I realize that I am on the losing end of an argument as far as this board is concerned, but be that as it may...given your postings sam7777, it appears obvious that you don't really want diverse portrayals of gays and lesbians on TV and film - you want to see what you want to see, which is gays and lesbians in long-term, healthy relationships. Now, I agree, that should be portrayed (and it has been, albeit infrequently). You also want those long-term, healthy relationships to have no bumps in the road (no lesbian bed death, baby-talk, or magic addiction issues please) and to last forever. That's simply not realistic, not for any couple, gay, straight, or otherwise. I have no problem with people advocating better portrayals of gays and lesbians in the media (I do think that people don't have any right to complain unless they vote - if they can - but that's a different matter). But true diversity means portrayals that you might not like either, sam7777.
For example, you dismiss "Kissing Jessica Stein" as a movie about sexual exploration, which is demeaning. I couldn't disagree more. I think it's about a woman finding herself and finding what she wants out of someone else regardless of sexuality and I think that's awesome. I love it because it flies in the face of every convention that lesbians have about how they should be portrayed (I can't even count how many times I've gotten looks, rude comments, and the like - from lesbians - about dating bisexuals.). And if one reads the backstory on Aileen Wuornos, you would realize that the director of "Monster" went quite a bit away from the truth to make the love story between Aileen and Selby a great deal more romantic and touching in the movie than it was in real life (and by the way, Aileen wasn't a lesbian in the traditional sense of the word, she had one relationship with a woman).
Here's what I define as progress. I went to go see the movie "Higher Learning" when I was in college and in that movie, there is a female-female kiss. Now, despite the fact that "Higher Learning" has many though-provoking issues in it - white supremacy, date rape, drug use - the crowd erupted only at the woman-on-woman kiss - saying things like "eww" and catcalls. This was in 1996 or 1997. Fast forward to when I went to see "Monster" a little over a month ago, which has frank scenes of two women kissing and making love. Not a peep from the audience. Not a word of derision or condemnation. Perhaps that's not enough progress to satisfy you, sam7777, but I see that as more acceptance now than just a few years ago and both the changing of the laws and the better portrayals in the media have helped.
It is true that MOST gay and lesbian characters are there on the periphery of shows, so that when its time for the writers and producers to kill someone or tease some drama out of the show, many gay and lesbian characters are at risk because they're not mainstays - those actors don't have binding contracts (aka it's much easier to kill a Tara than a Willow). (And I don't really believe that producers and writers stay up late at night thinking of ways to kill the gay people. Sure, maybe one or two does, but as a general rule, no.) So, on that point, I agree - in order to keep gay and lesbian characters around, they need to be the mainstays of the show. But Sam7777, that's a hard order to fill given that the popular wisdom is that gays and lesbians only comprise 10% of the population. Based on that notion, only 10% of the media should be geared towards us. I'm not arguing the validity of that figure, or saying that it's inaccurate, but that's the common wisdom and up and until a new study is done, that's how media producers are going to look at it financially - 10%. That's not a lot of leverage to have on an industry.
As for the gay magazines - I agree with you that they mostly suck, which is why I don't subscribe to any. But they can't tell you what to think - they present a viewpoint that's different than your own. Do they have a vested interest in media? Sure...but it's not as conspiracy theory as you think - mags like Entertainment Weekly (owned by AOL Time Warner) still bash movies, TV, and books they think sucks (yes, they're not likely to bash stars since they may want interviews down the road, but that's just good business). Magazines are based on advertising revenue and subscriptions (mostly the ad revenue), so if taking Hollywood to task actually sells more magazines, I don't see anything stopping them.
I don't say that people shouldn't find fault with the media - ask for better. But I do say that what this board asks for and what they want is unrealistic, and more to the point, is not the kind of lesbians portrayals I want to see. Yes, I want to see the lesbian version of Leave It To Beaver, but I also want to see the "Monster"s, the "High Art"s, the "Will and Tara"s(even with Seeing Red), the "Kissing Jessica Stein"s, the "Better Than Chocolate"s (aka fluff). All of it - that's diversity, not your simple view of the world and not the dead lesbian cliche. Do we have that now? No. Are we getting there? I think so and a hell of a lot faster than African-Americans or Latinos or Asian-Americans. Does that mean we should be satisfied with what we have? No. Perhaps I just have more patience in this regard then you, and perhaps it's because I grew up at a time when, for me, things have changed much more quickly. I can imagine for some people, this shift has happened much more long-term. I just don't see the point, or the progress, to be had in bashing a bunch of producers (including Joss) and writers for not portraying our lives. Did Joss lie? I wasn't there personally, but it appears he did, yes. Does that make him a not very nice person? Yep - lying, not good. Does that make him a hateful, lesbian-hating mongrel? No, it doesn't.
Every person on this board has a chance to make their decision heard - you don't like something - don't watch it or complain to the station that broadcasts it or write your own script. You want to change the world - you do it - stop waiting for a bunch of straight people to do it for you, becuase you're right - a straight person's experience is NOT the same as a gay person's (just like my expierence is not the same as a black person's). You want to fight the power? Step up to the plate.
amazonchyck
me@amazonchyck.comwww.amazonchyck.com/blog/ 
at: 2/23/04 12:20 pm
at: 2/23/04 8:03 pm
at: 2/28/04 11:15 pm
). As for getting such movies made today, at least two kittens (Dekalog and Iamyouknowyours) have run into the same problem RECENTLY as Donna Deitch in getting a lesbian movie with a happy ending made. The problem exists though it is not acknowledged by the Media, particularily the gay rags who like to talk about the progress rather than give constructive criticism. Unless we agitate for better representation we won't get it IMHO. I certainly will not be silent and will continue to write and praise what is good and condemn what is bad (to borrow a quote from Madeleine). I am also skipping the Hollywood approved unhappy endings till the ratio between happy and unhappy films is addressed. They are not making my money with the dead lesbian cliche. Been there and done that way too often. I think that more movies with actual happy endings for lesbians and gays that have enough distribtuion to be seen would help the public (subconsciously at least) be more willing to accept gay marriage. I fear the continual parade of miserable GLBT characters feeds into the same latent homophobia that has led most people in the US to oppose gay marriage. The 
Out
