. But it's the framing of black opposition that is sometimes the most telling.

While the video embedded below does not feature blacks, it's important to know that most people (particularly Americans) make no distinction for black skin and blacks are thereby implicated by the video. In addition, while homophobia among whites is framed as being either a religious issue or one related to income or education level, all blacks are often stereotyped as being homophobic. Despite efforts like the ad campaign launched last week on Long Island, there is still a long way to go to get the media to stop framing events so that we can stop relying on stereotypes to label people.

Friday, February 12, 2010

The Importance of the Written and Spoken Word

In school we were told that the construction of survey questions is very important. We're told to focus the questions, make them as brief and clear as possible. And while there isn't a ton of emphasis put on the actual words you're using (other than to say that you must use words that most people would be able to define) the results of this survey by New York Times/CBS shows researchers that they might want to pay a little more attention to word selection. You see, the approval for allowing gay or homosexual people to serve in the military depends on what you call them. The poll found that 70 percent of those polled favor (either strongly favor or somewhat favor) allowing gay men and lesbians to serve in the military while only 59 percent of respondents favor (either strongly favor or somewhat favor) allowing homosexuals to serve in the military.




I heard Michelangelo Signorile posit that the numbers could be lower because the word "homosexual" mentions the word sex and makes respondents think about sex between two men (because that presumably is where the mind goes for images of repulsion, rather than lesbian sex). I'm not so sure that I completely agree with his argument, but what I think the real takeaway for researchers as well as people in general is that words matter. We have to be a lot more careful about the words we use in order to clearly convey what we really want to say. Some people brush things off as being purely about semantics, but as this poll shows, it's not just semantics, some words truly rub people the wrong way and cause them to react more negatively.

Thursday, February 11, 2010

Follow up to Marriage Equality Post

This video is really disturbing because it really points (again) to the sheer arbitrariness of the government sanctioned definition of marriage.

Is this the Institution of Marriage We're Supposed to be Protecting?

Marriage equality seems to most often be a fight happening in the courtrooms and at the ballot boxes in America. And we've had seen celebrities like Sarah Silverman say that she will not get married until all people are allowed to get married. And on one hand, it's a very noble stand to take. However, I have to take my hat off to an Orlando artist, Brian Feldman, who simply said he was willing to marry any woman who showed up at the courthouse to shed light on the idiocy of excluding gay men and lesbians from the institution.




There is no way that he can legally be stopped from marrying a total stranger who is also a woman. There (presumably) is no mention of love or no mention of him being selective in any way. He didn't say the woman needed to be attractive, needed to want to start a family or anything -- just be willing to get married to him. Is it a publicity stunt, sure. But the best publicity stunts are the ones that make us laugh and then make us think. If two complete strangers can go get a marriage license and then get married, what is really the harm in allowing to adults of the same sex to do so as well?

Many will argue that marriage is the building block of the family structure to which I have two counterpoints: 1) there are children born every day to single women and are often raised without contact from their biological father; and 2) there are couples who simply choose not to have children even when they are married. In fact, according to a 2007 Pew Research Center survey, Forty-one percent of Americans said children are "very important" to a successful marriage -- down from from 65 percent in 1990.

Lastly, and I think this is the most important point of all, who does it really bother and how are individuals affected? If there are hundreds of thousands of gay and lesbian married couples in the world, how does that affect any of us? If we are heterosexual, does allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry destabilize our relationships? I don't think it logically can (unless you were married to a person who had same sex attraction to begin with).

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

The Duggars and Celebrity Culture

I've never watched the Duggars on television or really even read an article about them, but like Jon & Kate, the Kardashians and a host of other reality show stars, they manage to work their way into our collective pop culture conscience. While in Target yesterday, I saw a story on People Magazine that said (in all caps) that the Duggars were Under Fire! and asked "How Many Kids are Too Many?"  So, the first question I was compelled to ask is why is it anyone's business?  From all accounts the Duggars don't seem to be relying on any form of public assistance to raise their children.  Nor do they seem to be an unfit job at raising the children they already have.  The second question I am compelled to ask is why are the Duggars even on our cultural radar?

The brilliant Chris Rojek explains the reason that we have so many, what I like to call "fauxlebrities" and he calls celetoids in our culture.  He says 1) Democratization has simultaneously expanded low and middle brow taste cultures and enlarged the pool of celebrities; 2) everyday life has been commodified so much that information about celebrities is always present; and 3) religion has declined and we now worship celebrity in a way that approximates religion.  

Which brings me back to my initial question about why we know about the Duggars in the first place? Afterall, they're just a family with 19 children.  Why does that warrant celebrity status being bestowed upon them?
The short (and honest) answer is that it doesn't.  But in a country where most people have two or three children, having 19 stands out (freakishly so) and as Americans we love nothing more than a spectacle.And as soon as we grow tired of the Duggars and their "act" of having 19 children, we'll be on to the next freakish act and the Duggars (and their 19 children) will be long forgotten.

Monday, February 8, 2010

The Super Bowl as a Family Event

According to Evin Daly, founder and CEO of Child AbuseWatch, "The Super Bowl is a family-oriented show." And for the sake of this piece, I'll allow that statement to go uncontested. So, if the Super Bowl is a family event (as we learned when Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake conspired to flash us a little boob), and we want to protect our children from spontaneous nudity, why don't we want to also protect said children from the violence of the game, overt sexuality and beer ads?

Let's first tackle (no pun intended) the violence on the Super Bowl. One could assert that the game itself is violent and I would agree with that, but the violence associated with the Super Bowl extends to its ads. As cleverly shown in this montage, the ads promote violence and oftentimes outside of the context of any kind of sport.



My argument is not that The Super Bowl is bad or evil or too violent, rather it's a matter of consistency. If children are allegedly unharmed by the violence portrayed in Super Bowl ads, then they are not going to be harmed by the violence in ads on a day-to-day basis.

Now, on to the overt displays of sexuality and the moral outcry that ensued after the infamous "wardrobe malfunction." First, as an adult male who watched the Super Bowl and halftime show, I didn't even know what I saw until after all the pandemonium erupted over a bare breast on television. How was glimpsing what we, at the time thought was Janet's breast any different than watching cheerleaders or the ladies from Victoria's Secret ads? And how would that be any different from showing an ad for a gay dating website?

And lastly, we have beer ads. While no one would consider me to be a prude, the ads promote drinking, which of course our children should be protected from.



Or should they? We never hear any brouhaha over beer ads, or Victoria Secret ads, or violence on the Super Bowl. So, remind me again why we raise a stink about a little boob or this morning why even the sleepy halftime show featuring The (Geriatric) Who is getting flack (because of the 2003 admission by lead guitarist Pete Townshend that he had downloaded sex photos of children onto his computer).

The Marketing of Music

I just finished reading a great article sent to me by a friend about the whole Taylor Swift sucks as a live artist thing from the Grammys and then the brouhaha continued when her manager foolishly tried to come to her defense by saying she is an artist and one who connects with her audience and has millions of record sales to prove it. One of the problems I "generally" have with that statement is that something being popular doesn't mean it's good.

While Taylor Swift caterwauled her way through her song, other, less popular acts (like the underrated P!nk) delivered performances that were worthy of being on the Grammys. And while it's OK to, as a singer, get better with time (Even someone like Jennifer Hudson, would probably agree if you told her that some of her earlier live performances left something to be desired) that's still no excuse for crap performances. After all, Taylor Swift, like it or not, is still considered a professional musician.

In music, I don't think people are always expected to be great singers (see Sheryl Crow, PJ Harvey and even Beyonce) but they are expected, to borrow a term from the British TV show of the same name, to have that X factor. In fact, lesser singers, who may also be talented songwriters and musicians, tend to have more (monetarily) successful careers than "artists." Take the case of Alice Smith, who I believe can sing Beyonce under the table any day, but she has such a minuscule following even though her voice is fantastic (in my opinion). Or even, going a little closer to Beyonce's home, her sister Solange has an equally good voice as her big sister, but her career has largely stalled while Beyonce's has flourished.

What it boils down to is that music is not really about the voice, it's about how it's marketed to the masses. And as humans, we tend to have a group think mentality. If the almighty Oprah tells us that something "changed her life" we'll go out and buy it en masse. (See Leona Lewis' first week sales for her first CD vs. first week sales for her follow-up; also see sales for Kelly Clarkson's Breakaway vs. its follow-up My December). Taylor Swift isn't a great live singer, and that's OK. That won't diminish her success among those who already worship at the Church of Taylor Swift, but it's disingenuous to defend her crappy live singing by saying she had an off night or there were issues with her earpiece. Many artists have issues with earpieces in live performances (see Jennifer Hudson at the Grammys in 2009) but if they have the talent to sing, the can sing regardless of earpiece issues.


Sunday, February 7, 2010

The Super Bowl and Stereotypes of Gay Black Men

I visited the blog Joe.My.God as I often do on a daily basis for gay news and came across a post that featured a video from In Living Color and their Men On... skit with a Super Bowl Theme.  One on hand, I must admit that when watching this skit as a young child, I never thought twice about it.  The skits made me uncomfortable as a gay young man (although I couldn't yet articulate that I was gay) but I thought nothing of the depiction the show constructed of gay black men.



My problems with the skit originated much later in life when I began to study representations of minority groups on television. Some people, on the rare occasion that I post comments on blogs, dismiss me as being overly analytical and in the case of this video assumed that no one looked to In Living Color to provide role models. And while that may be true that no one is actively seeking a role model from the show, the reinforcement of negative stereotypes about gay men (and black gay men specifically) cannot be brushed aside.

Noted cultural scholar and sociologist Herman Gray in his fantastic book Watching Race says, "This sketch and others features Antoine and Blaine activate and engage crucial debates about identity, sexuality, and desire within the discourse of blackness. Although the sketches are not specifically about gay black men, the body, dress, language and gestures are deliberately organized to construct and covey something about the characters' identities. Moreover, and perhaps this helps to account for their resonance, these parodies and the strategies of representations on which they depend join historical contemporary debates and representations in the black community about homophobia, black men, masculinity, sexuality and drag queens."

I believe that whether we want to believe it or not, television is a major socialization factor for us. It teaches us how to be and how not to be. Representations like those found in the Men On... sketches from In Living Color help to underscore why gay men and women are (and should remain) second-class citizens. Men On... makes gay men effeminate (in both demeanor and dress) and lecherous and helps some in the show's largely black audience reinforce their hatred for all things gay.

Collective Memory

Politicians and television talking heads, particularly right-leaning ones, have often talked about how things were so much better and simpler in times gone by. And while this Daily Show video lambastes Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly, we're all a little guilty of mis-remembering events in our lives.  Cultural theorist Maurice Halbwachs gives us clues about how (and why) we think this were better than they actually are through his theory of collective memory.  Halbwachs was chiefly concerned with the ways in which we recount and mythologize the past.  He believed that the only way that past is made relevant for us is by social institutions (like the media) and collective actions of commemoration and festivals.

Even more disturbing is the opening speech at the Tea Party Convention given by former Republican congressman Tom Tancredo.  He believed that literacy tests as a prerequisite to being able to vote were a good thing.  What he fails to "remember" in his remembering how these literacy tests ensured that we had educated people voting is that blacks were denied all sorts of civil rights in addition to just being prohibited from voting.  Let's see... what could have possibly been happening to blacks when they were being denied the right to vote?  Umm, being routinely hosed down in the streets with high-powered hoses.  Oh yeah, another example is being lynched... and... one last one, having to endure a far inferior educational system (although schools have effectively been re-segregated thanks to differences in socio-economic status and "white flight" from urban schools).

Haiti is another example of collective memory.  This excellent essay remembers the facts of Haiti and why it is one of the poorest countries in the world -- not because Haitians are some kind of slackers, but because America (the very country now coming to its aid and trying to rewrite history) has had their foot on the necks of Haitians for decades.   

What we must work to do is remember events as they were and not as we'd like them to be. That is the best way for us to be more informed world citizens and not be told what to think by "the machine."

Saturday, February 6, 2010

Bisexual Characters on TV

Here is a story for which I was interviewed about bisexual characters on TV.

What TV Characters Teach Us About Money

Here's an article where I was interviewed about what TV characters teach us about money for mint.com.

Friday, February 5, 2010

Weight a Minute

Full Disclosure: I am not a woman or a teenage girl. But I do pay attention to media messages and while I have been known to abstractly discuss issues regarding body issues among friends, I can rarely point to specific instances because they all tend to blur. On my Facebook page, I railed against Giuliana Rancic for comments she made to Kathy Griffin who essentially said she looked good because she was starving herself to which Giuliana replied that it didn't matter as long as she looked good. I vented about it and then I got over it. Well my dander was raised again last night upon watching Project Runway. On one hand, we know that runway models are tinier than most women and that when fashion designers choose to use what they call "normal" sized models (whatever the hell that is) a controversy ensues. But it somehow rubbed me the wrong way to have designers on a reality TV show bitching about having to work with "real women." The first slap down is, "Hello! You're on a reality show known for challenges designed to stress you out!" and then secondly, do you plan to make ANY money as a designer? If the answer is yes, then you're going to have to make things in a larger size than a 2.

What it boils down to is that it says that if you are a woman and can't fit into a sample size (usually a 2 or 4) that somehow fashion is not for you. To watch many of the designers struggle to make a dress that flattered a woman who isn't shaped like a prepubescent boy was truly infuriating. And when Tyra Banks allows "plus sized" models on America's Next Top Model (although no winner has ever really reached the "top") it reinforces the problem. Tyra Banks will often say she is trying to change the industry, but what she ends up doing when these women like Whitney (the eventual winner of Cycle 10) or Tocarra (from Cycle 3) are in the competition is reinforce the idea that they shouldn't be in high fashion because the designers with whom they are working often don't have any clothes (or unflattering ones) that will fit them.

Thursday, February 4, 2010

Quality as a Brand Attribute

For decades, American consumers have haughtily disavowed American auto makers as being less well built/crafted than their foreign counterparts. Toyota was one of the beneficiaries of that sentiment. I even considered purchasing a Toyota, but opted for a Ford because two of my sisters, a brother-in-law and two ex-brother-in -laws all work for Ford and my father and my uncle retired from Ford. I bought my Ford Focus not necessarily because I wanted it, but because it gets great gas mileage and I could get a great discount through my father. But, it turns out that Toyota, like most of its counterparts is having issues with quality. Yes, American cars have suffered from quality issues for quite some time, but maybe now we'll start looking again at American made cars, like the Ford Focus which is made by an American company and is actually made in the United States. In the short term, American auto makers really have a prime opportunity to take back some of the market share from Toyota in the long term. The fact is, Toyota is -- and will remain -- a leader in the auto industry, but American automakers have been give a gift in a bit of leveling of the playing field. It's now up to them to take advantage of that opportunity.

This Senator Brought to You By...

As Americans, we like to pride ourselves on the idea that we live in a democracy. Our elected officials are (theoretically at least) acting in the best interest of "the people." But it's become increasingly clear that our elected officials don't really work in our best interest and have their own interests (or reelection) at heart. That is why while this Huffington Post story is disheartening, it's not surprising at all. Coupled with the recent (boneheaded) decision by the Supreme Court to allow unlimited corporate contributions to political campaigns, I'm afraid that the "traditional" idea of democracy is dead and that the idea of buying an election truly just became a reality.


I believe that most people are unwilling to take the time to educate themselves about political issues and rely on 1) soundbites from their favorite 24-hour news channel and 2) political ads. In other words, it's a dark day for "the people" that a democracy is supposed to represent. So, it makes sense that all politicians are looking to get on the good side of corporations who can dig into their deep pockets in November and buy an election for them. Meanwhile, we the people, are being sold down the river.