Passing in our own way

Reading about Ellen, Matthew Shepard, and women at Abu Ghraib was more than an intellectual exercise for me in the politics of “passing” and the concept of visibility and invisibility.  This collection of articles caused an emotional reaction as I reflected on the different areas in my life in which I “hide” or try to “pass.” 

In Bonnie Dow’s article on Ellen, she includes a discussion on Ellen Morgan’s relationship with her mom.  When her mom mentions that she misses the “old Ellen,” the response is, “Which Ellen is that?  The Ellen that used to keep her feelings bottled up?  The Ellen that used to lie to herself and everybody else?  The Ellen that could have spent the rest of her life alone?” (p. 126).  I was surprised at the emotional response I had, as it paralleled an experience I have had with my own mother about my own mental illness. 

However, reading Ott and Aoki’s analysis of the media framing of the Matthew Shepard murder caused me to think of my religious affiliation, my thoughts and my feelings about the way the media frames our members.  This is something close to my heart, and the media framing of my church is something fresh in my mind as I am doing my final project on a related topic.

Early in our church’s history, members had moved to Missouri.  Fear and misunderstanding resulted in an extermination order being issued by Missouri Governor Boggs essentially legalizing the murder of members of my church.  The “cultish” stigma and misunderstanding is something still faced today.

When I first moved to Indiana, I was nervous about how I would be accepted because of my religious affiliation.  I knew that because of stereotypes perpetuated through the media, the blogosphere, and simple word of mouth, I would need to be vigilant in recognizing and combating the stereotypes.  Because of this, I was so careful about the language that I used in talking about my background.  My background soon became evident, however as many of my life choices reflect my religious affiliation.  I remember the first time a classmate “found me out.” 

I was completely terrified of how I was going to be viewed now by my peers.  I related with much of the anxiety described by Dow in the Ellen piece.  However, unlike the controversy that Ellen faced, I was not met with the resistance I had been anxious about.  I was met with acceptance.  This acceptance surprised me at first, as I had been so anxious about this.  However, I also experienced the relief also described.  I was no longer “pretending.”  I could just be myself and not have to worry as much what I said or how that would affect others’ perceptions of me. 

In conclusion, even though our readings focused on issues of visibility as it relates to gender and sexuality, there are other areas not yet explored—two of which being mental illness and religion.  These seem to parallel many of the same feelings and emotions described by Dow, Ott and Aoki, and Gronnvoll, are relatable to the human population as we try to “pass” in other, less visible areas of life.  

Excuses, excuses

         The article “The Politics of Negotiating Public Tragedy,” which discussed the media framing of the Matthew Shepard murder, reminded me a lot of the previous article/book we read about the Brandon Teena murder. In both of these cases, the media looked for motives behind why people could resort to killing another human being.  In the Brandon Teena murder, the media made it seem as though Brandon was dishonest, and “tricked” the poor women from that city. So it was only natural for the two men to do what was necessary to stand-up for those women. And what else could they possibly do but murder Brandon? He was different from them, and what is different is obviously dangerous. In the case of Matthew Shepard, the media explained that the men’s behavior had to do with their overall intelligence. The men dropped out of high school, which apparently makes them more likely to kill. It seems as though the media was setting up the argument that dropping out of high school equates to lower levels of intelligence, which equates to less responsibility for their actions.

The defense team for the murderers also tried to make the claim that the men were homophobic and were uneasy about Matthew being a homosexual. The fact that a lawyer would try to argue that in court, as if that makes it okay, is just mind blowing. The main point that I am trying to make is that the media makes an awful lot of excuses for the actions of those in power. The men who murdered Brandon Teena were rednecks from a small town who were trying to protect the women who Brandon took advantage of. The men who murdered Matthew were homophobic cowboys who were uncomfortable with someone who was different. In addition, Lynndie England, a soldier who helped carry out the scandal at Abu Ghraib, experienced problems as a child and was sexually deviant.

Why do any of these things matter? Someone who performs a brutal act should pay the price, no excuses. But the media needs to provide the public with some type of resolution and some type of answers. The public needs to know why these murderers deviated away from “normal” behavior. And yet, it is easy to notice what all of these aforementioned individuals have in common: they are white, and thus they have power. Brandon Teena’s murderers, Matthew Shepard’s murderers, and Lynndie England are all members of the white class. I wonder if these excuses would be made if these individuals were not white.

It is interesting to examine the way that the media frames stories and provides excuses for the behavior of certain individuals. But I ask, do individuals who have created such horrific acts of violence really deserve our understanding? Can their behavior ever truly be explained away? I certainly hope not, and thus I will continue to be a critical observer of media. 

Ellen, Matthew, and Lynndie as Scapegoats and Poster Children

The media relies on shortcuts, as exemplified by the three readings for this week. Throughout these readings (which, it has to be said, I thoroughly enjoyed), various media outlets used the stories of Ellen Degeneres, Matthew Shepard, and Lynddie England to create scapegoats and poster children for various social problems. I will explore the roles scapegoats and poster children play in larger culture.

In their article, “The Politics of Negotiating Public Tragedy: Media Framing of the Matthew Shepard Murder,” Ott & Aoki view Matthew Shepard’s killers as scapegoats. While the Ott & Aoki article explicitly utilizes Kenneth Burke’s theory of scapegoating, Gronnvoll also sees Lynndie England, and to an extent, all of the women at Abu Ghraib, as scapegoats in their own right. England, and really all of the Abu Ghraib guards, were also scapegoated, allowing the American public to ignore pressing social issues—should there be a more strenuous screening process for prison guards? Does the military encourage the feminization of prisoners, and what does that mean for gender constructs? Scapegoating cleanses the public of any blame. Laramie, Wyoming did not have to confront its discriminatory attitudes, and the U.S. Army did not have to face its gender discrimination. Furthermore, the American government and larger public were able to avoid their larger prejudices. 

Scapegoating is infuriating, and it also appears in the film Boys Don’t Cry and helps articulate my biggest problem with the film. By making Brandon Teena’s killers visibly psychotic, the film absolves its audience and the larger public from any blame for Brandon’s death. The portrayal of Brandon Teena’s killers is comparable to the media framing of Matthew Shepard’s killers. Ott & Aoki wrote, “Hatred and homophobia… would come to be framed primarily as character flaws of the chief antagonists, rather than as wide-scale social prejudices that routinely result in violence toward gays and lesbians” (488). Our culture’s discomfort with gender ambiguity was not Brandon’s killer—these two violent, mentally unstable men were. Case closed. Furthermore, since the film clearly presents Brandon as an all-around great guy, the public is not disturbed by him nearly as much as they are disturbed by his killers. Once again, the American public does not have to examine its own beliefs and prejudices.

            In addition to scapegoating, all three articles deal with media-imposed poster children. By coming out at the same time as her fictional character, Ellen Degeneres became the poster child for lesbians. Dow notes that “she is, in fact, the ultimate user-friendly lesbian for television purposes,” and she still is, along with her gay male counterpart, Neil Patrick Harris (127). Matthew Shepard became the poster child for hate crimes against gay people, and Lynddie England “went on to become the poster child for bad behavior and a cautionary tale for thousands of women soldiers on active duty,” through the media’s portrayal of England as simultaneously aggressively over-sexed and submissive to authority figures (Gronnvoll, 375). Why does the media rely so heavily on poster children?

Scapegoats serve a clear narrative purpose—after their punishment, they restore social order. Poster children, however, are less functional and serve as testaments to the power of the media. They allow the media to generalize. Poster children simply allow the media to create shortcuts. They become archetypes for the cause or personality trait that they represent. In terms of narrative functionality, though, poster children add nothing other than a face to a cause. Ellen Degeneres makes lesbians look friendly and non-threatening. Matthew Shepard makes gay people look innocent and reminds the public that hate crimes can happen anywhere. Lynddie England makes female soldiers look oversexed and malicious. They have symbolic power more than narrative power; however, they can stir up intense emotions. Interestingly, poster children can only be created by the media, which need shortcuts to help show their viewers how to feel.

Scapegoats and poster children are both utilized regularly in pop culture. While scapegoats serve the narrative function of cleansing and restoring social order, poster children serve as shortcuts and symbols. Both can be used for manipulation or to shed light on social issues. It’s up to the media to choose wisely.

Women Soldiers at Abu Ghraib; Leadership essay

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA43BhdXUmw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9yxdKolSkg&feature=endscreen&NR=1

 The Abu Ghraib scandal that came to light in April 2004 was a powerful and horrific display of human brutality orchestrated by several of America’s soldiers in Iraq. The article, Gender (In)Visibility at Abu Ghraib, by Marita Gronnvoll, examines the media presentations of the story and how gender played a role in this coverage. The media focused most of its attention on Lynndie England and her fiancé Charles Graner. England and Graner, among others, forced Iraqi prisoners to pose in sexually explicit photographs, often with their heads covered. England and Graner appeared in many of these photographs, either smiling or holding a ‘thumb’s up’ sign. Gronnvoll organized this reading into different sections that focused on different aspects of how the media covered this scandal. Gronnvoll began by examining the contrast between the way the women and men involved in these incidents were portrayed. Previously, in this class, we discussed the work of Simone de Beauvoir in The Second Sex. In this work, Beauvoir noted that “Women are defined in gendered terms, but men are simply defined as universal humans” (p 374).

Gronvoll goes on to give numerous examples where the women involved in Abu Ghraib were described as “women soldiers” rather than just “soldiers.” It is as though their gender had to be qualified by adding in that they are women, not just soldiers. The norm for soldiers is male, so the women automatically differed from the norm. The media also had to provide some kind of explanation as to why a woman would behave in such a masculine manner. England’s physical body was called into question, and she was described as tough and as a tomboy, in order to prove her abnormality as a woman. However, no media outlets called the physicality of the male soldiers into question. Gronnvoll makes another connection to previous class readings when she discussed Sloop’s book, stating, “this binary gender system leads us to expect as normal particular behaviors from men and particular behaviors from women” (p 377). Gronnvoll goes onto explain “the media coverage of England’s behavior at Abu Ghraib focuses on her failure to behave as a women should, whereas the media coverage of Graner’s behavior focuses on his failure to behave as an honorable soldier should” (p 377).

England received a lot of scrutiny from the media and her character was frequently attacked. She was said to be sexually promiscuous and seductive, often baring her naked body for the camera. Graner’s behavior, however, was almost explained away by the media. His wife had an affair while he was off at war, making him heartbroken and angry. Whereas England was just a sexually promiscuous deviant who cannot seem to follow traditional gender norms. Gronnvoll also chose to discuss the sexuality of the male soldiers and the male prisoners in this story. She discussed how the male soldiers were never seen alone in pictures with the naked prisoners. I believe she included this section in order to make the point that “the ultimate humiliation is to be feminine” (p. 389). However, this is where I would like to insert my first weakness of the article. To be honest, I felt as though this is a critique of the soldiers, rather than how the media regarded these soldiers. Therefore, it seemed like an odd discussion to insert into the article, since most of Gronnvoll’s discussion was of the portrayal of the media, rather than critiques on the individual soldiers. She does bring it back full circle when she discussed that no media called for a review of the military’s demonizing of the feminine. I just feel that the reader could get a little lost trying to follow along waiting for her to get to her point during this section.

 One strength of the article is the amount of research that she brings in to examine. The reader was better able to see that Gronnvoll’s points are valid and real because there was so much evidence to back them up. Also, the research cited was from some of the most well known media outlets in the world (Washington Post, Rolling Stone, New York Times). Anytime research is brought in from such a wide range of highly respected media, it is pretty clear that the author has done his/her homework. Another strength is the ease of readability of the article. This article could be useful for both rhetorical scholars and curious laypeople alike. The article was written in such a way that draws the reader in, even if they have no rhetorical experience. And the points that Gronnvoll made were also backed up by numerous research from a variety of sources. Even though the text was small and contained many pages, it was still an interesting and insightful read. In addition, I admit with most of the points that Gronnvoll made in her discussion. Especially the points about how the media portrayed England as a “woman soldier” rather than just a soldier. There was so much focus on why she deviated from traditional feminine behavior, and how a woman could perform such horrific acts.

One news sources said that they actually expected a woman to know better. What I just don’t understand is why? Why do the media and people in general expect women to act so different than men? Gronnvoll asserted that it is because women are traditional expected to be more docile and nurturing. And it become unnerving and uncomfortable when a woman deviates away from this behavior. Throughout this reading I kept being reminded of the article we read about Brandon Teena. He deviated from typical feminine behavior and acted in accordance with more masculine gender roles. People around him did not know how to react and respond, so they turned to judgement. They called his character into question in order to try to explain why he acted the way that he did. This is similar to what the media did to Lynndie England in the Abu Ghraib case. As I previously mentioned, the media had a field day taking shots at England’s physical body, her history, her sexuality.

 The media had to provide some kind of explanation as to why she was deviating away from traditional gender roles. That is why the behavior of the males in this story doesn’t have to be explained away. Males are traditionally expected to be violent, going along with the warrior mentality. So, naturally, the men in this story were just doing what men do. That is why it was not nearly as shocking for the men to be involved in something so horrific than it was to see women involved. Interestingly enough, England does not see herself as the media sees her. In this interview clip from the Associated Press, she described herself as victim of love, doing what she thought she needed to in order to please her male fiancé. I see this as a way that England wants to prove her traditional female role; wanting to please a man any way necessary. She wants to get back in the good graces of the media and the public, and this is one “excuse” that positions her as a helpless female, powerless to stop the orders of a man.
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vQ3pvi6JLY

 Overall, I really agreed with the points made in this reading, but was obviously sickened to read about such a horrific event. But I was also sickened to see how the media handled the coverage of this event. It frustrates me to see women constantly gendered and referred to as “women.” Yes, that is what we are: we are women. But why does that word have to qualify everything that discusses us? Women soldiers, women police officers, women doctors. In a world where the norm is to be male, women still make some people nervous. Especially women who are infiltrating traditional male roles.

Vavrus and the Mediated "Mr. Mom"

Through the fascinating, and often disheartening, case studies discussed in John Sloop’s book, Disciplining Gender, we critics were given insight into how society has a tendency to try and dictate for us the gendered meanings of our innate behaviors, our actions and our choices. For example, in the “John/Joan” case considered in the book’s first chapter, a young male baby was born, had his genitals accidentally mangled by the physician, was surgically reassigned as a female, and raised in a way that forced him to perform what society recognizes as the female sex. Despite the doctor’s and his mother’s seemingly positive reports of the child’s reassignment, it would later be revealed that the child railed against his manufactured femininity, and ultimately decided to be re-reassigned as a male. David, as he was later called, reflected on how it never seemed right for him to be a woman, notwithstanding every pigeon-hole in which his mother, doctor, and society attempted to place him.

In both Sloop’s book, and the Brenda Cooper’s article from this week’s reading, we saw an idea similar to this in the case of Brandon Teena. Teena, who was physically defined by his female genitalia, was ultimately killed because of the discrepancy between what he portrayed himself as, and what society thought he should be. Brandon, who was quite the ladies’ man, caused confusion amongst those he knew when it was revealed that he was supposedly a woman acting like a man. The outrage over Brandon’s enactment of his own identity was so shocking to the public that it cost him his life and—according to the national media—his reputation. Framed as a “deceiver,” the memory of Brandon’s life is muddled by society’s seemingly unshakable heteronormativity. Apparently, no one can rest easy until everyone is categorized into one of two types: heterosexual male or heterosexual female.

In this week’s reading of Mary Douglas Vavrus’ article, “Domesticating Patriarchy: Hegemonic Masculinity and Television’s ‘Mr. Mom,’” we encounter this same idea of society’s insistence to define specific gender roles. Vavrus discusses the “Mr. Mom” phenomenon—so named because of the successful Michael Keaton movie—in which stay-at-home fathers are put in the spotlight. Vavrus’ claim is that the idea of a Mr. Mom does less to expand dominant, narrow gender ideologies, and more to naturalize existing stereotypes of gender roles in the household.

In the movie “Mr. Mom,” the main character, played by Keaton, gets fired from his manly occupation (being Batman… or was it an autoworker?) and is forced to stay home with his kids while his successful wife maintains her job and supports them all monetarily. This movie marked one of the first pieces of pop culture to deviate from the engrained gender roles of male bread-winners and women child-raisers. And at first glance (as was the case when I first saw this movie as a boy) this seemed like a great tool for showing equality among men and women: it was okay for men to do housework and child-rearing. However, as the Mr. Mom phenomenon started to spread to real people, and at-home dads became more common, the light in which these stories are cast is bleak, in that it does the opposite of what made Mr. Mom seem so ecumenical. Vavrus argues that in published news stories about the Mr. Moms of the world, the rhetoric used leads to three harms:

“they privilege a narrow definition of family by only featuring heterosexual, married parents; they valorize men for learning parenting skills and adapting to stay-at-home paternity; and they repeatedly reinforce the message that the duties of a stay-at-home father are properly masculine activities.”

By conforming to these frames of reference for how we should view these fathers only reinforces a divide between the two dominant genders in our culture, possibly creating backwards momentum in the push for total equality.

            First, Vavrus asserts that the narrow point of view from which these stories are disseminated to multiple news outlets provides a skewed vision of the realistic situations. Because only married, middle-class-or-above couples were featured prominently in these news stories, it casts all at-home dads as able to do the housework and child-rearing without concern for where the next paycheck is coming from. Essentially this “normalizes the very narrow field of these dads’ attributes,” providing unrealistic attention to particular cases.

            Second, these stories valorize men for learning to do household tasks. In this way, Vavrus argues, a new cultural understanding of the masculine identity is formed—one in which “what it means to be a real man” is framed as someone well-rounded and capable of housekeeping and raising children. With this newly forged identity of masculinity, society can view an at-home dad as some mythical, ecumenical savior; not only is he manly, but he’s so manly he can sweep the floor, too!

Third, while this view of a stay-at-home dad’s duties as acceptable male behavior does work with the feminist critique of “traditional household divisions of labor,” it simultaneously undercuts this notion. By affirming the dads’ abilities and manliness, these news stories highlight a male who is perfectly capable of both male and female responsibilities—making females, again, seem lesser by comparison. An example of this point can be found in the Tide detergent "Dad Mom" commercials, and hopefully these will stimulate thoughtful discussion in class: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1qW7Po-1KI&noredirect=1  &

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M28l-6LUp3w 

At this point in the article, Vavrus finally gets rolling with her analysis and critique, as she points to more flaws with the Mr. Mom phenomenon. The majority of news stories Vavrus researched portrayed the at-home dad’s counterpart as the successful, job-wielding woman. Because she makes more money than her husband, she gets the right to not have to do the housework, and not have to deal with the kids. Simply, this is a straight-up reversal of the gendered roles we are used to. While it seems positive that the males can pitch in by being “Mr. Moms,” it only allows for the wife, the bread-winner, to don the dominant patriarchal role of the household.

Continuing the critique, Vavrus deftly points to how the media frames these relationships to illustrate her point. Instead of explaining the father’s new at-home situation as one of circumstance, it was majorly framed as a choice by the dad to do so—“even when the reason for the ‘Mr. Mom’ arrangement is a layoff.” This was a really interesting twist on the media’s part, and Vavrus used it to bolster he argument that “media representation is constitutive.”

The strengths of Vavrus’ article lie in her research. By utilizing a wide selection of these heteronormative news stories, she was able to peel back the veil on the Mr. Mom phenomenon. A strongly-written piece critiquing the fallacies behind the Mr. Mom fad culminated with the author’s conclusion. Because these news stories relied heavily upon the trope of a heteronormative nuclear family for the basis of its claims about stay-at-home dads, it cannot break away from “disciplining” these gender roles onto the public. As a result, men only see their problems with being at-home dads in the context of their sex, and not because of their innate abilities. Personally, as someone whose father was an at-home dad for a while, my only critique of Vavrus’ article is that it does not weigh more heavily on the actual testimonies of real at-home dads. However, because this is a class on media and gender, my desire to stick up for these fathers may not need to be explored. 

Cristina Yang and Female Masculinity

Inspired by Cooper’s look at female masculinity in the case of Boys Don’t Cry, a movie that followed the case of Brandon Teena, a female to male transgender, I seek to explore the implications of female masculinity in one of my favorite television shows, Grey’s Anatomy.  To do this, I will explore one of the female protagonists, Cristina Yang. 

Cristina Yang exhibits many of the typical masculine characteristics.  She is very task-oriented, driven, and seeks to be a world-class surgeon.  She is known by colleagues as having an impersonal bedside manner.  In one episode, a fellow intern, George O’Malley, requests Dr. Yang to be the intern assigned to his father’s case.  When Cristina seems annoyed by this, George explains that he picked her because she is a “machine.”  She seems to show few emotions, a characteristically masculine trait.

In the first season of the series, Cristina experiences an unplanned pregnancy after having sex with one of the attending physicians.  Feeling that she could not obtain her professional goals while pregnant and raising a child, she schedules an abortion.  She needed an emergency contact person, so she confides the pregnancy in fellow intern Meredith Grey.  When Meredith presses Cristina to talk about the pregnancy, Cristina refuses.  These actions go against traditional femininity by challenging the notion that females want to discuss feelings and thoughts, and that females ultimately desire motherhood.  While the abortion never happens—Cristina experiences an ectopic pregnancy before the abortion occurs, she is heavily criticized for not wanting a child and placing her career before her family. 

In season 7, a very similar situation happens with Cristina.  She finds herself pregnant.  This time, however, she is married.  Again, she goes against the traditional feminine response by wishing to abort the pregnancy.  Her husband, trauma surgeon Dr. Owen Hunt, wants Cristina to carry the pregnancy.  Ultimately, Cristina decides to abort the pregnancy, again reaffirming that her career is more important than a family, falling in line with traditional masculine ideas.  The abortion causes conflict in her marriage, as every argument or disagreement shown seems to have roots in the fact that Cristina had an abortion.

Throughout the show, the moments that Cristina shows traditional feminine characteristics, she is portrayed as vulnerable.  One example of this is when Cristina is to marry her attending-boyfriend, Dr. Preston Burke, at the end of the first season.  She is reluctant to engage in any of the traditional bridal activities, and does so only at the insistence of her mother and her soon-to-be mother-in-law.  However, when the wedding day finally arrives, and she is reluctantly about to head down the aisle, the wedding is called off by Preston, and Cristina is hurt and angry for much of the next season of the show because of this.

In conclusion, female masculinity is an interesting construct to explore.  One character that seems to exhibit female masculinity is Cristina Yang in the contemporary prime-time soap opera, Grey’s Anatomy.  One way that this is portrayed is through the unplanned pregnancies that she experiences, and her decision to not carry either of the pregnancies to term.  Another way this is expressed is through the vulnerability and hurt that inevitably seems to occur when she expresses any traditional feminine characteristics.  

Blurring the Lines or Re-enforcing Labels?

Cooper, B. (2002). Boys Don't Cry and female masculinity: Reclaiming a life & dismantling the

politics of normative heterosexuality. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 19, 44-63.

            In previous discussions surrounding the media and the portrayal of the transgendered community, there has been a lot of negative discourse.  Often the media attempts to spin transgenderism in a way to justify it and make it fit into the heteronormative values of our society.  A common theme that surrounds this discourse is the portrayal of masculinity, both female and male.  A film that has sought to break those boundaries and cause disturbance in America’s view of masculine heteronormativity is Kimberly Peirce’s version of the Brandon Teena murder in Boys Don’t Cry.  In her article, Brenda Cooper seeks to expose how Pierce’s depiction of Brandon Teena broke down boundaries and fought against the heteroideology surrounding masculinity that plagues our society.  Cooper presents four main points in her essay: to dismantle the myth of “America’s heartland,” problematize heteromasculinity, center on female masculinity, and the blur the boundaries of female masculinity.

 In her attempt to dismantle the myth of “America’s heartland,” Cooper discusses how the Falls City that was portrayed from Peirce’s perspective seeks to shatter the idea of the pre-established American dream.  Instead of seeing happy heteronormative family units behind white picket fences with 2.5 children and a dog, viewers of Boys Don’t Cry are exposed to the darker side of living in the Midwest.  Lana’s mother is neglectful and a drunk who has befriended two ex-convicts.  Candace is a single mother who also drinks too much and works at a bar.  Lana is a young woman who is wasting away at a blue-collar job working in a factory.  “In Peirce’s view, Falls City is not a place where good-hearted people are content to live their lives; it’s a place where most are desperate to leave but fear they never will” (p. 50).  Cooper discusses how this portrayal of Falls City helps to break the notion that Brandon Teena was the dark and deceptive cloud that fell on a wholesome and happy-go-lucky town.  This portrayal also helps to fight against the heteronormative family unit that is so often depicted in the media.

            Cooper’s second point, to problematize heteromasculinity, discusses how in the film, John Lotter and Tom Nissen are to serve as the picture of masculinity; however Peirce shows a darker side of the men.  They are both ex-convicts with short tempers and who use self-mutilation to help quell their inner rage.  They are alcoholics and abuse drugs.  John is a single father of a young daughter, but is depicted as being negligent and ultimately a bad father.  He becomes upset when his daughter wets herself and soils his pants and he also attempts to give her beer.  Lotter and Nissen assert their masculinity through “committing acts of violence as their natural birthright” (p. 52).  Instead of portraying Lotter and Nissen’s masculinity in archetypal ways that the media typically defaults to, Peirce takes a darker turn, again to expose viewers to the dark side of masculinity.  Cooper states that Peirce chose to depict Lotter and Nissen in this light to make “it more difficult to see their response to Brandon’s ‘deception’ as some kind of ‘panic’ and thus somehow ‘defensible,’ or to condemn Brandon’s masculine performance as ‘sick,’ which has typically been the case when individuals refuse to occupy their biologically assigned gender” (52-53).  Instead of excusing Lotter and Nissen’s actions as a response to being deceived like other media outlets have, Peirce is challenging viewers to sympathize with Brandon and not his killers.

            Cooper centers on female masculinity by juxtaposing Brandon’s interpretation of heteromasculinity to the masculinity that was performed by Lotter and Nissen.  Cooper discusses how Brandon first idolized the two criminals and was delighted to be considered one of the guys in their motley crew, however once he became infatuated with Lana, he realized that he would have to put his own spin on the masculine traits he was mimicking.  “…when Brandon is interacting with women, it is with shy sensitivity and tenderness that helps redefine what it means to be a man.  As Brandon pursues a relationship with Lana, he exhibits a new form of masculinity—he’s the boyfriend young women dream about” (p. 54).  The fact that Brandon is able to connect with Lana on a different level eventually gets him into trouble.  Lotter, who is extremely territorial of the young woman, begins to question Lana and what she seems in Brandon, which ultimately leads to his exposure as a transgender male.  However, despite this exposure, Brandon had successfully convinced his friends in Falls City that he was a man’s man, and that he was man enough to get the girl, all while biologically being female.  Ultimately this ability to perform heteromasculinity as a female is what disturbs and confused Lotter and Nissen and pushes them to their breaking point.

            The analysis of female masculinity ultimately leads to the blurring of boundaries that Cooper claims Peirce does successfully in this film.  Cooper argues that because Brandon’s sexuality and gender were so ambiguous in the film and because Lana refused to acknowledge that Brandon was biologically a female but identified as male, the lines between gender and heteromasculinity became blurred for the viewer.  She specifically focuses on the last love scene between Brandon and Lana, which is a scene that has undergone scrutiny from critics.  Cooper claims, “I would argue that this scene is liberatory precisely because it refuses to conform to heteronormativity’s categorization of gender as exclusively male or female.  The ambiguity of Lana’s attraction to Brandon as a man on one hand, and her acknowledgement and acceptance of his biological sex on the other hand, subvert heteroideology and its inherent oppression of sexual difference” (p. 56).  The combination of Brandon’s confusion and Lana’s refusal to accept that Brandon was confused and love him regardless of how he identified, helps to make Brandon’s identity a little less confusing in the sense that Lana saw him as a person, male or female.  This confusion breaks the ideals that surround a heteronormative couple, making their relationship confusing to those who need to transfix upon the heteroideology that dominates our society.

            While Cooper presents two solid critiques in her first points of dismantling the myth of “America’s heartland” and problematizing heteromasculinity, her arguments surrounds female masculinity are rather limited.  Cooper’s referral to Brandon blurring the lines of female and male masculinity is problematic because Brandon did not identify as female, he saw himself as a male.  Cooper praises the last love scene between Brandon and Lana; however it could also be viewed as a cop-out on Peirce’s part.  Peirce and Cooper may view this scene as blurring the line between female and male masculinity and heteronormativity, but some scholars may view the scene as limiting.  Brandon in real life hated being classified as a lesbian and detested everything that came with being female.  If this was truly how he saw himself, it is hard to believe that he would be willing to allow Lana to view him fully as a woman and be vulnerable to the point to experience pleasure like a woman.  So while Cooper is praising Peirce one should question if instead of liberating Brandon did Peirce just place him into another category?  Were the lines really blurred or as demonstrated in Sloop’s book, did Peirce add that scene because as a society, we are just too uncomfortable to let Brandon just be Brandon, regardless of label?

A Second Opinion of Boys Don't Cry

In her introduction to her essay on Boys Don’t Cry, Brenda Cooper wrote that the film offered its viewers “narratives that challenge and confront societal boundaries related to gender and sexuality” (45). In last week’s reading, however, John Sloop criticized the ending of Boys Don’t Cry, noting that the ending is yet another example of reinforced heteronormativity in gender troubling cases. While the film does challenge some aspects of gender and sexuality, I have to agree with Sloop. Some aspects of Boys Don’t Cry, particularly the ending, reinforce heteronormativity rather than challenge gender binaries. Through its final love scenes and its portrayal of Brandon’s killers, the film seems quite closed-minded.  

Kimberly Pierce, the director of Boys Don’t Cry, adds small details to the story of Brandon Teena that imply that he (and arguably Lana) is a true lesbian by the end of the film. After Brandon is exposed as a biological female, Lana and Brandon have their first honest sexual encounter as two women. Pierce added this scene to the film despite Brandon’s friends and family’s insistence that Brandon was disgusted by lesbianism and considered himself a heterosexual male. He would never have had sex with Lana as a woman. The final sex scene implies that Brandon is ready to live a life as a lesbian, as he and Lana are prepared to run away together. This scene shatters Brandon’s ambiguous gender identity and reveals him to be a lesbian female, which would also allow him to perform female masculinity without punishment. Problem solved.

As Sloop wrote in Disciplining Gender: Rhetorics of Sex Identity in Contemporary U.S. Culture (2004), Lana and Brandon’s final sex scene “clearly opens an interpretive door that allows reading the two as now occupying a lesbian relationship. Such an interpretation both refigures Brandon’s life ‘as a man’ as fear of her own homosexuality and maintains a gender-as-genitalia equation” (72). To a mainstream heteronormative audience, Cooper’s more liberal interpretation that Brandon and Lana’s fluid sexuality challenges the dominant heteronormative ideology does not matter. Audiences will choose the interpretation that sticks to the status quo and does not challenge their worldviews.

Pierce’s portrayal of Brandon’s killers is also troubling. While I absolutely agree with Cooper that the film de-mythologizes the American heartland, I have trouble accepting other claims. Cooper noted that the film also problematized heterosexuality through its portrayal of Brandon’s killers, John Lotter and Tom Nissen. Cooper explained, “Heteromasculinity as exhibited through the characters of John and Tom, therefore, seems not only unnatural, strange, and lacking in virtue, but also a serious threat to society” (51). Indeed, John and Tom, the only significant heterosexual male characters in the film, are monsters; however, I believe that this portrayal oversimplifies the Brandon Teena case. John and Tom are portrayed as undeniably unhinged and dangerous. Tom self-mutilates and tries to convince Brandon to cut himself, too. John encourages Brandon to outrun the police and then throws everyone but Lana out of the car after Brandon receives a speeding ticket, even though it is not his car. John has a weird sexual obsession with Lana (whom we are told wrote letters to John as a child while John was in jail) and her mother. John and Tom are clearly mentally unstable, so it is no surprise that they kill Brandon. The film loses an opportunity to have its killers wrestle with moral complexity. The audience cannot identify with the killers and has no reason to think about why John and Tom feel Brandon has to die-- John and Tom are just insane. They never debate whether or not to kill Brandon. They never explain why they feel Brandon needs to die. The film could have directly confronted America’s discomfort with gender and sexual ambiguity with a well-placed monologue, but instead the killers simply kill Brandon because they are crazy. The end.

 While in many ways, Boys Don’t Cry and the Brandon Teena story complicate gender binaries as well as heteronormativity, the film also reinforces the dominant ideology by arguably turning Brandon and Lana into a lesbian couple and by coding Brandon’s killers as simply crazy. By refusing to stick to Brandon’s self-perceived heterosexuality, the film allowed the audience to interpret Brandon as a lesbian, simplifying his gender and sexual identity. Additionally, by making Brandon’s killers psychotic, the filmmaker sacrificed the opportunity to explore John and Tom’s discomfort with Brandon and perhaps turn a mirror on the America as a whole. Audiences could not identify with the killers, and thus, did not have to confront their own homophobia. I viewed the film as an enormous missed opportunity.

Threats to Masculinity

Amy Yount

The two articles for this week (Domesticating Patriarchy: Hegemonic Masculinity and Television’s “Mr. Mom” and Boys Don’t Cry and Female Masculinity: Reclaiming a Life & Dismantling the Politics of Normative Heterosexuality) contained a common theme and that was the fact that men feel threatened by a lack of heteronormativity. In the first article, the stay at home fathers can almost be seen as a threat to masculinity because these “Mr. Moms” are not conforming to the typical gender norms of working hard and ‘bring home the bacon.’

Mr. Mom refers to “the inversion of traditional heterosexual family roles such that the husband stays a home to care for the children while his spouse is employed outside the home to earn the family’s income” (p. 355). However, this inversion of traditional gender norms represent a straying away from the ideal nuclear family where either both parents work outside the home, or the father works outside the home while the mother stays at home to rear the children. And even more interestingly, in order to explain away this “threat” the media explains this decision for the father to stay home as a “choice.” Even if the father was laid off from work and that is why he is staying home, it is still a choice, a decision. However, if it was the mother who was staying home with the children, these same types of explanations would not have to be offered. It would be a much more logical and common decision to come to.

In the second article, the boys who murdered Brandon Teena were threatened by Brandon’s new brand of masculinity. Brandon was sensitive, and shy, and “different” from other men. That is why women fell for him, because he could offer them something different. However, this was a complete and total threat to the men in that city. Brandon felt he had to conform to the traditional ideals of masculinity, such as being aggressive and tough. When he acted just like the other men, he was accepted, even admired. However, when he strayed away from the aggressive behaviors of the other men, his gender was called into question. Because how could a man possibly dare to not act like a “man?” When he stopped acting like the other men, more women began to notice him, especially Lana. And when Lana started to notice him, the other men became jealous, because Brandon was different, and was taking their women from them.

It wasn’t just the individuals in each of these stories who felt threatened by these challenges to traditional masculinity, but it was also the media who felt threatened. This can be seen in the portrayal of Michael Keeton’s character (in the movie, Mr. Mom) as a incapable, almost humorous fool trying to do the laundry and take care of the children. This is almost the media’s way of saying, “see, it’s not natural.” The media couldn’t possibly portray this gender norm inversion as anything other than awkward and abnormal. And even more obviously this can be seen in the coverage of the Brandon Teena case. As we saw last week in John Sloop’s book, Brandon was portrayed as sinister and deceitful, trying to fool the poor innocent Midwesterners. The media has to convince the public that these cases are not normal, and are a threat to traditional masculinity. Unfortunately, mainstream America might seem to still agree with this view, but hopefully that will change someday.

Troubled Gender, Identity and Home

How important is it to society to promote a philosophical ideology that gender is ambiguous, or troubled? Reading Sloop’s book, Disciplining Gender, one might have the impression that it is extremely important, and that those who attempt to define themselves as existing within a specific gender category are selling out to the establishment. Even with the expanded societal acceptance of non-traditional gender categories, Sloop suggests that the mere identification of one’s self within a category, traditional, or otherwise, reiterates and reinforces the existence of categories. Only by resisting categorization, he posits, do we create a space where gender is allowed to become more fluid; where it can be viewed on a continuum rather than as discrete entities. He argues that society conditions us to expect categories, so we discipline each other to conform to categories, even if those categories are in and of themselves non-conforming.

For instance, in the chapter on k.d. lang, Sloop argued that in her early years (before she came “out”) she was “far more troubling” than later; that she “moves from troubling gender, sexuality, and genre categories . . . to reaffirming generic and gender categories” (p. 102). He suggested that she moved from the troubling approach due to a need for society to define her. He even hinted that as a result of her decision to identify as butch she was rewarded by society in the form of better musical contracts, more fan support, and greater monetary reward, because she finally fit into some norm that society was willing to accommodate.

But is this the only explanation that can be rendered for k. d. lang’s increased success? I would argue that an alternative process might be at work that is of equal importance—if not to society, certainly to the individual. That is the notion of identity. This notion is hinted at in one of lang’s comments about coming out. She described her move as freeing because it “eliminated a lot of tension. . . . It’s really a fantastic feeling. I highly recommend to anybody in this situation to live in the truth” (p. 96).

In order to understand lang’s position better, I watched several videos of her, both prior to her coming out—the period Sloop argues is far more troubling—and after. I noticed a significant difference in these pre- and post- performances. She seemed more comfortable with herself after she decided to come out. Everything about her music seemed to fit together, from style of dress to style of music. I could see the difference she described. She appeared to have found her personal identity, and was living at ease within the construction she had claimed.

On the other hand, other individuals described within Sloop’s book had difficulty finding a sense of personal identity within a societal-described category. Societal discipline around sexual preferences collided with societal discipline around violent behavior and for two individuals, their exploration of the boundaries describing options for identity resulted in death. So, is this really where Sloop is going with all this rhetoric about creating space for troubling gender? That we need to provide a wider range of options for individuals who can’t find a sense of their personal identity within existing options?

One of the most significant courses I have taken thus far in my doctoral program spent a significant portion of time on theories of student development, which in large part focus on how students sort out a sense of personal identity. These theories are subsets of the broader field of human development, which also includes identity as a major factor of development. I would propose that what our feminist rhetoric is “all about” ultimately, is this search for identity. For lang, finding and claiming her identity was important to her for her personal development. An alternative reading of the other case studies could also make the same claim.

Where does this get us with the notion of troubling societal gender categories? I think it recognizes that many traditional categories give many people fits, even if they aren’t specifically questioning sexual orientation. For instance, as I grew up, the expected activities for a female my age weren’t what I wanted to do. I didn’t like playing with dolls or dressing in pink. I was good at math and science, and could take almost anything apart and put it back together again.

When I got into college, I rebelled at the notion that I was attending to get my MRS. degree. I suggested that in my church's Young Women’s and Relief Society instruction, we should prepare our girls and women for roles other than wife and motherhood, because the reality was that many girls and women would grow up and choose alternate paths. We shouldn’t be so short-sighted that we fail to acknowledge the legitimacy and normality of alternate paths, because the search for one’s place in the world—one’s identity—is important for people. Thus, if troubling a gender category is what is necessary to provide people with alternatives in order to find identity, I can see where there is value in pushing those limits.

However, as I read Sloop’s (2004) arguments of how culture disciplines gender, and drives rhetoric around sexual identity, I didn’t have a sense that he was working towards providing people with additional options for seeking identity. He seemed to argue that the important thing is the turbulence; that reducing turbulence is antithetical to the feminist movement. So, throughout the book, I couldn’t help but wonder how comfortable any person might feel living a life of “troubled gender” as proposed by Sloop. For me, it would leave me too troubled to feel human—to feel like I had any sense of purpose or direction—that I was just another animal—and that is what human development theorists say is the point of establishing identity in the first place—becoming human.

That leads me to wonder if discipline is the practice that makes us human. As we learn to control our thoughts and actions—as we discipline our own selves, we enter into a social contract with those around us, and we become part of humanity. Discipline, therefore, is not a bad thing. It helps us enter into relationships with others so that we can create bonds of understanding. If everything in life were always random, where would we find understanding? Sloop's examples of violent reprisal for gender non-conformance demonstrate what happens when too many life events are random. All discipline departs. Perhaps our categories are too narrow, and they need to be broader, but I can’t agree with Sloop’s final argument that we need more troubling without coming to a final sense of one’s place. Every person wants to find a home.

So, while Sloop talks about the implications of the “politics of ‘homes’” (p. 149) as if it is a bad thing, I am reminded of a song from Pippin entitled Corner of the Sky. Even as the main character explored the breadth of human experience, he always wanted to find his sense of identity—his personal place. It wasn't a societal push, it was an inner urge. I think for humankind this feeling is universal. While we may explore and push our boundaries, ultimately, the search is for a solid place where we can proclaim “This is Who I Am” to the world. We can finally declare, “I am human, and here is my home.”