Lesbian "types" in movies/TV

[Gatito Grande]

Hey y'all.



I hope this thread will fly. I've been reading discussion of the "types" of lesbians portrayed on The L Word (which I personally haven't seen, since I can't afford Showtime), and therein seeing comparisons to W/T.



I want to delve deeper into this (and look at other examples besides TLW and BTVS too), so it seemed appropriate to start a new thread.



I'm just gonna throw out ideas off the top of my head.



1) "Of course, lesbians on TV/movies are going to be attractive. After all, Willow and Tara were (are!) attractive."



Is attractiveness measured just in terms of the actor(s) portraying said lesbians? Or are there other factors at work?



It's far too distasteful for me to mention some of the sh*t said about Amber in her first appearances. Quite apart from that, however, it seems to me that *both* Aly and Amber were progressively "femmed" up over the course of the show. Don't get me wrong: I have no problem w/ how they ever portrayed their characters , or their characters' "style" (except for the "Elmo Pelt" of course! )



But what are the larger issues with these changes? And do Kittens who are closer to Amber or Aly know anything about this? Were they aware of any overall character "trends," and if so, were they presented as (I suspect) "Willow and/or Tara are 'growing up' so their taste in clothing is more 'mature'"?



2) "Fear of a Short-Haired Female Planet"



OK, what's the deal here? On The L Word and elsewhere? Are televisions supposedly gonna blow up, if a woman's ears and neck (all the way around) are visible? (I kind of have the feeling that Gina Gershon's hair in Bound was carefully measured to make sure it wasn't *too* short )



There's a lot of irony here, if you can remember some paragons of "femininity" of the past: Audrey Hepburn made a very short "gamine" hair-cut iconic in the 1950s. Can the American viewing public not survive this same look now?



[FWIW: I've noticed on Joan of Arcadia that Becky Wahlstrom's ("Grace Polk," of undefined sexuality at this point) hair is getting longer. I just hope that this is BW's own preference, and not because someone higher up told her . . . ]



3) The linking together of unrelated traits, to create a negative stereotype:



"Black-lazy-ignorant-flashy-gettin' high-boombox blastin'-'player'-criminal": sounds pretty bad, doesn't it? The NAACP fights BS like this on TV/movies, and rightly so.



But now try this:



"Dyke-shorthaired-flannel-Birkenstocks/combat boots-gruff (and/or humorless)-blackleather-motorcycle-smoking-fat" : Ah, so this is why all the lesbians on TV look the femme-y way they do---because the only alternative would be someone w/ *all* the traits listed above!





Well, those are just a few of my thoughts.



Lesbians come in all styles, all colors, all shapes: and every single type can be very attractive (or, not so much: also true of every type). So where is it written that only *one* type should be shown on TV? And why is it acceptable to publicly express disparaging attitudes towards lesbians who fall outside a narrow "counter-stereotypical" range? Why do insiders/critics turn "not my type" into "not anyone's type"?



GG Looking forward to an insightful discussion! Out

[urnofosiris]

All lesbian characters I can think of in movies or tv shows (obviously not a lot) are pretty and thin. Neither Tara nor Willow were ´glammed up´ at first and they never really were I think, except in that straight boy Xander dream sequence. They are different I think, but no less beautiful of course. I don´t think it´s just lesbian characters that are of a particular physical type, most female characters are pretty and thin. I can only think of a few exceptions, like Sukie on Gilmore Girls and Eleanor Frutt on the Practice. They are somewhat -eh- bigger, but as far as I´m concerned no less beautiful than their thinner colleagues. There are more of course, but percentage wise still not a lot I think, not in leading roles anyway.



It´s clear that when it comes to women the prevailing image on screen seems to be thin and young, whereas the men can be old and dog ugly and they still get the girl. I think the movie makers assume that this is what the audience wants. I think idols is an example of the same thing, the jury is looking for the pretty face, the voice being secundary, but when you look at the winners in a lot of countries the faces are not so pretty. Maybe the audience is interested in more than just looks. I think it will be a while yet before the physical type we see will become a little more diverse. When it comes to lesbian characters it will take even longer, you have to have them first and so far there are too few and too far in between.

Edited by: DrG at: 2/12/04 2:06 pm

[sam7777]

Quote:

---

And why is it acceptable to publicly express disparaging attitudes towards lesbians who fall outside a narrow "counter-stereotypical" range? Why do insiders/critics turn "not my type" into "not anyone's type"?

---

Gatito GrandeBrilliant post and too true. It's very convenient that the "counter-stereotypical" lesbians has a special appeal to men and doesn't break any norms in female appearance. it's also quite a coinsicense that the "counter-stereotypical" lesbian fits Madison Avenue's view of what a woman should look like: Skiiny, mostly white and read to buy any and all products. This view of women is stereotypical to women in the pre and post feminist age. It's a view that traps women into viewing their self worth by how they fit the current standards of beauty. It's extremely danging to girls and women who become depressed, bulimic and in search of surgery to puff ou their lips and bust to fit the "ideal". This "ideal" is generally set by men be they exeacs in the media or on Madison Avenue.