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.  

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.

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?"     

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. 

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.  

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?)

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."

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.

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."