Hottentot Minaj

This is a photo of Sara Baartman, also colloquially known as the Hottentot Venus. In 19th Century Europe, she was exhibited as a "freak show" where white Europeans marveled at the (alleged) size and shape of her buttocks. So what does the Hottentot Venus have to do with Nicki Minaj?  The commonality is that Minaj embodied the past stereotype of the Hottenton Venus of the 21st Century on last week's Saturday Night Live.

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. 

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.  

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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).

Is Monogamy an Outdated Concept?

My initial response upon reading this story in The New York Times about monogamy in gay relationships was to wonder whether or not this was research to substantiate a long-held stereotype regarding promiscuity, particularly about gay men. And I've been around the block enough times to know two things about research 1) many subjects will tell you what they think you want to hear, and 2) a researcher can find research (even among numbers) to substantiate his or her initial hypothesis.

But upon looking at a post on Facebook from a friend and looking at the responses he received, the jury was split. Many think that monogamy is an outdated and unrealistic goal for marriage, while others believe it to be a cornerstone of a functional relationship.

Then upon re-reading the article, I changed my frame of thinking. I think the central issue here is the idea that culturally, we equate sex with love rather than as something carnal. Most people have at one point or another had sex with someone they don't love (and in some cases don't really even know). So, if we can have these carnal expressions and have them be no big deal, then why is monogamy such a cornerstone of long term committed relationships?

The chief researcher, Colleen Hoff, a psychologist and director of The Center for Research on Gender and Sexuality at San Francisco State University makes the distinction that, "with straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating,but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations.”

I think the takeaway is that as we hear people saying that marriage needs to be strengthened (by excluding gay men and women from the institution), what perhaps needs to happen is a reexamination of what the institution really means in modern times.

As Joe Quirk, author of the best-selling relationship book, "It's Not You, It's Biology" says "In 1900, the average life span for a U.S. citizen was 47. Now we’re living so much longer, ‘until death do us part’ is twice as challenging."