The Lesbian Cliche FAQ

[xita]

You really should read this thread, it really speaks for itself. But I will say that Joss did bad mouth her. He used her refusal to do his bidding and spoke of it publically to turn w/t fans on her for not making his dream of reuniting w/t possible. It was sneaky and dirty and I can guarantee that it was not appreciated.



- - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - -
"Trust is a risk masquerading as a promise."

[WebWarlock]

Actually.



Joss Whedon is not a proffesional. When is a whiny little asshole that is acting like a petulant child.



I don't hate him. I dismiss him for the hack he is. Two years from now no one will even remember who he is.



Warlock

-----

Web Warlock

Coming Soon to The Other Side, The Netbook of Shadows: A Book of Spells for d20 Witches

Me: I think I'll have a mid-life crisis and bring home a little red convertible Vette.

My wife: Fine, as long as you don't bring home some little red-head.

[sam7777]

Spring: I suggest you read the lesbian FAQ at the beginning of this thread before automatically stating that everyone here hates Joss and thinks he is a homophobe. In fact your post actually disproves you point as you are a member of this board and aren't a "Joss hater" so we are all not "Joss haters" as you suggest. That is an unfair characterization of this board IMHO.



For my part, I don't hate Mr Whedon or characterize him as a homophobe but I do hate what he did with Willow/Tara. Instead of giving us the benchmark of the the first long term in love lesbian relationship not to end in death or evil, he gave us the dead lesbian cliche. And the lesbian cliches have continued in ER and AMC. As I said before this cliched plot twist indicates to me a both a lack of social conscience and a failing talent. This is why I never want to see any more of Joss Whedon's work.

_____________________

I still see dead lesbian cliches

Edited by: sam7777  at: 7/21/04 10:02 am

[urnofosiris]

Just quoting what Sam was referring to.

Quote:

---

In summary this FAQ states:



1) That Joss Whedon and the writers of Mutant Enemy are NOT homophobic, but have perpetuated a hurtful lesbian cliché with the death of Tara and the resulting Vengeance Willow storyline that ended Season Six of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

---

I don´t recall anyone calling him a homophobe on this board, but it becomes really tiresome having to repeat that over and over again. No one complained when we used to praise him. Oh wait not true, I can recall at least one board member being very critical during season 5. I was too blinded by my WT colored glasses to want to listen then, but it turns out she was right all along. Oh well, I guess I have to admit that I can´t always be right. Btw, we have Marti Noxon to thank for hiring Amber.

Cartman: Mom--Kitty is being a dildo.

Mrs. Cartman: Well, I know a little kitty who is sleeping with Mommy tonight.

[Spring]

OK first of all I posted my original message in a thread light years away from this one. My post was promptly moved to another thread, since it was considered off topic. The thread I was originally posting in was about the WB and it seemed every other post was a slam on Joss.



I hadn't had a chance to see this thread, being new here and all, and I didn't understand why I kept seeing disparaging remarks being made about Joss every which way I turned.



Second I didn't mean that *everyone* here hated Joss. The term "you all" or "ya'll" is a southern thing. I didnt mean to automatically include every soul that posts on this board.



I happen to like Joss and I got a little offended on his behalf by all the negative remarks I was reading. So I asked *why* they were being made. It so happened that I discovered a lot about why people here dislike him and I can respect the arguments. I never even heard of a dead/evil lesbian cliche until now.



That's all.

Edited by: Spring at: 7/21/04 9:47 pm

[sam7777]

IMHO it's always a good idea to read the FAQ of any board where you post and lurk around to get a feel for the board before posting as the FAQ suggests to avoid misunderstandings. If you commonly see disparaging remarks about something, it's typically something that is addressed in the FAQ. IMHO it's also good board etiquette to find out a bit about a board's rules and character before posting especially if you feel your post may be unpopular.



This is not a fan board for Mr Whedon and the reasons why are laid out in the Lesbian Cliche FAQ. There are boards where no critism of Mr Whedon is allowed and boards were people do criticize him like this one and others. The former boards do not appeal to me because I see a reason for criticism in the dead lesbian cliche which is why I don't post there but boards are available for folks who prefer not to hear criticism.



This keeps coming up as an argument in this thread but my 2 cents for what it's worth is this: if I didn't like what people were saying on a board and felt it was it offensive, bullying and/or censorship, I simply would not go to that board and post there.

[Spring]

This keeps coming up as an argument in this thread but my 2 cents for what it's worth is this: if I didn't like what people were saying on a board and felt it was it offensive, bullying and/or censorship, I simply would not go to that board and post there.



It sounds to me as if you are suggesting that I leave the board merely because I disagree with one aspect of what a lot of the members of this board feel. Thats pretty harsh don't ya think?



All I did was ask a question. Yes I should have read the FAQS. But I didn't. And it was a harmless question with my harmless point of view. I don't plan to wax poetic about Joss here... I respect that this is not a Whedon fan board. But if I can't express my opinion or even ask a question without getting scolded and told to look elsewhere if I don't like something and dare to say so, then perhaps you are right and that I should leave.



But I really don't think that's fair.

Edited by: Spring at: 7/22/04 10:51 pm

[urnofosiris]

Eh, you started your post by saying "OK this isnt going to make me very popular around here but oh well." That does suggest you realized it might be more than a harmless question.

Those Joss remarks were put to an end in big fat fonts because talking about him had nothing to do with the topic of that thread, any subsequent remarks were edited out and you were reposted here because in this thread talking about that guy is at least partly on topic and this thread can answer your questions, that´s all.



In reponse to your previous post. Every which way you turned seems overstating things a bit just like translating disparaging remarks into everyone being a Joss hater. You did say "Why the heck are all of you Joss haters?" That is not an expression.

Also the when you said "I've heard some call Joss a homophobe because he killed Tara" it suggests you are talking about people here, as you were talking about people here hating him in that same paragraph. You may not have been aware of this thread, but you also can´t have read people call him a homophobe. That is one thing that keeps coming up again and again by people who post here to defend him and it does get frustrating as we´ve gone out our way to make clear we don´t think that. That is what I reacted to mostly and I realize my post sounded snippy. I am apologize for that, but I don´t think anyone else scolded you, they just answered you question.

Edited by: DrG at: 7/22/04 11:24 pm

[sam7777]

Spring: Actually my comments do not imply anything but what I would do if I was unhappy with a board and was a general remark based on a issue that keeps coming up with yours being the most recent example. If you read through this thread, the topic of board rules, people being angry about having their posts editted/moved or upset that everyone disagrees with them keeps coming up. My answer is that if I hated what is going on and it wasn't going to change, then I would change it for me by going. Like DrG I thought your wording was a bit harsh and it sounded more like a criticism of the opinions of people posting on this board than asking a question. Now that you have clarified what you were trying to say, I hope your question has been answered by reading through the FAQ.



I certainly apologize if my comments were harsh but I only intended to state what I would do and not tell others what to do. I certainly don't want anyone to leave this board but I also don't want anyone to be unhappy. People will prolly continue to criticize Mr Whedon in harsh terms on this board. In any case, this is all getting OT and into moderator territory. I certainly accept any editting that the moderators do on my posts and want to thank the moderators for all their hard work in keeping this community a haven for Willow/Tara fans. It's often a thankless task.



Getting back on Topic, I truly think that Mr Whedon failed his gay and gay friendly fans by giving us the dead lesbian cliche instead of the benchmark of the first long term lesbian relationship in prime time not to end in evil or death. Now there are almost no lesbians in primetime with no propects for improvement next season. Mr Whedon's cliches have helped to further marginalize lesbians in primetime IMHO. And I don't think that their bigotry will end with gays when their are Immigrants and African-Americans to marginalize. Republicans pushed prop 187 here in California to deny rights to Immigrants and have rolled back affirmative action programs. Bush is only the president of those who believe as he does and not of the United States IMHO.



ETA: There are alot of gay TV shows but little quality:

Edinburgh Festival: Gay activists attack TV over 'poofs in primetime'

Quote:

---

Portrayal of homosexuals is 'stuck in 1950s', executives told



It has been the TV phenomenon of the year: gay shows have become prime-time viewing. Series such as Queer Eye for the Straight Guy and Will & Grace are hot properties on terrestrial television and "pink programming" has boosted the digital channel Living TV, bringing both viewers and advertisers.



Graham Norton, a gay comedian notorious for his risqué humour, has shifted from his late-night Channel 4 slot and will soon be launched as a major BBC name after signing a major deal with the corporation.



The rise of gay TV will be one of the major discussion points for broadcasting executives at the Edinburgh International Television Festival, the industry's biggest annual talking shop, later this month.



But now there is disquiet about the "camp" portrayal of homosexuals, with campaigners worried they are seen simply as objects of ridicule in the shows. It is even claimed that in years to come people will look back at the current crop of shows with revulsion, in the same way The Black and White Minstrel Show is now viewed.



The lobby groups Stonewall and Outrage! feel the shows give a distorted, one-dimensional view of the experiences of homosexuals.



Ben Summerskill, Stonewall chief executive, said: "Some gay people are camp but that is one strand of many. The reason I think people get frustrated is that that is the only strand that is represented. Of course there are gay men who are style gurus, but there are also gay men who dress like Alan Bennett."



Peter Tatchell of the gay campaign group Outrage! said: "Most gay comedy is stuck in the 1950s with the camp cliché of effeminate, limp-wristed queens and saucy innuendo. I love Graham Norton, he's very funny, but his trademark camp really is a bit dated. A lot of gay characters conform to camp stereotypes. The makeover shows like Queer Eye play to a simplistic, one-dimensional stereotype of gay life."



In a TV festival session called Poofs in Primetime, journalist John Lyttle will accuse executives of perpetuating stereotypes by filling screens with camp characters, skewing the public's view.



In Queer Eye, which has been screened by Living and Channel 4, five gay men use their style insight to make-over a heterosexual man. Channel 4 used a similar idea for Fairy Godfathers, which was broadcast earlier this year. The US sitcom Will & Grace features a relatively straight-acting lead character, and a highly camp gay supporting character, Jack.



Mr Lyttle said: "In a few years' time we will look back on these programmes in the same way we look back on Uncle Tom's Cabin. People will cringe. There's this idea that it's OK to do gay on TV if you can quote Oscar Wilde, know which brand of champagne to drink and know about skin-care products."



"The thing about camping it up, it's gone from being very subversive - without it we wouldn't have had gay liberation - to being the norm on TV. Gay culture is not all about that stereotype. It's like gay men are only acceptable if they play the court jester."



Richard Woolfe, the programme director of Living TV - who will answer the charges during the Edinburgh discussion - said his channel showed "a wide range of guys and girls who are gay".



"I don't think we focus on a particular type of gay character or presenter. In our Queer Eye 'fab five', lots of people would question whether Tristan, our grooming expert, was even gay. If what critics are saying were true, Queer Eye would be made up of five John Inman characters, but what we've actually got is five eclectic gay guys with very different characteristics."



Mr Woolfe's next gay programming venture is a lesbian drama called The L Word, which begins next month and features Jackie Brown actress Pam Grier and Flashdance star Jennifer Beals. He said it "moved on" the way gay characters are portrayed.



"The most important thing about the pink programmes we have on Living are that they are great entertainment and they will bring viewers to the channel," Mr Woolfe said.

---

A "a simplistic, one-dimensional stereotype of gay life". Yep. Gay TV is dominated by "lipstick lesbians" and comedic "queens". Coincidentally these are the less offensive stereotypes to straights.

Edited by: sam7777  at: 8/16/04 11:21 am

[Sheridan]

Spring there are a dozen boards where Joss is deified, so the Kitten board is something of a haven for those who don't feel that way, stay by all means but learn to live with it. I live in the UK and when Buffy started airing here it didn't do to well at first and it got pulled off the air. I was right in there campaigning to get it back. When I heard Tara was going to be killed off I couldn't believe it and looking for some place that I could find out the truth I lucked into the Kittens. From before Tara's death practically to the last minute of S6 a lot of Kittens, myself included, were hoping Joss was going to pull something out of the hat. You should have seen some of the theories that were doing the rounds here, actually if you go over to Pens you can see quite a few of them, so please don't imply that we haven't thought it through or failed to give Joss the benefit of the doubt, we gave it to him two years ago and all we got was sarcasm and disappointment. One person is responsible for the attitude of the Kittens to joss Whedon, and that's Joss Whedon himself.

Willow: ...I have to tell you....

Tara: No, I understand you have to be with the person you l-love

Willow: I am

[Irridenscent Light]

I'm 15 and bi. I loved watching BUFFY. Why? Cause it has lesbians! It's adorable how W&T are together. When Tara died, I cried.

Edited by: Warduke at: 8/30/04 8:07 pm

[sam7777]

Quote:

---

One person is responsible for the attitude of the Kittens to joss Whedon, and that's Joss Whedon himself.

---

Sheridan: Exactly. If folks just read the Lesbian Cliche FAQ and through the archives, they will know why we feel that way even if they don't agree.



Looking at the fall shows on the broadcast nets, I don't see any new lesbian characters. Josswad invoked the dead lesbian cliche in the death of Tara and since then we have seen the remaining prominent lesbian relationships also end in death or tragedy or both on AMC and ER. There was such hope amongst gay and gay friendly fans when W/T was on and now it seems all we have left is the cliches. To me it was a turning point towards fewer and lesser lesbian portrayals on network TV. I believe that if W/T were allowed to survive then the landscape for lesbians on network TV would be a lot better today. That's another reason why I will never watch anything else by Josswad.

_____________________

I still see dead lesbian cliches

Edited by: sam7777  at: 8/31/04 9:37 am

[WebWarlock]

Looking for some VERY serious help here Kittens and this just might be the thread.



The movie is "Vampyres", a bit of soft-core B-grade horror/sex romp that has obtained cult status.



The couple in question is Fran and Miriam.

Both actresses (Marianne Morris and Anulka Dziubinska) speak very fondly of these characters they played more than 30 years ago. The Director, José Ramón Larraz, calls them a loving tender couple.



Here is the problem. They are killed within the first few seconds of the film because they are in a loving embrace and spend the rest of the film killing men for their blood.



On one hand they are dead, and evil. Then there is the cliché that they only kill men. Ok, they do kill one woman, but she was a witness, they only seem to prey on men.



But on the other hand, you get the feeling that they don't want to do what they are doing, they have no choice because they are vampires now. The real evil, as proposed by Larraz, is the man that kills them in the beginning. A jealous lover he says. Miriam even asks Fran to stop doing what they do.



They are together in the end and neither gets a "final" death.



So. Where does this one lie?



I am tempted to say "Cliché", but what about the other elements? Everyone involved with the movie say Fran and Miriam are a "tender, loving couple". They just happen to like to feed on other people.



Can a cliché be undone?

Is this a better discussion for the Cliché thread or the non cliché lesbian characters one?



Warlock

-----

Web Warlock

Coming Soon to The Other Side, The Netbook of Shadows: A Book of Spells for d20 Witches

Talent on loan from Cthulhu

[dekalog]

I don't know Tim. In your synopsis you say they are killed in a loving embrace - so does that mean they are killed for being lesbians? For showing their affection for each other? I mean Tara and Willow were a loving couple but they still qualify for the cliche because Tara ended up dead, and Willow ended up being, well, notWillow.



By the sounds of it though the cliche of this film would go even further. It's not just a lesbian cliche for me - it's a woman thing as well.



It's funny because while I was reading your synopsis for the film I flashed on another film Baise-Moi, which was also about women going on a man murdering rampage - the difference was that these women were 'straight'.



Having never seen "Vampyres", I can't really comment but I will check it out now. A friend of mine has it but I have been reluctant to watch it. He always says to me "hot lesbians how could you not want to watch it"? For much the same reason I don't want to watch a lot of things about 'lesbians' made by men. It's a male version of what they think lesbians are or should be for them. Not that there is anything wrong with that - it just isn't for me.



I do think that alot of films take a strong/different/ challenging/take your pick, women character and then proceed to destroy her for being strong/different/ challenging/take your pick.



That is to say most films take a woman and make her the girlfriend/sex object/plot device, and let her be a partially fleshed out character. When a woman isn't these things, but a real character most films destroy the female character for being a real character. Let me qualify as well by saying that I don't think this of all films, but I do believe this to be the case for the majority and certainly so for mainstream American cinema.



I might not be making sense - I've only had one cup of coffee, and reading my own paragraph back - I think I confused myself . Me being me though - I will continue anyway



I think that sexuality in film in regards to women is mostly there to titillate - hetero or queer. There is a definite connection, which is getting stronger, between sex and violence in film as well. That is why people like end up thinking that creating a story around a happy couple is boring and inciting the cliche is so dramatic. Alot of filmmakers are falling into this trap. Tragedy, angst yes - butchery and over the top sex no. I really feel that until someone can write a compelling story or film without sex and violence they will never know if they can truly write well. Most of the time the sex and violence is just a prop for bad writing imho. (please don't take this as a Puritan view where I don't want to see any sex or violence - let's just have some context please)



In the end Tim though from what you have said about the film the two lesbians lovers end up dead and evil (twice the cliche for the price of one) and go around murdering men (cause you know that all lesbians are man hating dykes). For me that would be my first impression of the film, and why I've been so hesitant to watch it. Then again, like I said I haven't seen it, so my comments are really based on what I've heard.



Bottom line for me I want more positive portrayals of lesbians and women in general. There are tons of stories that haven't been told.



edited because I have had no sleep and therefore my spelling is atrocious.

Edited by: dekalog at: 9/10/04 5:22 am

[urnofosiris]

Sounds like you have to see this movie to form an opinion and then I´d expect there is something to be said for either side. That means at the very least it does not do much good for lesbian characters in movies, unlike movies like Fucking Amal do.

[sam7777]

Tim, the soft core genre rarely presents positive images of women gay or straight. Also it's unlikely the director or actors would have alot of bad things to say about their own work. Not many of of the directors or actors of the films in "The Celluloid Closet" have come out and said their films were cliched for example. I expect that this movie falls into the cliche category but as DrG say you'd have to see it to decide. However, given that you've seen it and can't decide, it's certainly not a fully positivve image of lesbians or women for that matter as "Desert Hearts" or "Fucking Amal" are. Personally I have no interest in seeing the film judging from your description it would fall into the man hating lesbian cliche. I'd rather spend my time on stuff that is definitely positive instead.



ETA: Gays are dissappearing from network TV according to a breaking story from TV WeeK:

Quote:

---

GLAAD Finds More Gays on Reality TV, Cable Than on Broadcast



The media advocacy group Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation released its annual analysis of the fall television season Thursday. The report commended cable networks and the reality genre for diversity in terms of gay and lesbian characters but criticized the broadcast networks for the lowest number of gay and lesbian characters in scripted programming since GLAAD started tracking them in 1996.

---

It's not hard to see the death of Tara as a turning point towards fewer and lesser lesbian portrayals on network TV. I still believe that if W/T were allowed to survive then the landscape for lesbians on network TV would be a lot better today. IMHO GLAAD would have something to be glad about today had they been more critical of the cliches and pushed for more representation behind the camera as the NAACP did.

_____________________

I still see dead lesbian cliches

Edited by: sam7777  at: 9/16/04 4:50 pm

[WebWarlock]

Ok.



So we are coming down on the side of "cliched" for this flick.

No big. It is not supposed to be a landmark, just a bit of quasi-pornographic, blood-and-gore fluff.



Thanks all.



Warlock

-----

Web Warlock

Coming Soon to The Other Side, The Netbook of Shadows: A Book of Spells for d20 Witches

Talent on loan from Cthulhu

[kyraroc]

Hey. Weighing in late here.



Haven't seen the movie, sounds to me like it falls pretty squarely into the Lesbian Cliche category, but I think the question itself brings up an interesting point - one which hasn't been discussed much here, but which strikes me as being one of the main reasons that we have trouble communicating to other people why the end of the Willow/Tara relationship was part of the cliche.



There seems to be an assumption that for a show to be part of the cliche, it cannot:



1) Portray lesbians in a positive light in any way, or



2) Be a work of quality entertainment or art.



Actually, all it has to do is have the lesbian characters end up evil, dead, or straight. No other qualification. The problem isn't that it's impossible to write a good, tasteful, tender, loving, what-have-you show that ends this way; of course it is, I can think of a number off the top of my head. The problem is that shows that end this way are practically all there is.



Buffy was, for two years in the middle there, about as good a portrayal of a lesbian relationship as we're likely to get. Still ended up cliche. Of course, Buffy also ended up sucking warm sick through a short straw for the last couple of years, too, and the issues are not unrelated, so the two arguments are often conflated. But, while related, they're not the same thing.



Because I *like* a fair number of movies that end up with dead or evil lesbians. I acknowledge they're part of the cliche, but I feel no guilt about liking them, because they're good movies, some with sensitively portrayed characters, good writing, and all the rest. I just want to see a whole bunch of other movies - good and bad - that *don't* end that way.



When I say Buffy falls into this cliche, that isn't saying that Buffy is bad, never did anything good, or that anything it ever did that was good was retroactively destroyed. Those are other arguments, which I might make or not. But it seems to be what people hear, and it's tiresome to have people argue against what is, quite frankly, a fact (Buffy killed one lesbian character and turned another evil), with a completely unrelated defense (Buffy had a good portrayal of lesbians earlier on, it was a good show, the writers clearly aren't homophobes, whatever.)



Anyone else have any thoughts on this?



--- kyraroc

Lost in Ecstacy

[sam7777]

kyraroc: Excellent points. I don't want to outlaw movies that have the lesbian characters end up evil, dead, or straight because as you say they can be good. But like you, I also want to see more movies and TV shows that don't end that way. I've said before that I have a personal moratorium on watching movies with the cliches until we get a 50-50 ratio of happy to sad endings. This is alot less than the 90-10 of real life but I'll take it. I'm just tired of the 10-90 ratio of happy to sad endings. When the ratio improves there won't be cliches.



The Welsh are way ahead of us on monitoring the media:

New project focuses on media homophobia

Quote:

---

A new project organised by Stonewall Cymru will focus on the levels of homophobia in the media, as well as increase awareness of LGB people in Wales.



Funded by Comic Relief, the Look Out project was launched earlier this week, and will also respond to homophobic and negative portrayals of LGB people in the media.



"The Look Out project is about working with the media in Wales to tackle homophobia and to improve the portrayal of lesbian, gay and bisexual people," Stonewall Cymru's Derek Walker said in a prepared statement yesterday.



"It's about changing the way gay issues are reported and the way LGB people are represented," he added.



Walker says that a recent survey by the group, found that two thirds of LGB people in Wales are upset by the way LGB people are portrayed in the media.



A large proportion of respondents said that any discrimination and prejudice they suffered was a direct result of the negative media perception of people in the media.



"We want to work in partnership with the media, working from the premise that informing, co-operating and involving the media in Wales is the best way to improve how LGB people are represented," Walker said.



"So as well as encouraging people to send examples of bad – and good – coverage to the group, the project will be organising briefings and one-to-one dialogues with journalists and producing reference materials."

---

IMHO we are losing the PR battle. We need better media portrayals of GLBTs and more specifically of long term loving relationships. Not because there is only one right kind of relationship but because they exist and should be recognized and reflected in the media. Most people do not personally know GLBT people and thus can be heavily influenced by media portrayals. For example, ~70% of people in Ohio voted against gay marriage. I can't help thinking if there were more relationships like W/T in the media but without the gruesome end, it would show that GLBTs have viable relationships. Perhaps, people would then change their minds and at least support civil unions, gay families and adoption if not marriage.



This board is proof of what a good portayal can do. Many Kittens (and some of our most prominent members) are straight white men. This board reaches out to all kinds of folks. Many people that were touched by Willow/Tara had never heard of gay issues before coming to this board. The great thing about W/T was how the portrayal bought people together. The awful cliched ending divided folks again but for one brief shining moment, we had a lesbian couple that we could all feel good about. This is another reason why I will never watch anything by Whedon again. He helped to blight the TV landscape for GLBT portrayals and the result can be seen in GLAAD's report (see above): the broadcast networks had the lowest number of gay and lesbian characters in scripted programming since GLAAD started tracking them in 1996.



That is not progress for GLBT people and we can see the result (in the US at least) in the rise of anti-gay laws like Virginia's so-called "Marriage Affirmation Act" and the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment. When did gay marriage civil unions or even long term relationships between GLBT folks become a danger to the family requring laws to save the "family". It' seems it's OK to be gay as long as you do not have a family of any sort be it kids or a long term partner. Considering how many GLBT folks are abandoned by their families (50% in one article I saw) this makes the current war against GLBT families especially cruel. It starts by prohibiting marriage, then civil unions then contracts between unmarried people, adoption, living openly as a GLBT person and end with not being able to live at all.



Lani Guinier was right about the Tyranny of the Majority. Even if 70% of the people in this country should think that GLBT people shouldn't have rights (or "special treatment" as they code it), it doesn't make it right for the country or for humanity.



ETA: There is some hope to improve the TV landscape if GLAAD doesn't kowtow to the media as usual: Nielsen moves to track gay TV viewer habits

Quote:

---

For the first time, the television viewing habits of the gay community may officially be counted. The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) and Nielsen Media Research, the television ratings company, are teaming up to work on monitoring the gay community's viewing habits.



When searching for families to track what they watch on TV, commonly known as Nielsen Households, Nielsen tries to include a representational demographic of the viewing area. Families that become Nielsen Households are asked about their age, income, education, gender and ethnicity. What the survey does not ask is a person's sexual orientation.



If a particular advertiser wanted to sell its products to the gay community, it would have to rely on strictly anecdotal evidence to find a particular program that may appeal to a gay audience.



"Information is power, and with this information the LGBT community, a community that has been largely defined by stereotype or misinformation, will benefit," Stephen Macias, GLAAD's entertainment media director, said. "Until you define what the gay market is you can't program to it, and you can't solicit the support of advertisers for programs that appeal to a gay audience."



GLAAD and Nielsen have held a series of meetings on both coasts to discuss different ways of counting gay and lesbian viewership in Nielsen's ratings research.



"The short answer is, we don't know how we'll keep track of this community," said Jack Loftus with Nielsen Media Research. "But the long answer is GLAAD will help us figure out a way to accurately do that."



The two said they would continue working on a process to include gay people in Nielsen households.

---

ETA2: I'm not the only one who thinkks we are losing the PR battle in the media. The Welsh see above) at the left of the spectrum and even those on the right can see it:

Gay Marriage: A Public Relations Failure

Warning: This article is by a conservative columnist and the rest of it is very Log Cabin and conservative Republican with criticism of the liberal side of the gay rights movement.

Quote:

---

If gays want to convince the average American to support same sex marriages, then gays have to realize first that they have a public relations failure on their hands. Many Americans view marriage as a loving and committed relationship, while at the same time the image they have of gays is one of promiscuity and outrageous behavior. This image of gays has to change if Americans are going to change their minds about same-sex marriages. Gays have to work on their public relations.



It is ironic that the bad PR gays receive is brought to them often by the same liberal media that claims to support them. The recent Gay Pride Parades are a good example. How many more pictures of outrageous behavior and outlandish costumes must average Americans see before they conclude these people are not serious. ''How can gays be expected to have loving and committed relationships, if all they do is drink, party, and go to bathhouses?'' the conservatives ask. If the media wants to support marriage for gays, then they'd better start portraying gays in a different and more conservative light.



The truth is that most gays are responsible and productive citizens who want their committed relationships respected. Often, these are the gays you never see on TV or read about in news magazines.

---

I don't agree with much of what's in this article but we can't ignore what the other side says if we are to effectively promote gay marriage and rights. The dead lesbian cliches on TV hurts gays in the real world as well as those on the screen.



Considering that 78% of people in Louisiana voted for a gay marriage ban, it's apparent that we are losing the PR battle. There are more states poised to vote on gay marriage bans with polls showing the majority of people support such bans. We could lose our rights state by state even without the Federal Marriage Ammendment being passed. Even if you don't want gay marriage many of these bans also put rules in place making domestic partnerships and even contracts between partners more difficult. GLBT rights are under threat and we need the media as well as policy to protect ourselves.

_____________________

I still see dead lesbian cliches

Edited by: sam7777  at: 9/30/04 5:29 pm

[BBOvenGuy]

Add Charmed to the list of shows that have made use of the cliche. In last night's episode, Paige went looking for a missing witch. She goes to the missing witch's apartment and talks to the missing witch's roommate - who, it turns out, is actually the missing witch's partner, and says so in no uncertain terms. She even talks about the police not bothering to launch a missing persons investigation because they think it's just "a lovers' quarrel."



But before I even had time to think, "Wow, Charmed put a lesbian couple on the air," the missing witch ends up dead. Grrr...

"The stories we tell - that's us explaining how we think the world works. Once we speak it, once we say it aloud, that makes it real for us - and real for everyone else who hears it too. When we tell a story, we invite people to visit our reality. We invite them to move in. Our stories are the reality we live in." - David Gerrold, The Martian Child

[Sheridan]

The media has a lot to answer for. Is it so for fetched to think that a lot of otherwise decent people have been brainwashed by constant exposure to the cliche into thinking lesbian relationships are bound to end badly so erecting a myriad of legal barriers to their relationships is simply for their own good? If practically every gay man on TV is promiscuous and incapable of comittment is it suprising people think that they will just abuse the institution of marriage(regardless of how abused it already is)?

One of the oddest things about the UK show 'Hex' is that when they killed off Thelma in ep1 it was almost a relief, like; 'see the lesbians already dead and still around so we aren't going to bump her off at so unexpected future point,' and for my money she's the best character on the show.

Willow: ...I have to tell you....

Tara: No, I understand you have to be with the person you l-love

Willow: I am

[Ben Varkentine]

This is a few years old because I'm only just getting around to watching the first season of 24 on DVD. But people do know about the dandy use of the cliche in the early "hours" of the first "day", right?

Ben



"One voice is easily ignored or silenced, but when other people add their voices to yours, you become a chorus not easily ignored."--Wil "Just A Geek" Wheaton

[sam7777]

Here's another example of bad GLBT portrayals on TV: Elisabeth Rohm's "Law & Order" exit

Quote:

---

Anyway, after she's been fired, Serena looks at the DA, and says, "Is this because I'm a lesbian?"



Whaa--huh?



Either this is just terrible writing, or the Law & Order producers wanted to throw in a little zinger as their worst ever character departs. Are we as an audience now supposed to go back through our memory of Serena, seeing everything she ever did through this new lesbian lens? The show has never been about the personal lives of the central characters, but still, if you're going to make a main character a lesbian, wouldn't it have been good to let the world know that, you know, before the last 5 seconds of her career on the show? This is not the time for character development.

---

I guess they just wanted their lesbian exploitation without actually dealing with having a lesbian character. Just awful. Things just continue to decline with GLBT portrayals on network TV since the end of W/T. It won't be long before the likes of GLAAD and the Advocate start to praise this retroactively sudden lesbianism. Ugggghhh!

Edited by: sam7777  at: 1/14/05 10:24 am

[Sister Bertrille]

sam7777,



I agree with just about everything you wrote, except the "another example of bad GLBT portrayals" part, since there was no portrayal of Serena’s lesbianism . There wasn’t even a declaration – not only do we learn that she is gay after she is fired (and seconds before she disappears from the show), but we learn of it in the form of an indirect question. Let me tell you, I had a few choice questions of my own as the credits rolled!



As far as I am concerned, Dick Wolf, like Joss Whedon, is total chickenshit. The only gay characters we ever see on his Law & Order shows are victims or perps, and his gay perps are always monstrously deviant. And as much as he and some of his defenders insist that his shows are not about his main characters' personal lives, every character with a personal life is straight, including Serena, whose last allusion to her private life concerned the terrific time she had at her prom (wink, wink) with an older male law student turned state representative. Then she's gay, then she's gone. Serena, we hardly knew ye...



I understand that Dick Wolf has come under some criticism for his lack of openly gay main characters (Huang is still a mystery, unlike everyone else). He should get zero credit for Serena, who was "gay" on the show for maybe ten seconds, and then only after she was fired.

Quote:

---

Things just continue to decline with GLBT portrayals on network TV since the end of W/T.

---

Ain’t it the truth. With the exception of sports (Red Sox! Patriots!), Roseanne reruns, and the occasional PBS special, I just don’t watch TV anymore. Given the current American political climate and its toxic influence on just about everything, I don't see that changing any time soon.



Air America, here I come.



SB

[xita]

I agree, I think Law and Order has now officially a lot to answer for its portrayal of gay people. This cannot be a defense, well Serena was gay. No Serena was not gay. It's bullshit that the characters on the shows don't have personal lives, on SVU right now we know that Stabler is going through some separation. Every once in a while in subtle ways they let us know if they're dating, if they're married, etc. Except the gay people, cause they don't exist in law enforcement.

- - - - - - - - - - -
"Trust is a risk masquerading as a promise."

[ZeeDax]

Funny, I assume that everyone on L&O is gay -- even the ones I don't want to be.

[sam7777]

The "Celluloid Closet" is running on IFC this month and I can highly recommend it. What ZeeDax is talking about is what we have had to do in the past because of the dearth of gay charactersand and sadly now again in the present because of the same dearth. It might be fun but it's really not the same as having representation on screen. Growing up we are desparate to find images of ourselfs reflected in media but for gay folks and minorities, we remain mostly invisible. "Celluloid Closet" opens with people talking about the subtext and gay characters they made up. Surely in 2004, we can actually have some real gay characters on Broadcast TV (premium cable has them but I and many don't get HBO, Showtime et al). This season the broadcast networks had the lowest number of gay and lesbian characters in scripted programming since GLAAD started tracking them in 1996.

_____________________

I still see dead lesbian cliches

[sfgo2003]

Wow!!! The lowest since 1996!!! That's more than a little disconcerting. Especially since there were hardly any to begin with. I have heard through the rumor mill that Melissa Etheridge may have a sitcom coming out in which she plays a lesbian.



What I have noticed in the US is a lot of references to gays and lesbians on TV shows. They are everywhere. It happens all the time. Especially with reference to lesbians. Not the same thing as having actual characters.



Wendy

Edited by: sfgo2003 at: 3/1/05 10:28 am

[rosenbloom]

Okay, a woman is murdered on her way home from an orgy. They arrest her neighbor, who was obsessed with her and knows every detail of the attack. But since this Law & Order I know there is absolutely no way in hell this poor smuck did it. I mean, there's just no way. I mean, it's a metaphysical impossibility. As I wait tirelessly for the final 5 minutes in which the real perp will be pulled out of the writers' asses, we meet the victim's lovely friend who claims to have attended the orgy with her the night she was killed. Things start to look suspicious immediately when they question the doorman of their building and discover the friend never has male guests. "Strange! Odd! How utterly absurd!" What healthy, red-blooded young woman doesn't long for the caresses of virile, young gentlemen?" wonders the male DA, and his young female assistant. So being an unpaid whore didn't make them raise an eyebrow, but not having an interest in men or maybe sex altogether is worthy of suspicion? Sometimes I think those Christian activists are right. Hollywood does have it's values skewed. Our crack DA happens to notice that the glove found at the scene is a lady's, a fact which is supposed to have alluded the policemen and detectives (again, straight out outta their asses). It turns out the victims friend was a lesbian and when the poor, beleaguered straight woman rejected her advances, the violent, predatory dyke reverted to her Sapphic nature and beat her to death with a crow bar.



This was a few years ago. It was when I knew my beloved Law & Order was gone, gone forever. Oh, it had been in decline for some time, but this was the proverbial straw that proverbially broke the camel. Yes, I am bitter, why do you ask?

[Dana5140]

I do not know if this has been brought up before and I apologize for only going back a few screens, but what do people make of the Marissa/Alex relation on The OC? I am ambivalent; glad to see it, but on the other hand pretty aware that it was done largely for a ratings jump during sweeps week and with comment that ***** Spoiler****







Alex would soon be departing, probably by the end of March.



(Sorry, do not know how to use a spoiler tag here).



In watching I felt the two ladies had little chemistry, were chosen because they are quite gorgeous, but I did not get the Willow/Tara kind of vibe from them.



Thoughts?