What's curious about the new roles lesbians are playing in popular culture?
What changes do you map yourself?
What experiences have you had seeing these things change in your own lifetime?
How do you mark these changes?
Which lesbians are these anyway?
What does Gever have to say about all this?
Is visibility good? Why or why not?
15 comments:
Violated Assumptions in Entertaining Lesbians
1.One violated assumption I had in this text is that because lesbians were seeking certain in rights in certain aspects of their lives, that somehow visibility would be desirable. Usually visibility is a source of power, through seeing as Gever looks into in her first chapter, any struggling group in a hierarchically structured environment, might thrive because it can gain following through viewing. In Gever’s introduction though, she says that some feminist lesbians opposed the concept of overexposure and condemned the celebrity lesbian.
2. I also find it interesting that Gever has decided through her text to approach these topics on the lesbian celebrity by setting aside “questions of desire and identification” (3). I think that desire and identification, especially identification, is vital to understand how lesbian celebrities or the ideologies formed around the lesbian celebrity gains such a following, and how it develops based on how society identifies with mass media and these images.
3. …I did not know that Cher’s daughter is a lesbian. Also, although I understand the difficulties one may go through with coming out, I would think that with a mother like hers it would have been easier for her to do so. But I also understand that with a Republican father, this may have been a better way to handle her identity at that time.
1.) On page 14 it mentions that Margareth Cammermeyer was discharged because of her sexual orientation. I know that the “don’t ask don’t tell policy” exists, however, one would assume that any person who is brave enough to serve our country would be allowed chose or not lie about their sexual orientation. Nevertheless, a TV movie was shown, following many interviews, which means that this issue was being publicized and the more publicity an issue receives the more visible it becomes. Because if a problem is concealed how is it every going to be solved.
2.) It would seem as though visibility is a good thing, especially for minorities. I would think that the more exposure one gets, I would assume the more “normal” it would seem to society, right? However according to Martha Gever visibility cannot be understood as a guarantee of admttance to the citadels of power. Peggy Phelan says that, “If that were the case representational visibility equals power, then almost-naked young white women should be running Western culture.” I thought that was really funny, but really sad at the same time.
3.) On page 44 Gever says, “ Meanwhile, lesbian identities and practices will continue to take forms not yet permissible or, perhaps even imaginable within a culture defined as fundamentally heterosexual.” I think that lesbains and gays and bisexuals have come along way, and have seen major improvement both from society and the media. It seems as though this new generation is more open minded than our parents generation, which I assume will most likely get better.
4.) I would assume that in general being a celebrity would give you an advantage when coming out. I feel like many if not all celebrities are looked up to for many reasons.
Violated Assumptions List 4
1) I was surprised to see female celebrities compared to lesbians in that both are defined by subjectivity as a result of image control and fashioning themselves to meet a certain image. I was especially surprised at how the author put the two hand in hand, as I had never previously made his connection. I had assumed that lesbians were much less conformist than celebrities, but upon further thinking about it I realized that there is a lot that goes into image control on their part in order to portray their culture as positive to mainstream/popular culture. (p.4)
2) I was surprised about how the author views visibility in popular culture as essential, but is careful to point out that popular visibility does not equal or necessarily lead to political visibility nor social legitimacy. Moreover, the author discusses that visibility in the media can actually be exploitative of lesbian culture for ratings and profit. I had assumed that at some point, introducing an idea to the mainstream was a political act in itself, but I realized that popular culture and political culture are not necessarily connected, and that media representation is not necessarily a positive thing. (p.4-5)
3) I was surprised at the lack of visibility of lesbians in the mainstream media in the recent past. I had never thought of the impact this must have had on people growing up in my generation and those before mine, not seeing people like themselves on television or represented in celebrity. I was also surprised that media presence was not necessarily seen as a positive thing by the author, because I had assumed that any presence was better than none, especially with the whole visibility-is-power argument. I do understand however than some visibility is not positive, and that visibility must be matched with good intentions and positive portrayal.
4) I was surprised at the magnitude of the role of pop culture in creating terminology, popular views, and cultural vocabulary. Those in power often put labels on others that are not in power, but I had never thought about the power of the popular media in creating cultural terminology. The relationship of the media to popular views of the lesbian community is very important, and I can definitely see the necessity of this book.
Based on Entertaining Lesbians
- I didn’t know there was so much debate over visibility. I just assumed that visibility was desirable and was not debated except in terms of utility (sensationalism versus political agendas; through whose eyes and with what definitions is it being mediated, etc.).
- Bersani’s quote on p. 24, “Once we agreed to be seen, we also agreed to be policed”. This was surprising to me. Like my point above, I assumed visibility was desirable - the necessary first step in gaining recognition and creating change. I think some might argue that there was a lot of policing pre-visibility (i.e. McCarthyism, bar raids, blatant and sanctioned discrimination, etc.). However, this statement was the first time I considered it in those terms.
- Statistics about gay and lesbian affluence. I think I may have had the assumption that many gays are affluent (probably because that is the most visible segment of the lesbian population and because that argument seemed to benefit the cause). Reading about how the conservative side uses this same argument to declare that gay men and lesbians are seeking “special rights” and unwarranted protections caught me off guard. Although despite these assumptions, I think I was aware of (but not conscious of) the fact that these statistics are skewed (and misrepresentative/inaccurate).
- On page 26, Gever is discussing how a new kind of visibility can create an invisibility. “It can be conscripted for a program of normalization whereby women who have been regarded as unnatural perverts will be newly perceived and accepted as ordinary and inoffensive, therefore indistinguishable from heterosexual women.” Really, not to be offensive, but isn’t this “equality”? I know there is a huge debate about normalization and assimilation but on some level it strikes me that seeking equality means just this – not being discriminated against, i.e. distinguishable from other people who enjoy the particular rights and protections sought by gay activists.
- I liked Gever’s point about how the “visibility of the gay community” – gay men and lesbians in popular culture – renders other people invisible. Quoted on page 27, “the ideology of the visible… erases the power of the unmarked, unspoken, and unseen.” This really pointed out to me what I so often overlook. Gay men over lesbians in popular representations; while lesbians over lesbians of color; affluent cosmopolitan gay people over poor or blue collar gay people. The “visible” portion of gay people in popular entertainment (and media in general) overshadows and renders invisible a significant portion of the real community.
- Notions of radicalism. Do we have to be radical? These discussions point out to me perhaps some generational differences (between older, more radical lesbians who faced more significant obstacles that required radicalism and a younger generation who is perhaps not in touch with the history – who takes so much for granted and does not see a need for radical politics). Again, this leads into the debates around normalization, lifestyles, and politics.
Violated Assumptions on Entertaining Lesbians:
1. I assumed that scholars would initially launch into a discussion of what their book was about. I was surprised that Gever spent so much time talking about what she was NOT going to be talking about for the book. I guess with the large "fascination" with lesbians by the media and porn, it makes sense that she wanted to dispel the idea that she is just going to be talking about who is gay or not.
2. I assumed that lesbian celebrities would not be thought of as another species. It is interesting that Gever's description of Martina Navratilova was about how she was a "cyborg" because of her changing of her body through sports and exercise. I guess most lesbians need to be thought of as "other" to be ok. If they are just the girl next door, that makes them too real.
3. I assumed that Gever would not be so critical of Chastity Bono and how she was afraid because there were no out lesbians. Where geographically did Bono grow up? Does Gever come from a "liberal" area? Maybe she (like many other lesbians in rural areas) didn't have access to media in the same kinds of ways that Gever did growing up. Maybe she had to wait for powerful nationwide discussions of Melissa Etheridge before she felt comfortable coming out.
4. I had assumed that we had made celebrities out of real people and not actors. I was surprised that Glen Close seemed synonymous with Margarethe Cammermeyer, but after thinking about it, the idea makes sense. We only really see actors, very rarely do we "see" real people .
5. I assumed that the discussions of lesbian celebrities would at least mention bisexual women. It isn't mentioned in Gever's text until page 16.
6. I assumed that lesbian visibility was a radical type of thing to do. It surprised me that Gever talks about visibility as a way of "policing" the lesbian image. That makes sense. Who do you police something that isn't visible? Lesbians had more control over their image in more personal spaces.
7. I was surprised at the observation that " if visibility equals power, than almost-naked young white women would be running western culture" (Phelan 1993, 11). Why are we struggling for visibility so hard when the most visible people are not powerful? It is who is behind the messages and images that are the powerful people.
I wasn’t able to get the book on time, so this list is based off of 3 sources: the book Queer Looks, which was edited in part by Martha Gever, The Celluloid Closet, and our blog itself :P
1. I was surprised that Audrey Hepburn was in a movie called The Children’s Hour, in which a main character that turned out to be lesbian. During this time, homosexuality was only hinted at or suggested in films. I had assumed that Hepburn, being so famous, would have feared being in a movie like that, for fear of hurting her career.
2. I was surprised at some of the stereotypes that had been formed around lesbian characters in the past—for example, the idea of the lesbian vampire, or the idea of the bisexual murderer. Before this past year, I didn’t even know that these stereotypes existed, and they still seem so ridiculous to me that I’d like to think people wouldn’t re-use them, but it turns out that even recently, characters still get placed in these roles.
3. I was surprised at how oppressive Hollywood censorship standards were in the past, and at how there is still a huge double standard for depicting same-sex relationships as opposed to heterosexual ones—often, just having same-sex affection will result in the film having a more severe rating, R instead of NC-17, etc. There is a film called “This Film is Not Yet Rated” which covers this pretty well. I had assumed because we see gay characters on TV, the standards for films would be more relaxed.
4. I was reading our class blog, and I really liked “bean’s” comment about how making certain segments of the gay community visible renders other members invisible. I’d never thought deeply on the topic, and I’d just assumed that the visibility of some should, in a sense, represent visibility for the entire group. When I read that comment, however, I changed my mind. Visibility isn't interchangable when certain subgroups in a group dominate.
1. I had assumed that a lesbian being “visible” could only be good for the community. I thought that visibility lead to normalization and acceptance without fail, but the author has some strong critiques of this argument.
2. The book violated the assumption that having celebrities on your side politically is beneficial, yet many activists wanted to avoid just that (pg 5). Politicized celebrities are now so mainstream that I assumed this was constant.
3. I assumed that we did not need to define a lesbian celebrity, yet I slightly disagree with the author’s definition (pg 6). I feel a non-“out” celebrity counts because of instances in which celebrities deny their behavior to increase popularity.
4. The book violated my assumption that companies tend to submit to right-wing complaints in order to look family friendly (pg 27). Family business is considered crucial to a business' survival, and as such I assumed a company like Disney would avoid angering "traditional" families or family values.
Amy W
I was surprised to read Gever's take that there was a significant anti-(gay/lesbian) celebrity attitude in the 1970's as I had assumed that this was a bit of a sour grapes reaction to the forced invisibility of "regular" gay and lesbian folks. Did gays and lesbians have a meaningful choice in the perception of their identities? I see that Gever is concerned with the construction and deliberate manufacture of identity and so look forward to reading about how she understands individual autonomy in this manufacture.
I am pleased to see a skepticism of the value of lesbian "visibility." The issue of visibility (and celebrity visibility in particular) has become so essential to many national gay and lesbian organizations that the visibility and voice of the individual has become a nuisance if it does not tidily align with popular "glbt" notions of acceptable visibility. I assumed that this critique would not play a central role in the author's book as it has become increasingly difficult to be taken seriously as a member of the gay community if one refuses to support the popular gay politics. I suppose this is one of the benefits of being an academic. : )
I had never felt that I witnessed the embodiment of "lifestyle lesbian." I had considered the commodification of a "lesbian aesthetic" or attitude and had negative gut reactions to young lesbians who present an aesthetic for the sole purpose of subversion... not necessarily feminist subversion- but a vague down-with-the-man subversion. But in reading the author's own take on this aesthetic and her concern about the power of the marketplace in the production of lesbian style, I found that I was deeply skeptical of that view (of my own gut reaction). At some point you are what you purport to be. Stylish or not. Lord knows there is no proliferation of dyke clothiers out there. What is difficult I suppose is that the viewer does not know what one purports to be anymore when cross-dressing is no longer a uniquely lesbian undertaking.
Lesbian Debates: Is She or Isn’t She/ Violated Assumptions
1. There is an element of despair in the LGBT community when it reaches far into the archives of activism versus basic rights and liberties. In “Is She or Isn’t She” and even my own lesbian community, there is an issue of whether every gay person should be an activist. Some people don’t want to be activists, and would just like to be allowed their rights and privileges, while others believe that gaining these same rights and privileges is in fact activism. Are these the same gay republicans that we so despise? Although it isn’t a humorous matter, activism and basic rights and liberties should be kept separate.
2. Lesbians have most recently become acceptably socialized namely with lesbian identifying celebrities such as Ellen and Rosie O’donnell and with those who just play lesbians on television, such as on shows like Degrassi and The L Word. The immense sexual explicitness in some of these shows brings to the table a question of lesbians being accepted, or lesbians being eroticized. How then, can we decipher? Is there a line between tastelessness and genuinely good entertainment?
3. Just recently, the state of Maryland ruled in favor of the ban against gay marriage that was contested by a lesbian couple who said the ban violated their rights and privileges that were protected under the law. Reverting back to debate #1, what kinds of aspects should activism create in order to be more effective?
Entertaining Lesbians:
1. I think it was extremely interesting that Gever decided to utilize pop-culture as a means of conveying the message of lesbianism and its progress through history. I believe progress is documented through television, and once something is visible, it has taken a step toward becoming something to learn from, understand and watch. It is here that I make the correlation again between lesbians and other LGBT people not seeing visibility as an appropriate thing in this day and age. I believe it is somewhat essential for progress.
2. It is really interesting to find out who is a lesbian and who is the son, daughter, mother, father etc. of a lesbian. In this aspect, Gever cleverly signifies the importance of normalizing lesbianism instead of eroticizing it.
1. I was surprised to read that Chasity Bono was so misinformed about lesbian history, but was the national media director of GLAAD. It was less shocking to me that she probably had gotten most of her history about lesbians from popular culture. However I thought some one in her position would take the time to learn otherwise.
2. I was happy to see the author talk extensively about the importance of visibility, but more than that the type of visibility that is given lesbians in the media, for example not only the quantity but the quality and social status of the portrayal of lesbians in the media.
3. I thought Gever’s tie between politics and lesbian visibility was quite interesting. She talks about the assumption that many people have that being seen equals representation. I think this is a common misinterpretation that many people have especially those with the LGBT community.
4. One of the most striking points that Gever made about visibility was this, “…the ability of visibility to confer personhood…” (18). I think it is quite interesting that in Western society media and publicity that is given to a certain group pertains to the amount of power each group has, and not only that it affects how that certain group of people will be portrayed.
- I was surprised when Gever stated that she would not be addressing desire and identification because “normally” –other academic texts (at least the ones that I’ve read) that explore popular culture, have examined the ways desire and identification constitute one’s subjectivity, identity and sexuality.
- On page 4, I was surprised to read: “[…] both modern stars and lesbians can be described in particular modes of subjectivity achieved through self-fashioning and image management,” because—well I just never thought about the possible connections between these identities.
- On page 6, I become confused when I read: “The political significance of the outing controversy dissipates as soon as social identities are recognized as contingent and contradictory” because I assumed that “contingent” and “contradictory” were part of what makes identities political…if that makes any sense.
- I found Gever’s explanation of the connection(s) of visibility and power really interesting—Suzanne Bost and Patricia Hill Collins have also addressed something similar; however, my understanding is still a bit unclear.
1. I found it interestng that Gever compared celebrities and lesbians, saying, "both...can be described in particular modes of subjectivity achieved through self-fashioning and image management," because I had never considered the similarities of how we fashion ourselves as visible people.
2. I was pleased to see that the author considered how lesbian visibility is concerned with race, economic status, etc., not just with orientation alone.
3. I was disappointed that the author spent so much time discussing literal lesbians without much mention (at least so far) of other queer women--and in this way, contributing to the continued invisibility of bisexual (and other) people.
4. I appreciated that she called out a difference between positive visibility and exploitation of lesbians and women.
1. I was struck by Gever’s opinions concerning publicity and visibility. I always thought that the way to the heart of the American people was through complete indoctrination and familiarization.
2. I had never realized just how many lesbian celebrities there were. I don’t follow mainstream pop culture particularly closely and when I do, the sexuality of individuals isn’t something that particularly matters to me. That being said, the entire culture around being a lesbian celebrity is awesome.
3. Certain portions of the gay community really are rendered invisible. By the strong visibility of affluent powerful gay men, black and Asian lesbians are frequently forgotten about. I didn’t realize how apt I was to let the visibility of some speak for all.
4. The importance of outing for Gever startled me. She discusses in her introduction how she isn’t trying to contribute to celebrity gossip and “outing” people. She only concerned herself with those individuals that chose to live their lives publicly.
1. I assumed visibility was a good thing for lesbians. While I'm aware that representations of lesbians are frequently negative, the overall concept of visibility is something I regard as positive. The author points out that visibility is highly political and causes debate within the lesbian community, and even suggests that the type of visibility granted to lesbians by the media could lead to a form of invisibility.
2. The author points out that symbolic representations cannot redress the imbalance of power between identities in our culture. I had assumed that this would be a big step for our country - if the media created varied representations of different groups.
3. I was surprised (but also pleased) that the author did not try to "out" modern celebrities or speculate on their sexuality. I think because the queer community is often so invisible, it becomes comforting to us to assume that certain other very visible people are "like us."
VIOLATED ASSUMPTIONS ON GENDERQUEER
Queens in Exile, the Forgotten Ones
By Sylvia Rivera
VIOLATED ASSUMPTIONS
1)Transgender folks were protected under gay rights
2)Transgender is not the same thing as Gay
3)They are still persecuted by government officials and enforcement
4)They do not share the same ideas of gender issues as gay people
VIOLATED ASSUMPTIONS FROM ENTERTAINING LESBIANS
1) Media favors Lesbian entertainers, I always believed the media favored gay people.
2) Lesbians are comfortable with their sexuality in front of the media or in public.
3)The portrayal of lesbians in the media seems accepted.
4)There are no stereotyoes of lesbians in the media
Post a Comment