Third-Wave Feminism--Society Be Damned or Personal Choice Activism?

According to Sowards and Renegar (2006), third wave feminism is characterized by individual activities, rather than collective, allowing for a multitude of approaches that is recognized more by their lack of integration than by anything else. They argued that “rhetorical acts of contemporary feminism . . . might also include creating grassroot models of leadership, using strategic humor, building feminist identity, sharing stories, and resisting stereotypes and labels” (p. 58). Thus, a Mormon Mommy blog could be viewed as third wave feminism, as could the NudePhotoRevolutionaries calendar (Christensen, 2012)—polar opposites on the liberal-conservative scale. The connecting factor to both of these contributions to feminist thought is the expression of “personal choice” (Sowards & Renegar, p. 62) by women who have found ways to express their personal identity and self-autonomy. Women have rejected the “hegemonic feminist thought and theories of the second wave” (p. 65), finding expression at a personal rather than social level.

Is this a kinder, gentler feminism than has been expressed in the past? I know I always felt that second-wave feminists weren’t speaking for me with their rejection of the male half of society. The idea that my personal choices contribute to increased opportunity for women appeals to me.

However, other writers don’t view it that way. Some appear to view it as an expression of “nothing I do matters, so I’ll do what I want and society be damned” attitude. Greta Christensen (2012) wrote the following about her participation in the NudePhotoRevolutionaries calendar:

We can try to navigate the narrow, essentially impossible shoals of these contradictory expectations, and try to find that perfect, socially acceptable line between slut and prude. Or we can say, “Fuck it. There is no way I can win — so I’m going to do whatever the fuck I want. I’m going to wear overalls, or I’m going to wear high heels. I’m going to have sex with twenty strangers in a night, or I’m not going to have sex with anyone. I’m going to dress conservatively and professionally in public at all times, or I’m going to sell naked pictures of myself on the Internet if I bloody well feel like it.” And in saying, “I can’t win, so I’m going to do whatever the fuck I want to do,” we can create the beginnings of a victory. (para. 16-17)

Shugart, Waggoner, and Hallstein (2001) argued that mass media has co-opted feminism, repackaged it, and sold it back to us as kind and friendly—something we find in the local grocery store—as if we can buy our way to a better society. Anderson and Stewart (2005) agreed, extending the commodification to the political arena, where the votes of women can be bought and sold if the appeal to vote is packaged in the latest fashion.

Are women really that shallow? Have the ideals of second-wave feminism been bought and sold for a mess of pottage?

Or have we found that the variety of ways women have expressed themselves throughout history is bigger than a feminism wave can accommodate? I think of the quilters of the 19^th century who expressed themselves through their fabric, telling stories that only other quilters would understand. Their creative strength appeals to me as they reach out over the centuries speaking of courage and comfort in a timeless understanding that we need both in our lives. Were these third-wave feminists also? Are we only now rediscovering the activist nature that has always been among us, and are claiming it as our own? Is third-wave feminism just a name for the diversity of women everywhere?

References

Anderson, K. V. & Stewart, J. (2005). Politics and the single woman: The “Sex and the City Voter” in campaign 2004. Rhetoric and Public Affairs, 5, 595-616.

Christensen, G. (2012, April 4). What I may do with my naked body: A reply to Azar Majedi about the #NakedPhotoRevolutionaries calendar [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2012/04/04/what-i-may-do-with-my-naked-body/

Shugart, H. A., Waggoner, C. E., & Hallstein, D. L. O. (2001). Mediating third-wave feminism: Appropriation as postmodern media practice. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 18, 194-210.

Sowards, S. K. & Renegar, V. R. (2006). Reconceptualizing rhetorical activism in contemporary feminist contexts. The Howard Journal of Communications, 17, 57-74.

Competing Narratives: Another look at the "Rosie the Riveter" of Gay Rights

In 2005, Helene Shugart analyzed “poster child” logic surrounding Rosie O’Donnell’s coming out and subsequent support of equal rights adoption. Shugart concluded that the mass-mediated interpretations of O’Donnell’s projected narratives—that of being simultaneously a maternal figurehead, as well as a childlike presence in popular culture—in conjunction with her politically charged stance on adoption, worked to reify an ideological division between heterosexual and homosexual parents. Shugart argues that the public’s understanding of O’Donnell as an outsider—a “misfit with a heart of gold”—who is concerned with the care and safety of similar misfit children, categorically marginalizes both these broken children and their gay (adoptive) parents. Essentially, because both are already in the margins of society, it establishes a view of gay parents as the only suitable “beasts of burden” capable of parenting troubled youth.

Shugart’s conclusion, however, relies on a particular reading of O’Donnell’s narratives. While I agree with Shugart’s analysis and conclusions, I feel compelled to voice my concern for the supposed totality of this reading. Personally, at some points in the article, I perceived a disconnect with the author’s interpretation, and my own recollections about O’Donnell. As Shugart noted, O’Donnell’s performance

“could be understood as presentational, in a mediated context, it, too, ultimately is rendered representational, available for consumption and interpretation … by multiple audiences.”

It is this flexibility in interpretation that allowed (apparently) a large portion of the American population to perceive O’Donnell as a kind and caring figure. Many of the adults by whom I was surrounded in my youth did not share this view. Constantly, I can remember Rosie being talked about as a “loud bitch” who “used her celebrity to butt into people’s lives.” Shugart was right in some respect here, in that O’Donnell’s sexuality was “absorbed” by the context of her coming out—very rarely was her sexuality mentioned in these critiques. These acquaintances and family members to which I am referring were more traditionally conservative, and so O’Donnell’s tireless efforts to increase governmental regulations, including gun control, did not sit well with them.

            As I read Shugart’s article, I found it eye-opening as I lacked the frame of reference necessary for this interpretation of Rosie O’Donnell. However, as I continued to read, I was able to follow—and agree with—Shugart’s analysis quite well. I feel it should be made apparent that although this analysis is sound, without the reading of O’Donnell’s narratives that Shugart describes, it changes her whole argument. When she claims that the

“characterizations of O’Donnell as opportunistic, greedy, and deceptive were so far afield from her mainstream persona … that they quickly fizzled as fodder for discourse,”

it must be understood that not everyone felt these characterizations were completely off the mark. Therefore, this then deconstructs the “misfits caring for misfits” marginalization Shugart had established. To people, consumers, who do not share in Shugart’s narrative interpretation of O’Donnell, this application of heteronormative logic does not ring so assuredly true. This results in a separation of O’Donnell, and the parents for which she was fighting in the first place. O’Donnell, to some, was marginalized because of her highly publicized, brash, exploitative and “opportunistic” behavior.

            Granted, this interpretation is very possibly the viewpoint of only a few, but it altered how I read this article from the onset. What is interesting to note is that in the seven years since Shugart penned this piece, the visibility of queer bodies in the mainstream media has increased. While Shugart expressed a very real concern for the secondary and diminishing nature of queerness as represented by the media, we are seeing growth today. A cursory Google News search for “gay parents” resulted in over 2,000 results that trended more towards the positive. Research supporting family units—regardless of any member’s sexuality—as the key to happiness and positive development is becoming more widespread. Public discourse, especially with recent debates about the institution of marriage, is giving more attention to queer issues. While this does not necessarily change the media’s representations of queer individuals, it provides room for change. Maybe now, seven years later, is when we need a “poster child” as Shugart established O’Donnell, to rally the troops.

Misfits and Margins

Complimenting Bonnie Dow’s piece, “Ellen, Television, and the Politics of Gay and Lesbian Visibility” is Helene Shugart’s essay, “On Misfits and Margins:  Narrative, Resistance, and the Poster Child Politics of Rosie O’Donnell.”  In the former piece, Dow explores the coming-out stories of Ellen DeGeneres, as well as that of the fictional character, Ellen Morgan, portrayed by DeGeneres.  In the latter, Shugart analyzes the politics of the coming-out story of daytime celebrity, Rosie O’Donnell.

The first section of Shugart’s piece explores the differences between the public coming-out narratives of DeGeneres and O’Donnell as well as the resulting public reactions.  While DeGeneres’ revelation caused a controversy where people wrote editorials, boycotted Ellen and other Disney operations, and called in to radio and television shows, O’Donnell’s announcement went largely unnoticed.  Shugart notes that “Indeed, most curious is the profound lack of response to O’Donnell’s announcement” (p. 53). 

Another primary difference in the discourses surrounding DeGeneres and O’Donnell identified by Shugart is the politics surrounding their narratives.  DeGeneres seemed to come-out to “stay true” to herself, as the Dow article suggested.  However, O’Donnell’s coming-out was based on the issue of gay and lesbian adoption.  At the time O’Donnell came-out in March 2002, she had already been constructed in the public sphere as an adoptive mother, reinforcing the expected constructs of females as nurturers and mothers. 

Shugart then spends the next portion of her essay developing the discourses surrounding O’Donnell’s motherhood.  She explains that “O’Donnell fit into the American mainstream version of this ideological construct of motherhood—namely, suburban, middle-class, and largely white—very effectively” (p. 59).  In further explanation, Shugart continues to say that O’Donnell was a mother, represented as extremely nurturing, and embodied traits associated with traditional maternal femininity. 

With several examples to draw from, O’Donnell’s actions show that motherhood takes priority in her life.  From the nursery just off her office to the practice of cutting interviews off due to the needs of her child, O’Donnell made it clear that her career came second.  This reinforced the maternal discourses surrounding her in the media.

The positive tone of Shugart’s essay seems to come abrubtly to a halt as she analyzes the “narrative revision,” of O’Donnell, or in other words, of O’Donnell’s “coming out.”  It is this portion of the essay that I am most troubled by.  There are two main reasons for this.  I will first explain why I struggle with Shugart’s analysis, and then explain why I am troubled by the discourse itself.

Shugart explains that O’Donnell’s announcement about her sexuality is linked in public discourse to her background as an abused and troubled child.  This “troubled child” persona, as Shugart explores, is rationalized as the reason for O’Donnell’s child-like behavior, and thus rationalized as part of the reason O’Donnell identifies as a lesbian.  I feel that this link could have been explored and problematized in Shugart’s discourse instead of being mentioned, but not really explored.   To me, it is glaringly obvious that this discourse is problematic on many levels, and not just to O’Donnell, but for gays and lesbians everywhere.  Shugart does not seem to acknowledge this and that lack frustrated me. 

This link between abused and troubled child and adult lesbian is problematic because it continues to suggest that being lesbian, and by extension, being gay is a result of being “messed up” and suggests that homosexuality is a mental disorder.  Though homosexuality obviously differs from the heterosexual norm that does not mean that it is a mental illness.  This connection seems almost as absurd as suggesting that redheads have a detrimental health condition because their natural red hair differs from the neutral-shaded norm. 

Throughout the entire essay, Shugart explores the “poster-child” status of O’Donnell for gay and lesbian adoption.  One critical aspect of this discussion that seems to be missing, however, is the discussion of how the link between her troubled childhood and her sexuality could actually hurt, not help, this group of people that she seems to represent.  

These discourses of troubled childhood and child-like actions of O’Donnell seem to be in direct contrast to the discourse of nurturing motherhood that surrounded her.  Going back to the title of Shugart’s piece, “misfits and margins,” these seemingly competing discourses come together to put O’Donnell on the outskirts, or “margins” and label her as a “misfit.”  Her child-like actions do not seem to fit in the composed notion of the typical mother.  Announcing her homosexuality also put her on the margins of a heteronormative society.  However, the cliche “birds of a feather flock together” comes into play as Shugart seems to implicitly argue that the children raised by gay and lesbian parents are also misfits in some way.  Though she does not expand on this, one can only assume what requirements there would be to label a child as a “misfit” and therefore gay and lesbian parents are suitable parents. 

I think this hidden discourse in Shugart’s essay is one that needs to be explored more fully.  I do not think, at least, it is my hope, that Shugart would agree that gay and lesbian parents are only fit to adopt “misfit” children.  However, when she fails to explore this part of the narrative, I am left to wonder what she would agree with.  Having only some familiarity with O’Donnell myself, I do not know the circumstances surrounding the adoption of her son, and if her son would be categorized as a “misfit” in some way.  Shugart’s writing led me to assume that perhaps he had a physical or mental disability of some sort.  In doing some outside research, I cannot tell if this really is the case or not, but if it is not, I feel that Shugart should have explained and explored this avenue more fully. 

 In the perfect world, Shugart would have been able to explore these many different pieces of the narratives and discourses surrounding Rosie O’Donnell.  However, I also understand that there are real constraints of time, space, and text availability in writing a journal article.  And perhaps it is a strength in Shugart’s writing that this piece left me wanting more.  While I appreciated her comparison to Ellen DeGeneres, the development of the discourse surrounding O’Donnell’s motherhood, and the exploration of O’Donnell’s “coming out” narratives, I feel that the implications of her “poster child” status, as well as the concept of “misfits” needed to be explored more in Shugart’s writing. 

Breshears, D. (2010). Coming out with our children: Turning points facilitating lesbian parent discourse with their children about family identity. Communication Reports, 23(2), 79-90. doi:10.1080/08934215.2010.511398

Chirrey, D. A. (2003). ‘I hereby come out’: What sort of speech act is coming out?. Journal Of Sociolinguistics, 7(1), 24-37.

Clarke, V., & Kitzinger, C. (2005). 'We're not living on planet lesbian': Constructions of male role models in debates about lesbian families. Sexualities, 8(2), 137-152.

Collins, J. (2007). Challenging the rhetorical oxymoron: Lesbian motherhood in contemporary European cinema. Studies In European Cinema, 4(2), 149-159. doi:10.1386/seci.4.2.149_1

Herek, G. M. (2002). Gender gaps in public opinion about lesbians and gay men. Public Opinion Quarterly,66(1), 40-66.

Hogben, S., & Coupland, J. (2000). Egg seeks sperm. End of story . . . ? Articulating gay parenting in small ads for reproductive partners. Discourse & Society, 11(4), 459.

Hubert, S. J. (1999). What's wrong with this picture? The politics of Ellen's coming out party. Journal Of Popular Culture,33(2), 31-36.

Landau, J. (2009). Straightening out (the politics of) same-sex parenting: Representing gay families in US print news stories and photographs. Critical Studies In Media Communication, 26(1), 80-100. doi:10.1080/15295030802684018

Mason-Bergen, K., Suter, E. A., & Daas, K. L. (2006). "About as solid as a fish net": Symbolic construction of a legitimate parental identity for nonbiological lesbian mothers. Journal Of Family Communication, 6(3), 201-220. doi:10.1207/s15327698jfc0603_3

Shugart, H. A. (2003). Performing ambiguity: the passing of Ellen DeGeneres. Text & Performance Quarterly, 23(1), 30-54.

Skerski, J. (2007). From prime-time to daytime: The domestication of Ellen DeGeneres. Communication & Critical/Cultural Studies, 4(4), 363-381. doi:10.1080/14791420701632964

Spradlin, A. L. (1998). The price of `passing'. Management Communication Quarterly, 11(4), 598.

Rosie vs. Ellen

Blog Post #4

Amy Yount

Shugart’s article was particularly interesting for me because I had a completely different reaction to Rosie O’Donnell announcing that she was a lesbian. The focus of the article was discussing reasons why O’Donnell’s coming out did not see as much media attention as Ellen, and why Rosie saw a great deal of support for her announcement. The author discussed how Rosie was loved by much of her demographic because she was seen as a nurturing mother, even though she was very politically active. However, I have a completely different memory of the events that surrounded her announcement.

I am from a small town that has traditional small town values. Growing up, I remember hearing so much negativity surrounding O’Donnell and her political views. When she came out as a lesbian, that only provided fuel for the fire. There was no focus on her nurturing side, or even her comedy. The majority of the talk revolved around her “liberal politics” and her being a lesbian. So it was interesting for me to read what the majority of Americans thought about her coming out as a lesbian, and how the media portrayed her.

The author argued that even though Rosie came out publically as a lesbian, the majority of Rosie fans were still accepting of her. This was mainly because a lot of her viewers were mothers who could identify with her along the lines of motherhood and raising children. To me, the author is saying that her viewers could almost overlook her being a lesbian, as long as she put her children at the forefront of discussion. However, it honestly surprised me that her fans had such a neutral reaction to her coming out. Especially because, at the time, it wasn’t quite as popular for celebrities to be so open with their sexuality. Therefore, views about homosexuality were still pretty negative in some demographics. With Rosie being a mother, one would think that people would be even more opposed to her homosexuality and have an even stronger reaction. I just know that in my corner of the country, I heard things such as “I feel sorry for her children” and “She just uses her show as a platform for her politics.” So as I was reading this article, I had a hard time identifying with a lot of the points made by the author, because it was not consistent with my lived experience.

Another aspect of the article was that of the “poster child.” This discussion reminded me of the article from last week’s class about Ellen and her almost unwanted status as a poster child for homosexuality. Ellen consistently made it noted that her show was “not a gay sitcom” and she did not feel the need to use her homosexuality as a ralying cry. Rosie, on the other hand, seemed to want to fight to become a poster child. It is my opinion that Rosie wanted to be seen as a poster child for gay adoption, and she turned herself into one. The article discussed numerous examples of when Rosie would discuss her children on the show, and even fought for the rights of homosexuals to be able to adopt. Her show allowed her the opportunity to discuss these issues on a public forum, thus almost catapulting her into the status of a poster child. I think this is one of the biggest issues that sets Rosie and Ellen apart.

But again, it is interesting to examine why Rosie and Ellen received different amounts of attention from the media upon their coming out. Rosie is much more political than Ellen, at the time of Ellen’s coming out. Rosie has a much more “in your face” attitude, so it would make more sense for Rosie to receive more attention upon coming out, even though the opposite actually happened. I know that people around me were more shocked when Ellen came out than when Rosie did, so again I state that reading this article was very interesting for me, because I saw how the majority of the public actually felt about Rosie vs. Ellen’s coming out and how it differed from my lived experiences.

The first rule of Fight Club is: Don't talk about homoeroticism

Brookey, R., & Westerfelhaus, R. (2002). Hiding homoeroticism in plain view: 
     The Fight Club DVD as digital closet. Critical Studies in Media Communication,  
     19, 21-43.

            Sometimes movies come around at exactly the right time. The first time I saw Fight Club, I was 13, and the movie’s “screw everything” mentality spoke to my overdramatic, jaded adolescent mind. Since then, it has been my favorite movie of all time. In retrospect, my love of the movie may have made me biased because I do not buy into Brookey and Westerfelhaus’ arguments about Fight Club’s homoeroticism. While I cannot deny that homoeroticism exists in the film, I believe the homoeroticism serves to show the narcissism of the narrator’s character rather than imply a homosexual relationship with Tyler.

            Brookey and Westerfelhaus argue that through the use of DVD “extra text,” namely the commentaries by the cast and crew, the principal players in Fight Club deny, dismiss, and distract from the film’s homoeroticism to help the film appeal to a more mainstream audience. The authors focus on four key segments of the film—Tyler and the narrator’s first fight, the first real Fight Club meeting, the narrator’s fight with Angel Face, and the film’s ending—highlighting how the DVD commentaries attempt to erase homoeroticism from Fight Club.

            First the authors analyze Tyler and the narrator’s first fight. The narrator calls Tyler after his apartment explodes, and they hang out in a bar. Tyler tells the narrator he should just ask to stay with him, and out of nowhere asks the narrator to hit him as hard as he can. Brookey and Westerfelhaus code the bar scene as a “coy, homoerotic flirtation” (p.33). The segment also calls attention to penises and male bodily functions multiple times as the narrator reveals that Tyler splices pornographic films into family movies and pees and masturbates into food while working as a waiter. Additionally, Tyler tells Jack his situation could be worse—a woman could have cut off his penis and thrown it out of her car window. Finally, Tyler enjoys a “post-coital cigarette” (p.34) after their first fight. While these flirtatious elements are homoerotic, Brad Pitt’s commentary treats the scene as a joke, essentially dismissing the importance of the moment, while Chuck Palahniuk calls the scene “weird” (p.34) because of its romantic implications. Director David Fincher simply ignores the content of the scene and focuses on the technical aspects of filmmaking.

            The second segment features Tyler listing the rules of Fight Club. Men fight without shirts, shoes, or belts, and are not allowed to speak of the club, implying that “these fights carry a sexual tension that makes them seem more than mere brawls; they signify a relationship that dares not speak its name” (p.35). In the commentaries, the actors and director ignore the homoerotic elements and attempt to distract the viewers by talking about other concepts related to the film. Fincher talks about how funny Edward Norton looks while Norton compares the film to The Graduate.

The third segment, and perhaps the most blatantly homoerotic scene in the film, revolves around the narrator’s jealousy that Tyler has struck up a friendship with a young Fight Club member, nicknamed Angel Face. The narrator is envious of the attention Tyler pays to Angel Face and can tell that Tyler is planning something without him. In a jealous rage, the narrator challenges Angel Face to a fight and beats his face until he is unrecognizable, claiming that he wanted to “destroy something beautiful” (p.36). This is the only scene in the film where Fincher addresses homoeroticism; however, he denies it as a story of “self-love” rather than homosexual love, while Norton refers to the narrator’s emotions as “a brotherly jealousy” (p.37). Interestingly, though, the screenwriter concedes that the scene “obviously has homosexual connotations” (p.37); however, Palahniuk, the author of the book Fight Club, laughs off the suggestion, even though in the book, the narrator meets Tyler for the first time on a nude beach.

In analyzing the ending of the film, Brookey and Westerfelhaus argue that even though Tyler is the narrator’s narcissistic projection, the narrator is incapable of entering a loving heterosexual relationship until he destroys Tyler, coding their relationship as a metaphor for sexual confusion. Norton and Fincher dismiss the inherent homoeroticism by claiming that the narrator’s concern for Marla saved him.

            Perhaps my inner 13-year-old fangirl makes me biased, but there were a few weaknesses in the article, including one big oversight in its premise. Brookey and Westerfelhaus argue that “the supplemental material included on the DVD is used to make the product more marketable to mainstream audiences by framing the homoerotic elements of the film as homosocial behavior” (p. 22). However, in order to see these extra-text elements, one has to buy or actively seek out the DVD and be interested enough in the film to watch its special features. As the authors acknowledge at the beginning of the article, the film was intended to “piss off a healthy number of people” (p.21). From that argument, it is safe to assume that a healthy number of people will dislike the film and not seek out its bonus content. Only truly diehard fans will listen to the DVD commentary in the first place. Additionally, the film only made about $37 million dollars in the United States. This is not a mainstream movie, so why appeal to the masses now? The authors may be overestimating the mainstream appeal of DVD special features in general.  

            Additionally, the film undeniably has homoerotic content. The narrator is weirdly fixated on Tyler, and jokes that they live an “Ozzie and Harriet” life together. As someone who has watched and read Fight Club several times, however, the homoeroticism does not represent gay content. To me, the entire point of the film is that the narrator is a horrible narcissist. He invents this charismatic, hypermasculine alpha male alter ego who looks like Brad Pitt at the height of his attractiveness. The narrator is not in love with Tyler; he’s in love with himself. I had always assumed that was the entire point of the film. While some of the fight scenes with other men border on homoerotic, that is a natural side effect of featuring men fighting. All wrestling is homoerotic—the basic premise is that physically fit men have to writhe around on a floor together. Homoeroticism is inherent in any form of male-on-male fighting. (For more information, here is a link to a Village Voice article on the history of homoeroticism in wrestling: www.villagevoice.com/2000-05-02/news/grappling-with-homosexuality/). While there is certainly homoerotic content in Fight Club, I feel as though the authors read a bit too much into the fighting and not enough into Tyler and the narrator’s relationship.

            That said, the article has many strengths. In particular, the authors’ concept of DVD special features as extra-text worthy of examination is brilliant. Everything about DVD special features sends a message from the movie trailers they choose to include to the design of the menus to the DVD commentaries and interviews. While watching a 30 Rock DVD for my final paper, I saw an ad at the beginning of the DVD that framed Tina Fey as unattractive to men—which is one of the major themes in my paper. DVD content certainly has the power to frame readings of the text, and I applaud Brookey and Westerfelhaus for highlighting this.

            Finally, this article connects nicely with the readings from the past two weeks. Interestingly, like Bonnie Dow’s article on Ellen and Helene Shugart’s article on Rosie O’Donnell, Brookey and Westerfelhaus illuminate “the rules” for portraying gay characters in pop culture. In line with Dow’s arguments, they point out that in many cases, gay characters reinforce heterosexuality by serving as asexual or apolitical comedic foils. They are often defined most by their relationships to other straight characters. Additionally, the piece fits nicely with the theme of visibility and invisibility. If you buy Brookey and Westerfelhaus’ arguments, then the cast and crew of Fight Club work hard to dismiss, deny, and divert attention away from the visible homoeroticism in the film. They are implicitly hoping for the film to pass as a heterosexual (love) story. Like several of our readings this semester, it operates on the assumption that mainstream audiences are uncomfortable with homosexuality or homoeroticism.

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.