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.
Showing posts with label sexuality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sexuality. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Hottentot Minaj
Labels:
blackness,
comedy,
Cultural Theory,
femininity,
media,
pop culture,
race,
relationships,
sexuality,
television
Friday, July 2, 2010
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.
Labels:
bias,
Cultural Theory,
entertainment,
gay,
gender,
homosexuality,
pop culture,
sexuality,
stereotypes,
television
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
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.)
Labels:
Cultural Theory,
gay,
homosexuality,
music,
sexuality,
stereotypes,
television
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.
Labels:
celebrity,
Cultural Theory,
entertainment,
gay,
homosexuality,
media,
music,
pop culture,
race,
sexuality
Monday, June 28, 2010
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?"
Labels:
bias,
Cultural Theory,
education,
gay,
homosexuality,
law enforcement,
media,
news,
politics,
sexuality,
The Supreme Court
Friday, May 28, 2010
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.
Labels:
blackness,
classism,
Cultural Theory,
ethnicity,
feminism,
homosexuality,
interracial,
marriage,
media,
relationships,
sexuality
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.
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.
Labels:
bias,
feminism,
gender,
marriage,
movies,
pop culture,
relationships,
sexuality
Sunday, May 16, 2010
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.
Labels:
gay,
homosexuality,
media,
movies,
pop culture,
sexuality,
stereotypes,
television
Monday, May 10, 2010
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.
Labels:
bias,
classism,
CNN,
Cultural Theory,
gay,
homosexuality,
media,
news,
pop culture,
relationships,
sexuality
Thursday, April 29, 2010
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.
Labels:
Cultural Theory,
gay,
homosexuality,
marriage,
pop culture,
religion,
sexuality
Monday, April 26, 2010
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.
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.
Labels:
Archie,
Cultural Theory,
education,
entertainment,
gay,
homosexuality,
interracial,
marriage,
media,
movies,
music,
news,
pop culture,
race,
relationships,
sexuality
Monday, April 19, 2010
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
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/17/us/politics/17hospitals.html
Labels:
Cultural Theory,
health care,
homosexuality,
marriage,
media,
politics,
pop culture,
relationships,
sexuality,
stereotypes
Friday, April 2, 2010
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)
Labels:
Cultural Theory,
education,
gay,
homosexuality,
media,
news,
pop culture,
sexuality,
stereotypes
Monday, March 29, 2010
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."
Labels:
celebrity,
Cultural Theory,
entertainment,
gender,
media,
music,
news,
pop culture,
sexuality,
television
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.
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.
Labels:
American Idol,
celebrity,
Cultural Theory,
entertainment,
gender,
media,
music,
pop culture,
sexuality
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.
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.
Labels:
blackness,
celebrity,
Cultural Theory,
entertainment,
ethnicity,
gay,
homosexuality,
interracial,
media,
movies,
pop culture,
sexuality,
stereotypes
Monday, February 15, 2010
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.
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.
Labels:
blackness,
branding,
Cultural Theory,
entertainment,
ethnicity,
homosexuality,
interracial,
media,
news,
pop culture,
race,
sexuality,
television
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.

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.
Labels:
Cultural Theory,
gay,
homosexuality,
media,
pop culture,
semantics,
sexuality,
stereotypes
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.
Labels:
Cultural Theory,
gay,
homosexuality,
marriage,
pop culture,
relationships,
sexuality
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).
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).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

