Kelsey Kulbarsh
The Golden Globes: Witchhunt or Award Ceremony?
Historically, homosexual behavior has been seen as
deviant. Luckily, as society progresses
into the future, this number of those who hold this opinion is decreasing as
homosexuality is becoming more accepted.
In “Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of
Sexuality”, Gayle Rubin reminds us of the important point that, according to
“popular ideology”, families are supposed to exile members whom do not conform
to heterosexual conduct. This ideology
is brought to question as a well-liked TV series called “Modern Family” was
recently given the Golden Globe for Best Comedy or Musical. This popular show includes a series of
households within one family, one of which is a gay couple raising a child. The show highlights everyday struggles and
the capability of family strength and union.
This family portrayal rejects the notion that their non-heterosexual
family should be excluded; instead maintains family ties with love, acceptance,
and humor. As well-deserved awards were
given such as this, outside was an anti-gay protest. With signs held high of their distaste for
homosexual relations on broadcasted television, several members of the Westboro
Baptist Church picketed the entrance of this prestigious, annual event. These select few citizens disapproved a show
that 14.3 million other viewers enjoy and watch regularly. Of course there are people outside this
church group that find the show offensive, however, according to Gayle Rubin
and Barbara Smith, it is these negative and oppressive views that must be
changed.
Rubin explains that in the 1950’s homosexuals were “the object
of federal witchhunt” and there were countless “crackdown against gay
individuals” (Rubin 1993, 5-6). The
Westboro Church’s decision to seek out and verbalize their disgust for
homosexuality is, in some sense, a form of this hunt. Religious opinions are explained by Rubin in
that gay relations, including marriage, are seen as an inappropriate union that
couldn’t provide proper kin, thus making it taboo. This idea of the inability of gay couples to
properly raise children is directly challenged in the show Modern Family as the
gay couple adopts and parents a child, living a happy and wholesome lifestyle.
It should also be recognized that the award for Best
Supporting Actor went to the character of a gay man coming out. Christopher Plummer, the recipient of this
award, responded to the anti-gay protest in saying that, “Gay characters are
human beings. We are all exactly the same….part of our society. Since the Egyptians, The Greeks; it is part
of the human condition.” This idea that homosexuality has been a part of society
for centuries creates the need for historical research and analysis in this
area. Rubin described that further
social analysis and historical understanding is needed to better educate and
evolve opinions of sexuality. Those who
chose to voice their opinions on homosexuality at the Golden Globes had it
within their civil rights to do so. Their
opinions that homosexuality is wrong only added to the previous notions of
oppression; that heterosexuals are better than homosexuals. Barbara Smith argued in “Homophobia: Why
Bring it Up?” that “one way to protect one’s heterosexual credentials and
privilege is to put down lesbians and gay men” and that is exactly what the
Westboro Church sought to do (Smith 1993, 100-101). Their signs were covered with derogatory names
such “Faggots”, a term used along with “that’s gay” to describe something
inferior. Smith brings up the point that
these expressions are still acceptable in society whereas other derogatory
terms are prohibited. It might be in
their civil rights, but these signs project negative attitudes that burden and
take away from the civil rights of those they were directed toward.
Attitudes toward homosexuality are becoming more accepting,
and this is reflected as awards are given to TV shows and movies with homosexual
characters and their viewers increase.
There will always be those who reject homosexuality, however, I agree
with Smith that “these attitudes must be challenges if pervasive taken-for-granted
homophobia is ever to cease” (Smith 1993, 100-101).
Bibliography
Rubin, Gayle. "Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory
of the Politics of Sexuality." Social
Perspectives in Gay and Lesbian Studies. Peter M Nardi and Beth Schneider.
Print
Smith, Barbara. "Homophobia: Why Bring It Up?" The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader.
New York and London: Henry Ablelove, 1993. Print.
Taylor, Kate. "Golden Globes Glitter, Tarnished Only by
Anti-gay Protests." The
Globe and Mail. Phillip Crawley, 16 Jan. 2012. Web. 23 Jan. 2012.
<http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/awards/golden-globes/golden-globes-glitter-tarnished-only-by-anti-gay-protests/article2304470/>.
I thoroughly agree with this post and am equally appalled at how some members of our society are still digressing in the acceptance of homosexuality. “Modern Family” is a television show illustrating that two men can have a monogamous, healthy relationship together while successfully raising a child and they still have millions of viewers that clearly love their show, according to the Golden Globe. Yet, the fact that members of a church are petitioning this award shows how the mentality on homosexuality has not yet been won. In Homosexuality and American Society: An Overview, John D’Emilio refers to mentalities in 1950 when stating “Whether viewed from the vantage point of religion, law, or science, homosexuality appeared not as a mark of minority group status but as an individual problem, as evidence of moral weakness, criminality, or pathology” (D’Emilio 23). His statement and the petitioning, unfortunately, prove that no matter how far our society has come in homosexual acceptance, the war is still being fought because of little battles like this one. In order for us to win over this inaccurate mentality, we must keep supporting shows like these that not only promote homosexual acceptance, but prove that there is nothing wrong with two people of the same sex loving each other, vowing to spend the rest of their lives together, and raising a child who would otherwise be without any parents at all.
ReplyDeleteD’Emilio, John. “Homosexuality and American Society: An Overview.” Politics, Sexual, Communities in the United States 1940-1970. 1983, 23-30.
I agree that the effects of media can be very positive on the LGBTQ community when in the context that you presented. An important part of the move toward acceptance is to be visual, which comes from actual society and the societal norms presented through sources such as television and news. And while good media promotes acceptance, bad publicity can be devastating. D’Emilio touches on how publicity and media can have incredibly averse affects on LGBTQ individuals; movies such as New Voyager and Spellbound increased the pervasiveness of doctors who claimed homosexuality as a sickness. Creating this imagined disease resulted in many people’s lives being uprooted. But at the same time, the creation of positive LGBTQ media such as newspapers and books (such as The Well of Loneliness), though maybe not immediately impacting the larger community, certainly helped to bring together LGBTQ-identified people. The incredible gap between the creation of television and the acknowledgment of gay characters in it serves to show how important they are, what an impact they can make, and the progress we have made.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I did not agree with the point that television actually challenges any sort of societal stereotype, such as “inability for gay couples to raise children”. In the end, it is a television show and while the societal stereotype may be false, they must be debased by facts and not willed away by media. Media has the ability to create stereotypes, but little power to break them down or lessen their effects.
Sources
John D’Emilio “Homosexuality and American Society: An Overview” from Sexual Politics, Sexual, Communities in the United States 1940-1970. Chicagoe, Ill: University of Chicago Press, 1983
I agree with you that the overwhelming heterosexual views in the society need to be challenged. Furthermore, I argue that the portrayal of gay couples in mass media on one hand help to promotes tolerance; while on the other hand, it reinforces the established stereotypes of homosexuals.
ReplyDeleteSince the 19th century, homosexuality has been a taboo. As Barbara Smith argues, “homophobia is usually the last oppression to be mentioned, the last to be taken seriously, the last to go.” (109) People take heterosexuality for granted and perceive homosexuals to be unworthy of equal rights. In her article, Smith mentions that people tend to regard the oppression of homosexuals as “private concern” instead of “political matter”. (100) By bringing the everyday struggles and happiness of a gay couple to the screen, the show Modern Family raises public awareness of homosexual oppressions and highlights homosexuals’ capability to build a family. It guides people to consider gay oppressions seriously and rejects the stereotype that same-sex parents are worse than heterosexual parents. However, the fact that the gay couple in the show are portrayed as healthy white males also enhances a misconception that Smith notices, which equates gay with middle class white males and ignores homosexuals who are people of color, women, disabled and old (101).
Works Cited
Smith, Barbara. “Homophobia: Why Bring it Up?” The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader. ed. Henry Ablelove. New York & London, Routledge, 1993. Print