When we talk about gender studies, we rarely include men. When we talk about race, we rarely include whites. When we talk about sexuality, we rarely include straight. All of which leaves straight white men out of the conversation.
Though the media predominantly features this group--more so than any other--and their hegemony is without question in the United States, they are symbolically annhiliated in another way. Their issues and concerns and struggles as individuals somehow matter less. We don't talk about stereotypes or ways that men try to grow against them. We don't talk about what it means to "be a man" in our culture. We don't talk about body image, self-concept, or even the pressures that come with being born into a gender and skin color that is often positioned as a dominant oppressor.
Even in a class that takes a broad and high-level view of race and gender, white guys were relegated to half a class--most of which was taken up by a film that touched upon one narrow and easily accepted "issue."
And I do care to know. I want to understand who men are...and who they are trying to become. I want to have conversations like the one I had with my classmate on the train ride home, in which he told me about being a white man in our culture. About his character-building influences. About the way white guys are portrayed and often pigeonholed. What he thinks about sports. Even how he feels about the preponderance of television actors always having their shirts off in programming these days.
It gave me some insights I wish I'd had 20 years ago, when I was dating guys his age. But it also made me realize that I'm missing part of the complete picture--and a pretty big piece at that. If I leave white men out of my understanding of race and gender in the media, can I really claim to know how all the other pieces should fit?
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Narrow minds
"We live in a culture where you don't exist if you're not portrayed on television," says one expert in the documentary Further off the Straight and Narrow. But if television portrays a group only marginally--within a specific typecast, as a convenient plotline to boost ratings, or in a vaguereference in an advertisement--does this mean that they only partially exist?
In U.S. media, this seems to be the case. Homosexuals exist in the public eye, and thus in the minds of many Americans, as the commonly held stereotype. Gay men are flamboyant, stylish, upwardly mobile and emotional. Lesbian women have short, spiky hair and play softball. Anything outside this "norm" is causes confusion in a narrow mind. But it also means that any homosexual who falls outside this frame is symbolically annihilated from our culture.
But this is not a worldwide phenomena. European media paints a much broader image, and while this might not change prejudice and persectution, it does create a world in which there is a fuller, broader definition of this cultural group. On BBC America programs, for example, sexual orientation is often just one element of larger character definition--not THE defining trait--and rarely are these individuals painted in the broad brush of the stereotypical gay.
For instance, the leading man on one sci-fi show called "Torchwood" is rugged, handsome and very masculine. He's a tough-guy, dominant leader of the team that investigates alien activity on Earth. And he is equally attracted to men and women...and aliens (multisexual?). A scene might show him kissing another man, and being interrupted by another team member. But the awkwardness that follows is not because he was kissing a man, but more the natural embarrassment of walking in on your boss kissing anyone. An ongoing issue is his promiscuity, but not so much the gender of his partners.
By de-emphasizing the importance of a character's sexual orientation in this way, it serves to make it a more normal and acceptable part of a person's lifestyle--a part of who he is, but not ALL he is--without diminishing that part of the individual in the process. Until the American media reaches that awareness, homosexuals in our society will only partially exist as their true selves.
In U.S. media, this seems to be the case. Homosexuals exist in the public eye, and thus in the minds of many Americans, as the commonly held stereotype. Gay men are flamboyant, stylish, upwardly mobile and emotional. Lesbian women have short, spiky hair and play softball. Anything outside this "norm" is causes confusion in a narrow mind. But it also means that any homosexual who falls outside this frame is symbolically annihilated from our culture.
But this is not a worldwide phenomena. European media paints a much broader image, and while this might not change prejudice and persectution, it does create a world in which there is a fuller, broader definition of this cultural group. On BBC America programs, for example, sexual orientation is often just one element of larger character definition--not THE defining trait--and rarely are these individuals painted in the broad brush of the stereotypical gay.
For instance, the leading man on one sci-fi show called "Torchwood" is rugged, handsome and very masculine. He's a tough-guy, dominant leader of the team that investigates alien activity on Earth. And he is equally attracted to men and women...and aliens (multisexual?). A scene might show him kissing another man, and being interrupted by another team member. But the awkwardness that follows is not because he was kissing a man, but more the natural embarrassment of walking in on your boss kissing anyone. An ongoing issue is his promiscuity, but not so much the gender of his partners.
By de-emphasizing the importance of a character's sexual orientation in this way, it serves to make it a more normal and acceptable part of a person's lifestyle--a part of who he is, but not ALL he is--without diminishing that part of the individual in the process. Until the American media reaches that awareness, homosexuals in our society will only partially exist as their true selves.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
A bad rap
I don't understand rap music. Literally. When Eminem was on the Grammys this year, I had to turn on closed captioning to decipher his lyrics. It was like watching a foreign film with a really odd plotline.
I don't understand rap music figuratively either. It seems to me that the Black community has embraced it as a cultural possession. Liking rap music is part of "acting Black," as if there is a right way to act a color. And the literature and studies seem to suggest that many Blacks see rap as a reflection and definition of who they are.
But the videos from class depict a world that no one should want to be a part of. The violent and degrading images demean everyone involved. And from the few examples we saw, they seem to perpetuate stereotypes that are neither uplifing or empowering to Blacks. In fact, they seem expressly directed at confirming the worst perceptions of society--that Black men are agressive and unpredictable; that Black women have an attitude; that neither gender is capable of a healthy and mutually satisfying relationship. To me, the lyrics and images seem to support every prejudicial slur you could direct against that racial identity.
The comments from Black students seem to confirm this perception. They made a point to distance themselves from the sentiments expressed and defining their identity as more than social (or even ethnic community) norms dictate. Though many--Black and White--students admitted they listened to rap music, no one agreed with the content or context of the artists. Not one. It remains a mystery to me as to why this genre continues to flourish, especially amongst a group of people it continues to debase.
I don't understand rap music figuratively either. It seems to me that the Black community has embraced it as a cultural possession. Liking rap music is part of "acting Black," as if there is a right way to act a color. And the literature and studies seem to suggest that many Blacks see rap as a reflection and definition of who they are.
But the videos from class depict a world that no one should want to be a part of. The violent and degrading images demean everyone involved. And from the few examples we saw, they seem to perpetuate stereotypes that are neither uplifing or empowering to Blacks. In fact, they seem expressly directed at confirming the worst perceptions of society--that Black men are agressive and unpredictable; that Black women have an attitude; that neither gender is capable of a healthy and mutually satisfying relationship. To me, the lyrics and images seem to support every prejudicial slur you could direct against that racial identity.
The comments from Black students seem to confirm this perception. They made a point to distance themselves from the sentiments expressed and defining their identity as more than social (or even ethnic community) norms dictate. Though many--Black and White--students admitted they listened to rap music, no one agreed with the content or context of the artists. Not one. It remains a mystery to me as to why this genre continues to flourish, especially amongst a group of people it continues to debase.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Diversity
“You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”-- Friedrich Nietzsche
The most astonishing thing was the diversity. In a class that is primarily white, middle-class, well-educated kids in their 20s, the projects and presentations covered a wide range of topics. From a few lines of direction, we selected media—and found meaning—across the spectrum.
I expected overlap. I thought I’d see a narrow and somewhat less inventive range. A handful of the same kinds of mainstream magazines, all from the same decade or two. Maybe some recent local newspapers. Current and popular television shows.
What I listened to—and learned from—was instead wildly inventive. And the focus and perspective helped me see things I’d never considered. It never occurred to me that Minnie Mouse presented a skewed and extreme portrayal of gender. I knew gays on television weren’t representative of all homosexual men (by far), but it took Kali’s words to help me see that they are the same character, repeated over and over in different actors. Katherine’s video on the “Color of Beauty” showed (yet another) side of the fashion world that warps our reality of real women.
But the most revealing moment of the evening was when Josh came forward to share his project. Because before he even opened his mouth, I stereotyped him as not very smart. He dressed like too many men I’d known in my life—what many in Texas call a “good ol’ boy,” slightly redneck, certainly nice, friend to just about everyone. Probably in a fraternity (and probably Kappa Alpha Order, if I had to guess). But also slightly shallow. Not what anyone would call a brainiac.
When he opened his spreadsheet and started walking us through it, it blew those preconceptions out of the water. I was fascinated by the information, impressed by the breadth of his quantitative research. I nearly asked for a copy of his full report. I nearly apologized for underestimating him. I did chastise myself for ever thinking that his outward appearance should be any indication of his scholarly abilities.
I’m learning that I'm not as open minded as I'd like to think. I'm learning to think about things in new ways. But I am learning. Every day and every new perspective is a revelation.
The most astonishing thing was the diversity. In a class that is primarily white, middle-class, well-educated kids in their 20s, the projects and presentations covered a wide range of topics. From a few lines of direction, we selected media—and found meaning—across the spectrum.
I expected overlap. I thought I’d see a narrow and somewhat less inventive range. A handful of the same kinds of mainstream magazines, all from the same decade or two. Maybe some recent local newspapers. Current and popular television shows.
What I listened to—and learned from—was instead wildly inventive. And the focus and perspective helped me see things I’d never considered. It never occurred to me that Minnie Mouse presented a skewed and extreme portrayal of gender. I knew gays on television weren’t representative of all homosexual men (by far), but it took Kali’s words to help me see that they are the same character, repeated over and over in different actors. Katherine’s video on the “Color of Beauty” showed (yet another) side of the fashion world that warps our reality of real women.
But the most revealing moment of the evening was when Josh came forward to share his project. Because before he even opened his mouth, I stereotyped him as not very smart. He dressed like too many men I’d known in my life—what many in Texas call a “good ol’ boy,” slightly redneck, certainly nice, friend to just about everyone. Probably in a fraternity (and probably Kappa Alpha Order, if I had to guess). But also slightly shallow. Not what anyone would call a brainiac.
When he opened his spreadsheet and started walking us through it, it blew those preconceptions out of the water. I was fascinated by the information, impressed by the breadth of his quantitative research. I nearly asked for a copy of his full report. I nearly apologized for underestimating him. I did chastise myself for ever thinking that his outward appearance should be any indication of his scholarly abilities.
I’m learning that I'm not as open minded as I'd like to think. I'm learning to think about things in new ways. But I am learning. Every day and every new perspective is a revelation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)