Course Description

At the core of the course is the question how feminism has become a demonized and ridiculed “F-word” in an age when issues of gender and sexuality are at the center of constant, often explosive political debates. These debates often connect media representation and political representation but tend to do so in simplistic ways that bypass or distort decades of sophisticated feminist theory and practice. We will trace back such representations through the decades around case studies that encompass film, video, television and new media practices. The case studies come from the United States and beyond, taking into full account the global interconnectedness of media production and consumption as well as the transnational travel of feminist ideas. The main goal of the course is to evaluate how useful feminist thinking is to understanding the relays between media and political representation; and to develop a lasting critical apparatus to analyzing the politics of gender and sexuality in the media.


Friday, November 15, 2013

minority representations


       While there has been much progress in the representation of minority groups, it is interesting to question whether these roles simply fill the need of “that one gay character” or “that one black guy” on a show or in a movie. Do these characters receive the same treatment as other characters or are they there just for the sake of it? It seems that often these token minority characters serve the purpose of bringing into discussion issues of race or sexuality or for the show to appear socially ethical and avoid criticism from minority groups. I have found that often time Asian and Black characters are represented as some type of extreme, often using them to draw comedy as with gay men, much like gay characters.  

       I recently read an article posted by Brent Hartinger called “What’s with all the Annoying Gay Characters” that resonated with me. While I am always happy to see a show include a gay character, I find myself frustrated by how unlikeable these characters often are. In many shows, the gay character is “flamboyant”, self-centered, and superficial. It seems that writers find it easier to write the character of a stereotypical gay man than to make these characters dynamic or interesting. This type of representation is alarming as it perpetuates false stereotypes. 

        As Hartinger notes, it seems that in representations of gay couples, there is one man who is “uptight and fussy” and the other who is “flamboyant”. This can be seen in shows like Modern Family, Partners, and The New Normal. For females, it seems that gay woman either fall into the butch tomboy category or the chapstick lesbian category. 
  
         I have actually found the lesbian character Emily Fields from Pretty Little Liars to be refreshing- she falls into neither category and breaks away from this stereotyping. She is an athlete and a fashionista and her character actually gets the attention that many gay characters fail to receive, developing her character into someone interesting and not just the center of a joke or to discuss a social issue. 

       I am ultimately left questioning whether including minority characters is actually counter productive when the character is not treated properly, reaffirming stereotypes and lacking the development other characters receive (which makes them uninteresting and shallow). While I understand the value in exposure to minority groups in film and television, it seems to me that there a certain responsibility many shows and movies fail to meet when dealing with such characters. 

No comments:

Post a Comment