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. 

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.

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.

Where is the love?

I have to admit that confusion is my default feeling after reading Chapter Two: Disciplining the Transgendered: Brandon Teena, Public Representation, and Normativity in the Sloop book.  This confusion is caused by several different factors.  First I think it is wise to acknowledge that the whole Brandon Teena case in itself is a complicated and somewhat confusing case study to analyze.  However, Sloop does not just focus on the case study itself, he branches out to analyze how the media framed this case and the discourse that it caused in society.  All of these layers of analysis within the chapter are enough to make one’s head spin (and I am hoping that I am not alone in this feeling, although it is okay if I am).

Throughout the chapter Sloop discusses how our society thrives on labels and boxes.  The fact that Brandon Teena did not fit into one box or adhere to one label was and still is troublesome to society.  We have discussed in previous classes how the fact that gender and sex is not a fluid construction in our society causes a great deal of trouble.  Sloop’s analysis of Brandon Teena just re-affirms that notion.  It also served to be eye opening as to how narrow minded our society truly is, which for me, is extremely disturbing.  What is even more troublesome for me is that only through the readings of this course and through the light in which Sloop discusses this case have I realized how narrow minded I have been when it comes to gender and sex.

One of the first things that Sloop discusses that caused me anxiety was when he analyzed the rhetoric surrounding the murderers and their motives for killing Teena. The media as well as the two men responsible for abusing and murdering Teena justify their actions by saying that they were hurt by the “deception” that they experienced.  While I can understand that people do not enjoy being deceived and lied to, I hardly think that is just cause for the brutal actions that both men inflicted upon Teena.  The fact that the media framed Brandon Teena as the one who was guilty of deception simply created an out for his two murders and gave society a reason to excuse the acts of violence and abuse that they participated in.  It is easier for our society to accept and understand something if we are able to relate to it.  Since majority of our society are unable to relate to Brandon Teena, the media needed to find a new spin on the story.  Everyone has experienced deception at some point and level in their life, thus the story becomes relatable.

The media makes this case relatable and accessible in other ways as well.  The audience is validated when it is revealed that there was something “wrong” with Teena, there was a deeper penetrating issue that caused his sexual confusion.  Either there was a hormone imbalance during his mother’s pregnancy or he was sexually abused as a child.  By exposing these tangible instances, it makes it easier for society to accept Brandon Teena’s actions.  We need to be able to create scenarios and instances to make it easier for the situation to accommodate our frame of reference instead of just accepting the fact that Brandon Teena thought he was male, wanted to be male, or whatever he believed. 

I also found it mildly horrifying that the media was so transfixed with determining what Brandon Teena’s true gender and sex was.  I understand that as a society, we need to be able to define the unknown in terms that we are able to understand, but it seems as if in the whole mix of all of this society and the media lost sight of the big picture: someone was sexually abused and murdered in what I see as a hate crime.  In all of the drama surrounding determining if Brandon Teena was male or female, gay or straight, transgendered or transsexual, we forgot one thing: despite what he was or how he identified, he was murdered, and shouldn’t that action in itself speak louder than defining his “true” identity?