Home / alt.fashion / Monday, July 21, 2003
inability to revise or discard the stereotype in light of real life experience.
Re: Straight Eye for the Queer Guy
ManualIns...@DB.com
7/21/2003 12:28:24 AM
jmgarci...@aol.complain (Jpoijhgwedfg M. Gtgiokjhderfg Jr.)
7/21/2003 1:28:24 AM
Mal said:
authoritative, I would humbly suggest that an organization's imprimatur does
not trump all. If––and suspend disbelief for a moment––in 1951 the NAACP had
said that _Amos_'n'_Andy_ was a positive portrayal of Americans of African
descent (after all, Algonquin J. Calhoun was black AND an attorney, therefore a
professional, etc., etc.)...ought any Caucasian who disagreed have shrugged and
said "Well, they know best, I guess."?
1– An organization is not the final arbiter and
2– Does a stereotype need to be offensive to be objectionable?
provides a platform for Elbonians, or Uglo–Americans actually, IMCO, makes
things worse. It sends a subtle message that only via certain avenues may a
given subset of the population achieve success/respectability/etc.
about 5 openly homosexual women teaching a hapless heterosexual woman how to
play golf, change a car's oil, etc.) I think the historical persecution (or
lack thereof) of a given group being stereotypes is, on principle, irrelevant.
To say otherwise––and someone correct me if I am misreading something––is to
imply that some stereotypes are acceptable under certain circumstances. My
assertion is quite plain: Stereotypes, benign or malicious, are always
loathsome and unacceptable.
If, however, it turns out that stereotypes ARE acceptable if the group involved
has both been historically persecuted AND approves and the resulting TV program
is a ratings success and it's widely considered to be funny...well, then, I
best get to writing some treatments to pitch assorted networks.
–Joe in SoFla
I don't care, and you can't make me.
Of course, but I regard [GLAAD's] opinions on the presentation of gays in the
media
are more authoritative than yours.
Besides the statistically provable fact that only my opinions are truly media
are more authoritative than yours.
authoritative, I would humbly suggest that an organization's imprimatur does
not trump all. If––and suspend disbelief for a moment––in 1951 the NAACP had
said that _Amos_'n'_Andy_ was a positive portrayal of Americans of African
descent (after all, Algonquin J. Calhoun was black AND an attorney, therefore a
professional, etc., etc.)...ought any Caucasian who disagreed have shrugged and
said "Well, they know best, I guess."?
I think gays are in the best position to
speak to the issue of whether this show presents them in an offensive manner.
Yes, but two points need be considered: speak to the issue of whether this show presents them in an offensive manner.
1– An organization is not the final arbiter and
2– Does a stereotype need to be offensive to be objectionable?
And the impression I get from what I've read is that many gays see the
premise
as a benign stereotype––gays have style and class––that provides a platform
for
five openly gay men.
There are simply NO benign stereotypes. There never will be. That a stereotype premise
as a benign stereotype––gays have style and class––that provides a platform
for
five openly gay men.
provides a platform for Elbonians, or Uglo–Americans actually, IMCO, makes
things worse. It sends a subtle message that only via certain avenues may a
given subset of the population achieve success/respectability/etc.
I also note that your analogy of Asian students tutoring an African American
in
math is invalid because African Americans are a historically persecuted
group.
Straight men are not.
While that analogy is not one which I would have employed (I kind of like one in
math is invalid because African Americans are a historically persecuted
group.
Straight men are not.
about 5 openly homosexual women teaching a hapless heterosexual woman how to
play golf, change a car's oil, etc.) I think the historical persecution (or
lack thereof) of a given group being stereotypes is, on principle, irrelevant.
To say otherwise––and someone correct me if I am misreading something––is to
imply that some stereotypes are acceptable under certain circumstances. My
assertion is quite plain: Stereotypes, benign or malicious, are always
loathsome and unacceptable.
If, however, it turns out that stereotypes ARE acceptable if the group involved
has both been historically persecuted AND approves and the resulting TV program
is a ratings success and it's widely considered to be funny...well, then, I
best get to writing some treatments to pitch assorted networks.
–Joe in SoFla
I don't care, and you can't make me.
p...@midway.uchicago.edu (Trilby)
7/21/2003 5:18:00 AM
In article <20030720212824.09858.00000...@mb–m11.aol.com>,
Jpoijhgwedfg M. Gtgiokjhderfg Jr. <jmgarci...@aol.complain> wrote:
stereotypes. And I'm a U of C geek so I don't get much past that.
I keep wondering what we are talking about when we talk about
stereotypes. And then I have to get out the dictionary.
Stereotype: n. 1. A metal printing plate cast from a matrix that is molded
from a raised printing surface, such as type.
2. A conventional, formulaic, and usually oversimplified conception,
opinion, or belief.
3. A person, group, event, or issue considered to typify or conform to an
unvarying pattern or manner, lacking any individuality: "The very
stereotype of a college sophomore."
Because it's a television program under discussion, I remembered some work
that a friend of mine is doing on the history of type casting in the
theater and early cinema. So I looked up "type."
type: n. 1. A group of persons or things sharing common traits or
characteristics that distinguish them as an identifiable group or class; a
kind; category. 2. A person or thing having the features of a group or
class. 3. An example or model; embodiment: "He was the perfect type of a
military dandy." 4. Informal; A person regarded as exemplifying a certain
profession, rank, social group, or the like: "A group of executive
types."
So, if you're still with me, I think that some of us are talking
about real stereotypes, but it seems to me that we're talking much more
about types. The real problem is that instead of being "executive
types" this show is about "gay types." So it's the politics of
representation that is at issue here. Nobody is demonstrating and shouting
"We're executives, we're here; get used to it." Executives are not a
historically repressed group. Gay people are.
Now AF, consisting as it does of better than 90 percent women,
is in an excellent position to discuss stereotypes about women.
I'm having a bit of difficulty deciding what these are. That women are
bad at math? Don't understand engineering? That we are vain, frivolous,
and shallow? That we're ditzy?
And then I remembered _Legally Blonde_. What is that film except an
extended blonde joke, one where the joke's one us, because the blonde
succeeds by transcending type and confounding everyone's expectations of
her?
I would therefore say that there actually is a long history of movies that
take a historically repressed group, in this case women, employs
stereotypes like crazy, and yet pleases the group that suffers from this
kind of stereotyping by portraying these stereotypes in a clever,
tongue–in–cheek, or campy way.
I would also argue that just as there is no stereotypical gay man,
there is no stereotypical audience member. Some portrayals of type will be
offensive and others won't, depending on context. Positive portrayals make
a difference, as do the story line, and the means of production. I think
we would view stereotyping differently when the director is a woman, or is
gay, or is African American.
Sorry to go on and on. But it really is complicated.
Priscilla
––
p...@midway.uchicago.edu "Here comes the most beautiful woman in puppetland!"
Jpoijhgwedfg M. Gtgiokjhderfg Jr. <jmgarci...@aol.complain> wrote:
If, however, it turns out that stereotypes ARE acceptable if the group involved
has both been historically persecuted AND approves and the resulting TV program
is a ratings success and it's widely considered to be funny...well, then, I
best get to writing some treatments to pitch assorted networks.
I'm not even sure I understand what people mean when they talk about has both been historically persecuted AND approves and the resulting TV program
is a ratings success and it's widely considered to be funny...well, then, I
best get to writing some treatments to pitch assorted networks.
stereotypes. And I'm a U of C geek so I don't get much past that.
I keep wondering what we are talking about when we talk about
stereotypes. And then I have to get out the dictionary.
Stereotype: n. 1. A metal printing plate cast from a matrix that is molded
from a raised printing surface, such as type.
2. A conventional, formulaic, and usually oversimplified conception,
opinion, or belief.
3. A person, group, event, or issue considered to typify or conform to an
unvarying pattern or manner, lacking any individuality: "The very
stereotype of a college sophomore."
Because it's a television program under discussion, I remembered some work
that a friend of mine is doing on the history of type casting in the
theater and early cinema. So I looked up "type."
type: n. 1. A group of persons or things sharing common traits or
characteristics that distinguish them as an identifiable group or class; a
kind; category. 2. A person or thing having the features of a group or
class. 3. An example or model; embodiment: "He was the perfect type of a
military dandy." 4. Informal; A person regarded as exemplifying a certain
profession, rank, social group, or the like: "A group of executive
types."
So, if you're still with me, I think that some of us are talking
about real stereotypes, but it seems to me that we're talking much more
about types. The real problem is that instead of being "executive
types" this show is about "gay types." So it's the politics of
representation that is at issue here. Nobody is demonstrating and shouting
"We're executives, we're here; get used to it." Executives are not a
historically repressed group. Gay people are.
Now AF, consisting as it does of better than 90 percent women,
is in an excellent position to discuss stereotypes about women.
I'm having a bit of difficulty deciding what these are. That women are
bad at math? Don't understand engineering? That we are vain, frivolous,
and shallow? That we're ditzy?
And then I remembered _Legally Blonde_. What is that film except an
extended blonde joke, one where the joke's one us, because the blonde
succeeds by transcending type and confounding everyone's expectations of
her?
I would therefore say that there actually is a long history of movies that
take a historically repressed group, in this case women, employs
stereotypes like crazy, and yet pleases the group that suffers from this
kind of stereotyping by portraying these stereotypes in a clever,
tongue–in–cheek, or campy way.
I would also argue that just as there is no stereotypical gay man,
there is no stereotypical audience member. Some portrayals of type will be
offensive and others won't, depending on context. Positive portrayals make
a difference, as do the story line, and the means of production. I think
we would view stereotyping differently when the director is a woman, or is
gay, or is African American.
Sorry to go on and on. But it really is complicated.
Priscilla
––
p...@midway.uchicago.edu "Here comes the most beautiful woman in puppetland!"
maladic...@aol.com (Maladicta1)
7/21/2003 7:27:22 PM
I would therefore say that there actually is a long history of movies that
take a historically repressed group, in this case women, employs
stereotypes like crazy, and yet pleases the group that suffers from this
kind of stereotyping by portraying these stereotypes in a clever,
tongue–in–cheek, or campy way.
I would also argue that just as there is no stereotypical gay man,
there is no stereotypical audience member. Some portrayals of type will be
offensive and others won't, depending on context. Positive portrayals make
a difference, as do the story line, and the means of production. I think
we would view stereotyping differently when the director is a woman, or is
gay, or is African American.
Sorry to go on and on. But it really is complicated.
Priscilla
––
p...@midway.uchicago.edu "Here comes the most beautiful woman in
puppetland!"
Well put. I also think stereotyping is inevitable and what's dangerous is the take a historically repressed group, in this case women, employs
stereotypes like crazy, and yet pleases the group that suffers from this
kind of stereotyping by portraying these stereotypes in a clever,
tongue–in–cheek, or campy way.
I would also argue that just as there is no stereotypical gay man,
there is no stereotypical audience member. Some portrayals of type will be
offensive and others won't, depending on context. Positive portrayals make
a difference, as do the story line, and the means of production. I think
we would view stereotyping differently when the director is a woman, or is
gay, or is African American.
Sorry to go on and on. But it really is complicated.
Priscilla
––
p...@midway.uchicago.edu "Here comes the most beautiful woman in
puppetland!"
inability to revise or discard the stereotype in light of real life experience.
jmgarci...@aol.complain (Jpoijhgwedfg M. Gtgiokjhderfg Jr.)
7/21/2003 12:53:02 PM
Trilby said:
[snip some more]
[snip some more]
historically repressed, that a type/stereotype is "positive" is to my mind
inconsequential. Why? Because that places a noxious veneer of subjectiveness on
what is an acceptable type/stereotype and/or under which circumstances these
types/stereotypes may be used acceptable. My answer is "Never and under no
circumstance."
in the extreme, sue me.) because the The Blonde *transcends* type. I'm still
not crazy about the blonde joke that goes on and on (and on, and on), but maybe
that's just me.
and if it fails to do so, then you are left with nothing but minstrelsy. There
are other differences, such as the medium employed (reality––ahem––TV, versus
film), or whether the type/stereotype is presented with comic (therefore,
subversive however mild) exaggeration or just "straight" (NPI).
can't say ___ [insert epithet here], but I can because I am [insert subgroup
here]."
then it is complicated. If the discussion is along the principle of whether
type/stereotype is acceptable, it really isn't.
(Who'd've thunk *I* would get all worked up about this?)
–Joe in SoFla
I don't care, and you can't make me.
[snip some more]
2. A conventional, formulaic, and usually oversimplified conception,
opinion, or belief.
3. A person, group, event, or issue considered to typify or conform to an
unvarying pattern or manner, lacking any individuality: "The very
stereotype of a college sophomore."
Ding, ding, ding. opinion, or belief.
3. A person, group, event, or issue considered to typify or conform to an
unvarying pattern or manner, lacking any individuality: "The very
stereotype of a college sophomore."
[snip some more]
So I looked up "type."
type: n. 1. A group of persons or things sharing common traits or
characteristics that distinguish them as an identifiable group or class; a
kind; category. 2. A person or thing having the features of a group or
class. 3. An example or model; embodiment: "He was the perfect type of a
military dandy." 4. Informal; A person regarded as exemplifying a certain
profession, rank, social group, or the like: "A group of executive
types."
Excellent.type: n. 1. A group of persons or things sharing common traits or
characteristics that distinguish them as an identifiable group or class; a
kind; category. 2. A person or thing having the features of a group or
class. 3. An example or model; embodiment: "He was the perfect type of a
military dandy." 4. Informal; A person regarded as exemplifying a certain
profession, rank, social group, or the like: "A group of executive
types."
So, if you're still with me, I think that some of us are talking
about real stereotypes, but it seems to me that we're talking much more
about types. The real problem is that instead of being "executive
types" this show is about "gay types." So it's the politics of
representation that is at issue here.
....and this is where you swerved off the road. about real stereotypes, but it seems to me that we're talking much more
about types. The real problem is that instead of being "executive
types" this show is about "gay types." So it's the politics of
representation that is at issue here.
Nobody is demonstrating and shouting
"We're executives, we're here; get used to it." Executives are not a
historically repressed group. Gay people are.
Which, you will note, I contend is irrelevant. That Group X has been "We're executives, we're here; get used to it." Executives are not a
historically repressed group. Gay people are.
historically repressed, that a type/stereotype is "positive" is to my mind
inconsequential. Why? Because that places a noxious veneer of subjectiveness on
what is an acceptable type/stereotype and/or under which circumstances these
types/stereotypes may be used acceptable. My answer is "Never and under no
circumstance."
Now AF, consisting as it does of better than 90 percent women,
is in an excellent position to discuss stereotypes about women.
True.is in an excellent position to discuss stereotypes about women.
I'm having a bit of difficulty deciding what these are. That women are
bad at math? Don't understand engineering? That we are vain, frivolous,
and shallow? That we're ditzy?
And then I remembered _Legally Blonde_. What is that film except an
extended blonde joke, one where the joke's one us, because the blonde
succeeds by transcending type and confounding everyone's expectations of
her?
But there are differences. The film ostensibly succeeds (I found it soporific bad at math? Don't understand engineering? That we are vain, frivolous,
and shallow? That we're ditzy?
And then I remembered _Legally Blonde_. What is that film except an
extended blonde joke, one where the joke's one us, because the blonde
succeeds by transcending type and confounding everyone's expectations of
her?
in the extreme, sue me.) because the The Blonde *transcends* type. I'm still
not crazy about the blonde joke that goes on and on (and on, and on), but maybe
that's just me.
I would therefore say that there actually is a long history of movies that
take a historically repressed group, in this case women, employs
stereotypes like crazy, and yet pleases the group that suffers from this
kind of stereotyping by portraying these stereotypes in a clever,
tongue–in–cheek, or campy way.
But under those circumstances, the onus is on the particular work to *succeed* take a historically repressed group, in this case women, employs
stereotypes like crazy, and yet pleases the group that suffers from this
kind of stereotyping by portraying these stereotypes in a clever,
tongue–in–cheek, or campy way.
and if it fails to do so, then you are left with nothing but minstrelsy. There
are other differences, such as the medium employed (reality––ahem––TV, versus
film), or whether the type/stereotype is presented with comic (therefore,
subversive however mild) exaggeration or just "straight" (NPI).
I would also argue that just as there is no stereotypical gay man,
there is no stereotypical audience member. Some portrayals of type will be
offensive and others won't, depending on context.
I am not arguing offensiveness, I am arguing appropriateness. there is no stereotypical audience member. Some portrayals of type will be
offensive and others won't, depending on context.
Positive portrayals make
a difference, as do the story line, and the means of production.
No they don't. a difference, as do the story line, and the means of production.
I think
we would view stereotyping differently when the director is a woman, or is
gay, or is African American.
We might, but we oughtn't. I have never bought the hideous argument of "YOU we would view stereotyping differently when the director is a woman, or is
gay, or is African American.
can't say ___ [insert epithet here], but I can because I am [insert subgroup
here]."
Sorry to go on and on. But it really is complicated.
If the discussion is along the axes of positive/negative, benign/malicious, then it is complicated. If the discussion is along the principle of whether
type/stereotype is acceptable, it really isn't.
(Who'd've thunk *I* would get all worked up about this?)
–Joe in SoFla
I don't care, and you can't make me.
jmgarci...@aol.complain (Jpoijhgwedfg M. Gtgiokjhderfg Jr.)
7/21/2003 8:02:57 PM
Mal said:
of the world. What I consider truly dangerous is being at a point where we
consider the commercial usage of stereotyping acceptable if it coincides with
the opinions of certain people under a particularly desirable set of
circumstances.
–Joe in SoFla
I don't care, and you can't make me.
I also think stereotyping is inevitable and what's dangerous is the
inability to revise or discard the stereotype in light of real life
experience.
Stereotyping may be inevitable, but so are all of the greater and lesser evils inability to revise or discard the stereotype in light of real life
experience.
of the world. What I consider truly dangerous is being at a point where we
consider the commercial usage of stereotyping acceptable if it coincides with
the opinions of certain people under a particularly desirable set of
circumstances.
–Joe in SoFla
I don't care, and you can't make me.
poppi...@aol.combustible (Cassidy)
7/21/2003 10:11:19 PM
I usually avoid these contentious threads. I don't want to get in a tiff with
anyone on this newsgroup.
I agree with Joe. Stereotypes are bad, even the so called good ones (?). They
marginalize people, and reduce them to caricatures.
My BF (soon to be DH) is Native American, Cree. I am constantly surprised and
dismayed by the ignorant remarks made by often well meaning people. The fact
that most of these people think Indians are neat doesn't diminish the pain they
cause.
I know that the show that inspired this thread doesn't feature Native
Americans, but people are people and it's wrong to diminish their humanity
through stereotyping.
I don't mean to insult anyone who enjoys this show, just expressing an opinion.
And as a woman who was recently asked by an old friend if my BF was "cruel" to
me (she seems to be under the impression that all native men beat their women)
I'm feeling particularly sensitive.
Cassidy
to e–mail, remove the bustible
anyone on this newsgroup.
I agree with Joe. Stereotypes are bad, even the so called good ones (?). They
marginalize people, and reduce them to caricatures.
My BF (soon to be DH) is Native American, Cree. I am constantly surprised and
dismayed by the ignorant remarks made by often well meaning people. The fact
that most of these people think Indians are neat doesn't diminish the pain they
cause.
I know that the show that inspired this thread doesn't feature Native
Americans, but people are people and it's wrong to diminish their humanity
through stereotyping.
I don't mean to insult anyone who enjoys this show, just expressing an opinion.
And as a woman who was recently asked by an old friend if my BF was "cruel" to
me (she seems to be under the impression that all native men beat their women)
I'm feeling particularly sensitive.
Cassidy
to e–mail, remove the bustible
jmgarci...@aol.complain (Jpoijhgwedfg M. Gtgiokjhderfg Jr.)
7/22/2003 12:04:06 AM
Cassidy said:
and well–informed threads featuring sharp disagreements.
There seems to be precious little of the "Yeah, well, you're an IDIOT!" or
flaming going on. Which is a good thing, because I am strongly disagreeing with
some people for whom I have the greatest respect.
So I think you'll be safe, and tiff–free. :–)
–Joe in SoFla
I don't care, and you can't make me.
I usually avoid these contentious threads. I don't want to get in a tiff with
anyone on this newsgroup.
Unless I am misremembering something, this is probably one of the most civil anyone on this newsgroup.
and well–informed threads featuring sharp disagreements.
There seems to be precious little of the "Yeah, well, you're an IDIOT!" or
flaming going on. Which is a good thing, because I am strongly disagreeing with
some people for whom I have the greatest respect.
So I think you'll be safe, and tiff–free. :–)
–Joe in SoFla
I don't care, and you can't make me.
Userb3 <use...@yahoo.com>
7/22/2003 11:41:03 AM
maladic...@aol.com (Maladicta1) wrote in
news:20030722001751.20257.00000...@mb–m29.aol.com:
equal stereotypes. Research, sales, and experience indicate that many women
ARE "interested in advice on relationships with men, makeup and clothing."
The suggestion that that is ALL women are interested in would be a
stereotype.
news:20030722001751.20257.00000...@mb–m29.aol.com:
Benign stereotyping is quite common.
Women's magazines devolve from the stereotype that women are most
interested in advice on relationships with men, makeup and clothing.
You are employing the ever popular moving goalposts. Demographics do not Women's magazines devolve from the stereotype that women are most
interested in advice on relationships with men, makeup and clothing.
equal stereotypes. Research, sales, and experience indicate that many women
ARE "interested in advice on relationships with men, makeup and clothing."
The suggestion that that is ALL women are interested in would be a
stereotype.
Ruddell <ruddell'Elle–Kabo...@canada.com>
7/22/2003 10:28:51 PM
Userb3 wrote:
but as every one knows, it'll go on forever.
Queer Guy? I don't think it's on our list of
programs available. To be honest, Coronation
Street & Heartbeat are about the only
non–news/sports tv that we watch...
––
Dennis
http://www.ejacanada.com
Remove 'Elle–Kabong' to reply
Thats a chicken and egg issue. But the fact is that those magazines sell
with varying success, depending on how well they serve the needs of their
audience.
The chicken/egg debate has pretty much be solved with varying success, depending on how well they serve the needs of their
audience.
but as every one knows, it'll go on forever.
Queer Guy? I don't think it's on our list of
programs available. To be honest, Coronation
Street & Heartbeat are about the only
non–news/sports tv that we watch...
––
Dennis
http://www.ejacanada.com
Remove 'Elle–Kabong' to reply