I thought we'd begin by talking about Alexander's Writing Queer Digital Youth, since I think it does a pretty good job of framing the discussion. But first, I thought I'd provide a little information about the author by leading you to his Web site. For those of us who were fortunate enough to see him speak on campus last year, this is nothing new, though some of the content has changed.Moving on - Alexander begins by pointing out the "explosion of images of gays in the mass media, from popular shows such as Queer Eye for the Straight Guy and Will & Grace" and then suggests that these images suggest "that the larger culture is increasingly comfortable with gayness" (229). We're just getting started, but this might be a good time to stop for a couple of questions.
1. Do we agree with this statement? Is the larger culture becoming more comfortable? (I must admit here, my first draft of this question was "Are we becoming more comfortable?)
2. Racism is said to be alive and well, only less overt than it once was. Could we also say this of homophobia?
Alexander then goes on to discuss online environments like "listservs, chatrooms, discussion boards, and Web sites" to communicate and exchange information (230). He separates these sites and resources into two general categories, commercial and "home grown" sites, the first created for queer digital youth and focused more on targeting them as consumers, and the next typically both created for and maintained by queer youth.
1. "Are the images and representations comparable, or do they offer us different understandings of queer digital youth and their interests, ideas, and sociopolitical investments with regard to queer sexuality?" (231).
2. Has queerness become commodified?
Alexander seems to be arguing that many of these sites, like Gayscape.com, PlanetOut, Gay.com, and OutProud, to name just a few, are largely designed for commercial profit or support services. Let's spend a few minutes with these sites and ask ourselves whether or not we see them the same way.
The purpose for going into so much detail about how the sites are constructed seems to be tied to the concept of "cybertyping," which is a term Alexander borrows from Lisa Nakamura's Cybertypes: Race, Ethnicity, and Identity on the Internet.Nakamura says, pointedly, that 'Cyberspace's interfaces are perfectly hegemonic, in the sense that they are enforced and informed by dominant ideologies, however unconscious, as well as, to a much lesser extent, infrastructure and design limitations. (247)
While I found this piece to be somewhat repetitive here and there, there were a number of places where the text made the problem very clear:
Certainly, the presence of message boards and chatrooms allow digital youth to communicate with one another, but most of the content of these pages seem to "type" queer youth as either looking for support or interested in entertainment media. And although many youth may be looking for information along these lines, this strikes me as a very limited representation of queer youth interests and lives. (248)
1. Does the "explosion of images of gays in the mass media" lead to or reinforce the attitudes that lead to online "cybertyping?"
2. Do the sites we viewed "privilege those looking to make purchases" (249)?
I think Alexander would say that these representations exist primarily because content for queer digital youth is not being written by queer digital youth. However, there are a few sites that are youth oriented and largely youth-run, like XYmag.com and Mogenic. Let's have a look at these sites as well.
1. Do we recognize any significant differences between these sites and the ones we viewed a short time ago?
Alexander also suggests that a generation gap exists, noting that the newer, youth-run sites show a "lack of traditional gay signifiers and visual rhetoric, such as rainbow flags and pink triangles, [and this] suggests a move away from 'older' representations and articulations of gay sexuality" (256).
Speaking of older representations of gay sexuality, have a look at this:
I just thought it would do us some good to see the kind of mindset we're working against before we move on to the Banks and Alexander article. Granted, this vid is from 1961 (according to the folks I stole it from), but we don't have to look into the past for propaganda and hate-speech. More on this later.
In Sexualities, technologies, and the teaching of writing: A critical overview, Johnathan Alexander and William Banks survey literature on "computer-assisted writing pedagogies that grapple with issues of sexuality. Although the body of work is small, it points to provocative ways to develop our students' critical and rhetorical sensibilities about the constructions of sexuality in our culture" (273).
While more of a literature survey than anything else, this essay does give us a pretty good explanation of what people working with new technology and grappling with issues related to queerness in the classroom are trying to accomplish. The introduction of terms like sexual literacy and queer-safe online spaces make for interesting discussion, and some questions I think we all might want to consider discussing or exploring in our own classrooms.
1. Would anyone like to give us a definition of sexual literacy?
2. Do we know what a queer safe online place is?
"[T]hinking about sexuality in terms of literacy opens the door to considering how our understanding of almost any aspect of sexuality in our culture is shaped by public discourse - a key insight of queer theory" (288).
I was planning on constructing a number of questions that we could discuss together, but as I neared the end of the Banks and Alexander piece, I found a list of questions much better than those I had in mind. Let's look at them.
- What theories or scholarly approaches to sexuality (including queer theory, lesbian and gay studies, body studies and feminist studies - to name a few) have informed the teaching of writing with technology? How? To what effect?
- How might computer-mediated discussions provide space for the safe discussion of sensitive subjects, such as sexuality and sexual orientation? How might they not?
- In general, what has been the impact of computers on discussing issues of sexuality and sexual orientation?
- More specifically, how have the Internet and the Web emerged and been integrated (or not) into the discussion of sexuality and sexual orientation in the composition classroom?
- How might recent scholarship on the issues of race and technology reflect upon or be useful for considerations of sexuality and technology in the writing classroom?
- How have computers shaped sexual conceptions of self and identity as writer? as teacher? as student?
- How have definitions of and conceptions of sexuality changed with the use of computers?
- How are sexuality and gender constructed (and perceived) via writing and text in a supposedly de-sexualized cyberspace? In chat rooms? On discussion boards?
- How do current discussions of the post-human complicate the work of bringing sexualities into computer-equipped writing classes?
- What are the ethical possibilities and pitfalls of bringing together sexualities and technologies in writing classes?
There is one last topic I would like to talk about before I bring this discussion to a close, and that topic is anonymity. How does the anonymity (or supposed anonymity) that exists in online space affect these kinds of explorations? How do we guard against the potential negative consequences of taking discussions online?
Earlier, I promised more on the topic of propaganda and hate-speech. The video below is a recent example of what can happen in online "consequence-free" environments. It is the kind of thing I have witnessed on a number of occasions, and this is the reason why I ask the questions about anonymity. I think it is something we should consider carefully, because, as you will soon see, racism and homophobia can thrive online if we're not careful.
Look what can happen when a player takes on a queer identity in an online video game. For those unacquainted with these games, you'll want to know that the game in this video (Halo 3) is a current game, and hugely popular. I don't play it, but I have heard the kind of chat you are about to experience. It's actually pretty common.
DISCLAIMER: DO NOT PLAY THIS WITHIN EARSHOT OF ANY CIVILIZED HUMAN BEING. IT IS VERY CLOSE TO THE MOST OFFENSIVE THING I HAVE EVER SEEN. THE LANGUAGE USED BY THESE PEOPLE IS NOTHING SHORT OF PURE HATE. BUT IT DOES MAKE MY POINT.
To close, I would like to simply add this thought: When approaching the topics we have discussed in our classrooms, we must always be aware of the very real dangers we face, and ask our students to face. One last question:
- What do we do when we come across homophobic speech or writing in our classrooms? What is at stake if we do nothing?
Works Cited
Alexander, Jonathan and William P Banks. "Sexualities, technologies, and the teaching of writing: A critical overview." Computers and Composition (2004): 273-293.
Alexander, Jonathan. "Writing Queer Digital Youth: A Case of Identity and Community on the Web." Alexander, Jonathan. Digital Youth: Emerging Literacies on the World Wide Web. Cresskill, New Jersey: Hampton Press, 2005. 229-289.
Nakamura, Lisa. Cybertypes: Race, ethnicity, and identity on the Internet. New York: Routledge, 2002.
19 comments:
Hi Brett,
This is a very interesting blog entry that brings up a lot of thought provoking issues. One of the things you ask is for someone to define sexual literacy. Well...I'm the Director of Education and Training at the National Sexuality Resource Center at San Francisco State University where we spend a great amount of time and energy thinking about sexual literacy and what it means. We define sexual literacy as being about promoting sexual health and sexual well-being throughout the lifespan for all individuals, relationships, and communities. Of course, that's just the soundbyte; there's much more to it. I invite you to take a look at our website (we're launching a new one in November, so be sure and check back) nsrc.sfsu.edu as well as our online magazine and blog at americansexuality.org
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or thoughts or are interested in our website and magazine. cscottwhite@gmail.com
thanks,
Chris White
Chris,
Thank you very much for responding to my post. This blog is attached to a graduate course being taught at Ohio University, and will be used tomorrow, 10/16, to assist in our discussion.
Since this blog was opened up to the public (which happened just recently) I believe you are the first person from outside our class to comment. It is encouraging to see that our discussions are being viewed and considered beyond the limits of our classroom. We will certainly spend some time with the resources you have provided. I think I can speak for all of my peers when I say thank you again for getting involved in the discussion.
The question was posed about if "the larger culture" is becoming more comfortable with gayness (and I suppose transgendered). Without question, people have become more comfortable with our sexuality and with our choices.
However, I agree pronoun exclusion (we, our, etc) is proving to be problematic for me, which leads me to think, why am I being so careful?
Perhaps it's those videos that Brett embedded into his post. The old video was more shocking than the Halo one. At one time, I played Halo (2) online and became annoyed by the behavior online, so I quit playing online. Part of the online gaming culture is insulting to mature, reasonable people, but another part is the jabbing of your opponents (and even your team). I don't see those as purposeful or angry, nor do I see those as proper. Nevertheless, based on my experience, some of those players jumped on the wagon because they were afraid of being another target and also attacked. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not agreeing with or condoning their discourse.
I'm not sure if I stuck my foot deeper into my mouth or not, which notes the problematic and still sensitive nature of this topic.
Part of my problem is the level of labeling "we" do in America. Gay, Bi, Trans, Hetero, Democrat, Republican, white, African American, middle class, poor, rich etc. etc. These labels generate unfair and judgmental labels.
However, the labels exist and I must deal with them. Alexander notes how freeing the Internet is for marginalized people and how these forums (listservs, chatrooms, blogs, etc.) could be seen as, what I consider, a freewriting space to deal with the issues of not being like the majority (and again, I find myself dancing around my phrasing and not enjoying the choice of wording). The virtual group helps with what Alexander calls the "diversity of sexual expression" (273).
I think the most important statement by Alexander and Banks carries over into our societal consciousness: "it is imperative that students understand the complex connections between discourse, information, identity, and community represented by the term sexuality" (288).
Namaste.
Hi Brett, and all,
I'm glad you asked the last question. If we don't stand up to homophobia when we see/hear
/experience it, we condone it. One thing that seems to have worked when students have made homophobic (or sexist or racist) comments in classes I've taught: I stop everything and zero in on the comment, the context, the student, the whole "audience and purpose" thing, analyze the discourse, talk about hate speech, and demand apology from the student to the class. Response to homophobic (or sexist or racist, or just plain insane) writing is a stickier wicket. I'll be interested to hear yours and our class's thoughts are about this.
You have lots of provocative ideas and questions in your post. I agree with Rock that the older video is in some ways scarier than the gamer video (in part, b/c I could not understand what was really going on and it just sounded like some Deliverance rejects mouthing off). I think the older video is scarier since it talks about homosexuality as a sickness and conflates sexual preference (the choice of being queer) with perversion (the choice of being a pedophile). And notice the images and voices--that milky-white heteronormativity--that must be preserved . . . I see some connections here to ideas we've discussed RE Romano, default gender codes in cyberspace, identity politics, LeCourt & Barnes's phallocentrism.
My favorite part of Alexander and Banks was the Jagose quote p. 283: "To think of identity as a 'mythological' construction is not to say that categories of identity have no material effect. Rather it is to realize--and Roland Barthes does in his Mythologies (1978)--that our understanding of ourselves as coherent, unified, self-determining subjects is an effect of those representational codes commonly used to describe the self and through the which, consequently, identity comes to be understood." Beneath that, Butler's idea of performative gender/identity, how that performance is not absolutely free. Is it possible for us to (re)negotiate identities from the positions we're in, since "aspects of [our] sel[ves] are outside our control? Is cyberspace really the "safe zone" for queerness that it claims--(using your Halo video as an example)?
RE the sites and (cyber-) or stereo-typing--I think queerness has become another target market toward which capitalists hurl products. So in a sense, queerness is commodified, much like everything else and ads blink and throb on the margins. Still, I did not get the sense that all the sites, especially OutProud and Mogenic, were limited or stereotyped representations of queer youth--they seemed to me to be trying to support the idea of queerness as something special, to be intrincically valaued (i.e. coming out stories). But, I do think shows like Will and Grace stereotype queerness. And women.
I've rambled long enough. Nitey nite. Mad Scientist! Boo! Be a good little bunny, and give me your brain . . .
I hate beginning a post this way (because it harkens back to the racial issues that Brett so eloquently brought up in his post), BUT while reading the articles and reading Brett’s post, I think about my best friend of 15 years who just happens to be a gay guy who spends his time studying for his law degree, talking to me on the phone, and spending his time online constructing his online identity (a man who lives 500 miles away from his “real” hometown with a different name and a different occupation) as a closeted male living in a very conservative part of Tennessee (yes, he went to the Unitarian church where the gunman came in this summer and decided to massacre the masses in the pulpit enjoying the church rendition of Annie for harboring guys like him) with Bible-beating parents and acquaintances who often drop f-bombs of a different kind in casual conversation. Last week, when we talked about “identity” online and forming an online identity, I knew there was something inside of me saying “yes, yes you can form an online identity that is a part of yourself but separated from the RL version of you” but I couldn’t quite put my finger on why I was having this reaction. I thought of myself—the several online identities I have and how each one is an extension of a part of me that I do not, for some reason or another, feel comfortable displaying all at once—but what I really should have been thinking about is my friend J—and his experience trying to find a safe space online, trying to connect with men like him who grew up wondering what was wrong with them and waiting for the teachers to stop bringing up the fact that they had “too many girls as friends” during parent-teacher conferences. What having me as friend qualifies as hot news for a Chemistry 101 teacher is beyond me (even though I would like to think that having me as a friend is hot news for all involved). When Will and Grace came out, my friend was nervous about the portrayal of gays in the media. When Ellen “came out,” he was shocked and surprised. I laughed and asked him to give me $10.00 because I predicted it, because I was right and he didn’t see it coming (even though he had all of her books on a shelf in his bedroom, a bedroom I spent most of my time in watching indie movies and flipping through Spin magazines because he was, in accordance with the stereotypes and despite of his hatred of said stereotypes, always ahead of me in terms of music and fashion trends). I agree that young gays create and congregate at websites that may or may not have commercial interests—but don’t we all? Reading the articles for today, I couldn’t help wondering “why” focusing on the commercial interests of gay websites (other than the idea that it can limit sexual content in order to be pc and sponsored by larger, more accessible websites) as opposed to non-commercial websites was a big deal. Do we think that queer youth are more likely to buy into commercialism because they are limited to certain online safe spaces? I want more about how search engines return hits deemed appropriate by sponsor sites and popular demand…and I also don’t know what to say about homosexuality in the classroom because I don’t know how I feel about overt displays of heterosexuality in the classroom…does that make sense, or am I slowly going crazy (1,2,3,4,5,6 switch!)
Students with disabilities, whether physical, emotional, or cognitive in nature, respond to the curriculum differently from other students.
--------
smithsan
seo
Although I agree with the basis of the response of making a student apologize to the class, I don't think that is necessarily productive for the student. I, rather, encourage them to speak about those types of issues, but I, also, do not tolerate bigotry or similar discourse. My approach is more to exploit the naivete of such a position and, perhaps, deconstruct the position because it was likely established by familial relations, which we know heavily influence us all. The problem, then, is not the misguided rhetoric, but it is the misguided views and thoughts.
If I can change their thinking to a more constructive internal dialogue, I will.
What I read in Mel's post, which I think was unintentional, was the "zero in" and "student". I think it is more important to positively impact the student than to wag your finger at hir (as noted in our readings). Thanks for asking us to respond Mel... It helps us all hone our teaching!
I feel a word left out of this blog is 'current'. Will and Grace hasn't been on tv in, like, 2 or 3 years. I don't even recall the last time I saw Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. So what gay role models are actually out there now? Is Project Runway part of the collective unconscious? I suppose you have Oscar on "The Office," but more often than not he tends to instigate or be the butt of overtly gay jokes. I would go so far to say that there aren't really any gay role models in the media right now.
So how does this affect social perceptions of homosexuals? Seinfeld was the first television show to show the interaction of men and women outside of the work place. Friends built on that in helping to define the social psychology of incestuous 20-something cliques. So what did Will and Grace provide? Flamboyance? Awareness? Stereotypes? And what do we have now?
Homosexuality is a sexuality, thus what happens when 12 year olds start coming out? How does that effect sexual literacy? It is still very much a taboo subject even though the previously mentioned shows are part of the collective unconscious of America... so how do we deal?
Sure it's cute when boys and girls go on "dates" at 13, but how do you feel about two boys or two girls going on those same dates? I think awareness of homosexuality implies sexual activity or at least sexual knowledge with which we, as a culture, are not yet comfortable. We can certainly make believe that our 13 year old heterosexual youth don't know what a "Cleveland Steamer" is, but let's face it, if a 13 year old boy comes out, we're all pretty sure he knows the ins and outs (and ins again) of being gay.
I'm not in the class but I figured I'd toss in my two cents...
Well put, Daniel.
I think the media’s images of gay people are often parodied and misleading. Will and Jack are stereotypically gay: materialistic, pretty, artsy, etc. While I suppose that some images of gay people are better than none I still think these images are inappropriate. Gay men are often portrayed as a girl’s best accessory—totally stylish, funny, and loyal. What is even more fascinating to me is the portrayal of lesbians in the media…or lack there of. Ok. There’s Ellen and Rosie. But why aren’t there popular sitcoms about lesbians? And why do gay people have to be funny? This brings me to The L Word which is a show about lesbians, really hot lesbians—by traditionally masculine standards. I have some lesbian pals who watch it but compare it to a gay Sex in the City, not something they can actually relate to. The show seems to be marketed less to a lesbian audience and more to a male audience. I agree with Mel that queerness has been commodified.
Wow--there's a lot to respond to.
1. the first video is an actual piece of propaganda and not that unusual since the DSMV did not remove homosexuality from the list of psychological disorders for decades after this film. Anybody watch the documentary Changing Our Minds about Dr. Evelyn Hooker? She was really the first social scientist to study homosexuality without an intention to prove it was an illness and her research eventually helped to get homosexuality removed from the DSMV. This film clip is in that documentary too. Psychiatrists used to use electroshock and labotomies to "fix" men and women attracted to the same sex. One particular type of therapy that is horribly disturbing was aversion therapy, during which homosexual men were shown erotic pictures of men and women and shocked if their heart rate rose at the sight of men. Some actually had men masturbate to erotic pictures of women to supposedly make them associate pleasure with females instead of men. Its all terribly shocking!
2. That being said, the sheer amount of hate in the second video scares me even more because it is present day and it is so overt as hatred and a desire to be violent. I cannot write that off as simple game-talk (as immature as any of that is). Hate can lead to hate crimes.
3. That being said, I think it is important to take a stand against hate speech in the classroom. Just because something is a teachable moment, doesn't mean you need to protect someone who is potentially hurting other members of the class. They can learn from outright correction and seeing a teacher being visibly offended too. They may be uncomfortable, but that doesn't mean they can't learn. And if they do, and therefore they shut off for the course, that is a casualty I'm prepared to accept for the safety of the other members of my classroom. However, if the comments are not hate-based as much as just plain ignorant, then more gentle tactics could be taken, but I still think the speech itself needs to be pointed out as inappropriate if it is.
4. this gets us to an earlier question about the visibility of gayness and whether this corresponds with a homophobia becoming more covert. I'm afraid I think it is still quite acceptable in our society at large (even if not in TV) to be overtly homophobic (more than overtly racist). I think we can examine the laws in our country (or lack thereof) to show that homophobia is alive and well and protected by law in many cases.
My own reactions to the readings:
coming in a sec...I need to reread how to post links on here.:)
RE: cybertyping. While I haven’t done enough research to determine whether cybertyping is as common as Alexander suggests, I do feel like there is a tendency to assume that an LGBT student is looking for support. In the SAFEZONE training I took last year, the trainer emphasized the emotional turmoil that can accompany coming out or being out in college. Although this can certainly be the case, perhaps making the assumption that an LGBT student is seeking support is unfair. Maybe that assumption is stigmatizing in itself.
RE: how do we deal with homophobia in the classroom. I have not experienced this enough times to know the best way for me to deal with it, but I think Mel has a point about confronting students head on. Because I relinquish an authoritative teacher role during most classes, in situations in which a student (who tends to be the most vocal male student that I have) uses offensive language, I feel that it is necessary to immediately switch the tone of the class and to discuss and explain why offensive language is offensive. (If I do this successfully, students are very careful in choosing their words.) While I don’t want to humiliate students, I think about how cool it would be if I were a closeted student in a classroom in which my prof. stood up for me. However, I’m not sure how to ensure students actually think about and change their language outside of class. Craig, your approach sounds interesting. Please explain.
Click Here For Marc Jacobs Ads to Discuss
So I posted these ads because I find them disturbing (I know they aren't strictly digital/new media or web-based, but they do show the commodification of sexuality. The one with the purple handbag at crotch level and the one with the same man in overalls draped over the railroad tracks were brought in by a student of mine for an ad analysis in 306j. Here were some of her problems with the ads (which appeared in a magazine on facing pages): what is being sold? She wondered if these ads were progressive because they placed a man in the vulnerable position usually reserved for women in ads. This led us to discuss Marc Jacobs' sexuality and the sexuality likely being performed in these ads. This led to a discussion of hate crimes. In the railroad picture, it is really impossible not to think of a crucifixion, and therefore for many of us impossible not to think of Matt Shepard. So who are these ads appealing to? What are they commodifying? And how does Marc Jacobs' own homosexuality effect our reading of these ads?
Okay onto thoughts on our own readings:
Quote from Alexander that seems relevant to the above: "Homo-erotic images of young men and women on the sites of clothing vendors and sexualized images of young people on pornographic sites all use images of the young to encourage visitors to make a purchase"
Another: "It is worth asking what kinds of images and representations are created for queer youth and what kinds are created by queer youth" Can we discuss age a bit when discussing who is creating these web spaces for queer youth? Is it possible that older generations are inevitably projecting their own concerns onto youth who may have very different concerns?
Oh...about the TV show discussion: there's an article on Mogenic, but again not recent enough in its analysis of gay characters.
Where are all the bisexuals? Can you think of representations of bisexuals that also fall into types? And how many lesbians are there in ratio to gay men? (Now we have the L Word).
Now vague question prompted by Nakamura in Alexander: what about where race and sexuality intersect, I wonder? The what dominant ideology do we see online?
Okay, bedtime.
Oh, one more thing...there seems to be a big difference between labeling one's own subject position and being labeled.
Oh, and Gayle, are you suggesting queerness be considered a disability?
I can't help thinking of an episode of The Simpsons on which John Waters guest stars. Homer takes offense at JW's use of the word queer, saying "That's our word for them. He stole our word." The episode has all of the easy progressivism we might expect as Homer and Bart learn lessons about sexuality, openness, and loving-thy-neighbor. Of course, the show ends at a gay steel mill, perpetuating, to the tune of "Everybody Dance Now," about a dozen stereotypes a second.
The queer (and I still have trouble using the word) character here is loved; but he, like many representations of gay people in pop culture, seems to be a novelty, reflecting not homophobia but homo-distancia. I see, and even sometimes feel, this intrigue with queerness (which, if I'm honest, is probably only a less virulent strain of homophobia).
In this conception, queerness is something to be guessed about, laughed about (not necessarily at), accepted cavalierly and therefore vulnerably.
Essentialism comes up for me again. Is an identity to be celebrated or downplayed? Are some of our pop-cultural novelty-izings celebrations or shortcuts?
Was my impersonation of Tim Gunn last night at dinner loving or insulting?
Carry on.
Brett, great post. I woke up forty-five minutes before my alarm, because I knew subconsciously that I needed to spend a ton of time with your ideas. And here I've gone off and spent time only on the Simpsons. Now I amend.
I join the choir to say that those videos are atrocious.
Now, on Alexander. Some of his strongest moments for me are when he resists doom-saying. This happens most clearly on 247 when he complicates Nakamura's idea about an inherent online hegemony. He writes, "As I look at the variety of youth-oriented sites listed via Yahoo! and even Gayscape, I have a hard time pin-pointing a particular dominant ideology, beyond the sense that queer youth are in need of support and assistance." This happens, too in "Sexualities and Technologies. . ." I don't have it in front of me, but he questions the extent to which we can abandon our identities online. This is in opposition to a baseline, panacean assumption that we can.
I also appreciate when he brings up the question of whether "assimilating into the mainstream culture is the primary goal" (262).
Rebecca, I want to mention your post because it's heartbreaking. It's also another instance of the memoirist's instinct that's marked a few of your posts. It's helpful for me that you ground your thoughts in personal experience.
Lydia, I also wondered whether Gayle meant to suggest that queerness was a disability. It seemed like her main point was that response to curriculum depends on identity, a well-taken (if well-worn) point.
Thank you to Christopher and Daniel for joining the party, too.
Mel, that part of Barthes/Alexander was interesting to me, too. Consistent identity is a consistently troubling idea for me, as it has been for then-me and yesterday-me, and will be (will have been) for future-me (who finally changes his/its haircut). Consistent identity as conservative gets brought up here, right?
I'm reading some William James on this point. He, Bergson, and some good old-fashioned modernists believed in both identity-flux AND our ability to perceive consistent identity. How would this crazy time-psychology-theory translate to the Interweb? Are we, for a moment, free of our pasts online?
It's the biggest question of my life, identity-consistency. I wish Bob Schieffer had asked about it in the debate.
I suppose, actually, now that I've made that joke, that consistency is always a political hot-button, as well as being the "hobgobblin of [little] minds."
Good Thursday Morning.
PS Three's Company precedes Seinfeld as showing men and women interact outside the workplace. Mr. Roper/Furley's confusion about Jack's sexuality is another story altogether.
Speaking of the link and ads Lydia posted: I think those ads are fine. I don't like them, but I don't like most ads. What about the Calvin Klein or Guess ads then? My point is that I see the two (three) the same.
As to explaining how I would deal with offensive language in a classroom, I do have the authority in the classroom and I think it's important for students to have that leader. Not always, of course; they also need to spread their wings too. How I deal with it in a classroom really depends on the student. If that student will get more out of me calling them out point blank, I will. However, some students make comments and may shut down. Those students I make explain what they mean first. Sometimes it just is them taking the rhetoric they have heard and misusing it because they don't know exactly what it means. I think of the "N" word with an "r" at the end vs. an "a" at the end. The meanings are vastly different. Much of my teaching is done by instinct is what I'm saying. There is no way I always teach or address any situation. I think my goal is to have the most impact without doing damage to the student or the class, but I'm happy to take some heat (self-depreciate) to get a point across.
Namaste.
Jeez, what a forum we've got going here.
I appreciate Brett's summarizing of the two piece's main points. Responders have picked up on Alexander's lack of condemning the more commercial sites, except maybe for censorship and the message about sexuality that imparts. He seems more interested in the distinction between sponsored sites written for LBGTQ youth and those BY the same. That seems to me like a reasonable division, although one with plenty of overlap.
On Dave's analysis of The Simpsons episode: didn't see it, but I want to ask, does it complicate matters that Matt Groening is gay?
I like Alexander's sense of sexual literacy as in part understanding "the complex connections between discourse, information, identity, and community represented by the term sexuality" (288). Plus lots of knowledge about sexualities, sex, and risk. But without the first part, why call it a literacy?
As I recall, the first sitcom with a gay character was "Soap," with a gay man played by Billy Crystal.
Note we have yet to have a show with any African-American gay characters.
The race/sexuality intersection might arise for us in considering what is assumed to be the features of hegemonic culture, often unconsciously by default. White, yes, but also male (Le Court) and heterosexual (Alexander). A picture begins to emerge. I think of a poem by Tim Seibles that begins "White people don't know they are white." That is, they don't think of themselves as being raced. I wonder if that also applies to heterosexuality (a la heteronormativity)?
What has to happen with thinking about sexualities for "assimilation" not to mean denial?
Gotta go.
Great Post Brett! Wow, there is so much to unpack here...
Prompted by Brett, I was shocked by the sites Alexander mentioned yielding so little lesbian content or at least some visual female representation. Is "gay" typically associated with "male"? As a follow up, I searched lesbian on Scroogle Scraper (non-profit search engine) and found where gay female content is largely represented. Interestingly, "lesbian" yielded a wikipedia page first. It seems revising and contributing to the online definitions of gay is high priority, one that real gay people and others are dedicated to shaping correctly. Could this be a response to or rejection of the gay identities projected on commercial sites such as Gay.com or PlanetOut? I certainly hope that the online identity of gayness becomes much closer to the real identity of gayness, but this is an issue for anything or anyone that can be stereotyped. At least as Alexander concluded, there is some willingness from the commercial sites with stereotypical representation of queer youth to connect with sites actually made by QDY, for QDY or just QY for that matter. However, what matters most to Gay.com, more hits from more links on gay sites or connecting web users to more realistic representations of gays?
Mel, Rock, Lydia all had something to say about gay stereotypes being uttered in the classroom, and I agree that they should be questioned and confronted immediately by any instructor. First, you have to call out the student on a logical level, perhaps give them a "how would like it if you were represented by another person's actions or preconceptions given they knew little or nothing about you?" Following, some history about hate speech leading to hate crimes would be very effective and certainly relevant to teaching the implications of discourse. Any stereotype needs immediate attention in the classroom. First, because it's arrogance or ignorance and second, because we as English teachers have the responsibility to instill solid logical thinking in our students.
With the fact that practicing gay identity online has led to a less ostracized gay reality, one that is not limited to what is within a physical community, the internet has had a profoundly positive effect on helping improve gay self-esteem and identity in modern society. While gays are unrealistically represented on the web, in many cases they are more realistically represented and given a domain to define their culture themselves. As with any one gay person, we should not let any one gay site prescribe to us the definition of what is to be gay.
Brett,
Sorry that I was unable to attend your presentation on Thursday. I have been at the Thomas R. Watson conference in Louisville, KY for the last couple of days. However, I did read your post and found it to be very interesting. You pose some very interesting questions. Did you have the chance to meet Alexander when he was here at OU last year? Anyway, my brain is unable to form any coherent thoughts due to the 4 hour road trip so I am going to end this by simply giving you a textual pat on the back .... good job
Todd
Post a Comment