Media & ArtsAnyone else bothered by gay stereotypes in media not going away, and in some times being heightened?

submitted by lovelyspearmintLesbeing a lesbian from self.LGBDropTheT

I thought with LGB acceptance, with gay marriage, with people calling out harmful stereotypes that this issue would go away, as it did with broad racial stereotypes in recent media, but if anything, LGB stereotypes (gay male ones in particular) have seemed to have increased, as seen with shows like Schitt's Creek where the gay stereotype character (revealed to be pan 🤮), played by Dan Levy, personally makes it unwatchable for me. It's especially made worse by the fact Dan Levy is gay himself and should know better. Movies like Happiest Season and anything Ryan Murphy puts his hands on are also pretty cringe.

On the other hand, anything involving trans, non-binary, asexual, queers is handled with kid gloves.

What the hell is going on? Why are LGB given the short end of the stick when it comes to creating representational media, when pretty much everyone else is being catered to?

all 42 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]reluctant_commenter 20 insightful - 1 fun20 insightful - 0 fun21 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

YES. It definitely bothers me. Heard a straight acquaintance make a comment recently about how "gays are so FUN" and I was like... dude, relax...

On the other hand, anything involving trans, non-binary, asexual, queers is handled with kid gloves.

Okay, wait I have noticed this too. People I know seem very casual about making broad generalizations about gay/lesbian people (bisexuals ignored), yet no one would dare mention anything trans-related unless to seem overtly positive (often in a virtue-signalling way)... Why is there such a double standard? I mean, obviously there is a ton of censorship in the media and socially around trans topics-- you can only say the "right" things or you'll be lambasted and socially shunned. But how the fuck do so many people mentally justify talking up all kids of stereotypes about gay/lesbian people at the same time?

Sorry, I didn't really answer your question. But I would also like to know. It's starting to get on my nerves.

[–][deleted] 19 insightful - 1 fun19 insightful - 0 fun20 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

In the She-ra reboot there is a non-binary character who acts just like a stereotypical gay man, but if you try to call it out for what it is you will be attacked because apparently gay stereotypes are ok if he identifies as non-binary instead of as a man. And that's a cartoon for kids perpetuating these kinds of stereotypes.

[–]lovelyspearmintLesbeing a lesbian[S] 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

And then when you see him in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn9HrL27YUY

You wonder whether this is just a performance for woke points or whether he's genuinely like this.

[–]Athelhilda2 17 insightful - 2 fun17 insightful - 1 fun18 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

He looks like a fucking circus freak.

[–][deleted] 13 insightful - 2 fun13 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

I believe gay marriage being legalized opened up some sort of floodgate within many people's minds, and not for the better. They were like "oh, it's cool that people of the same sex get married? That means I can talk about all the shitty things I've been thinking about LGB and stuffing down deep inside, and it's OK now because gay is normal!"

It was a really weird shift in western culture, to be sure. I do wonder if that's a part of why we (as a society) have battles between liberals and conservatives so strongly now. Both thought some shitty things, but I've gotta say, at least conservatives back it up with facts and legalities. Liberals are backing it up with feelings and pseudo-science. Libertarians are an interesting blend of both, but don't have a consistent argument because of a lack of representation.

As to your question:

Why are LGB given the short end of the stick when it comes to creating representational media, when pretty much everyone else is being catered to?

LGB people don't actually matter, we are pawns in political games. That includes media - television shows, live news, articles, etc. It's not even about LGB specifically, we're just a label and statistic that's able to be used now. The tail is most certainly wagging the dog in western countries, and THAT's what our real fight is against.

Instead of asking "why aren't LGB", ask yourself "why trans/non-binary/etc are". And then ask yourself "who and what is doing so".

It will take time, and you will go down a rabbit hole. Recognizing that our media and celebrities are promoting it, that's a good first step. Pick your favorite news company or celebrity, and start digging.

[–]our_team_is_winning 12 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Liberals are backing it up with feelings and pseudo-science.

The way children argue things. And with false "I know this one person who...." stories.

It's not even about LGB specifically, we're just a label and statistic that's able to be used now.

We're the brand recognition: LGB sounds familiar, most people are at least neutral to it.

Then they tack on the other letters and numbers like saying "oh, I'm with them" to sneak backstage or sneak into an invite-only party. I want to turn around and announce loudly "They're NOT with me! I don't know them!"

[–]Rubyredpython 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is why they react the way they do when we try to separate. They need our recognition and history to keep their movement afloat.

[–]reluctant_commenter 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

They were like "oh, it's cool that people of the same sex get married? That means I can talk about all the shitty things I've been thinking about LGB and stuffing down deep inside, and it's OK now because gay is normal!"

Wow, you know... you might just be right, I've never thought of that before but that really describes my experience hearing people talk about gay people, lol. Sometimes it's not so bad, if it's just a bunch of random-ass questions, but sometimes it's just a bunch of stereotypes, which I find draining.

Both thought some shitty things, but I've gotta say, at least conservatives back it up with facts and legalities.

Well, on this topic, anyway. Not so much on other topics. Such as religious pseudoscientific beliefs about how homosexuality is "inherently disordered" or whatever.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well, on this topic, anyway. Not so much on other topics. Such as religious pseudoscientific beliefs about how homosexuality is "inherently disordered" or whatever.

True.

The thing is, even if we don't agree with what they believe, they back it up. And they listen to us and engage, and acknowledge our sources too, even when they don't believe in them. We don't have to agree on everything, we just have to find common ground.

It's a little strange to say, but they're allowing us more of a platform to meet in the middle than the modern left is. Maybe it's with bad intentions, maybe it's not, but they're the ones allowing us to speak.

[–]lovelyspearmintLesbeing a lesbian[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Thank you for your response. It's really thorough and you've got an interesting perspective.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I have no way of proving this anymore, since r/GenderCritical is banned and I didn't save an archive of my comments ... but there was a large discussion thread at the time GenderTrender got banned from Wordpress. It was in 2018, shortly after GallusMag revealed all the dirty details about Jonathan Yaniv.

It was all blowing up among GC circles and on social media, and random people were getting banned from Twitter and Facebook. Users were speculating about what was next.

I looked into Wordpress investors and the portfolios they maintained, which companies and boards they were a part of, and who they had invested in previously. I found a trend and commonalities. Among other things, Facebook and Twitter had been slowly updating their TOS and banning users over the prior year, Wordpress jumped the shark.

I predicted Medium would be the next site to start publicly censoring. Within a month or two, Medium released new TOS protecting gender identity, and started banning users.

Facebook and Twitter went all-in soon after, and stopped being passive and started aggressively making changes. Reddit had already been shitty, but I feel like their narrative accelerated right around then also. The groundwork had already been laid. Opinions that were not pro-TQ+ started being cancelled like an avalanche, and there was nowhere to turn because all the other major companies were doing the exact same thing.

[–]lovelyspearmintLesbeing a lesbian[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

What I don't understand is why this is happening? What the hell is going on in Silicon Valley for them to collectively decide that they'll go pro-trans? Is it a Big Pharma thing, or a way to sneak men into positions that they'd had to acquiesce in the past to women as a part of a diversity hire? I really don't see what's in it for them.

[–]reluctant_commenter 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I mean, it seems like there's a ton of money involved. In the US at least, billionaires own pretty much all the major media companies; you can even play a guessing game with your friends, "Which billionaire owns X company?" And most billionaires are focused on their ongoing aggregation of wealth. The medical pipeline of transgender-related medication and surgeries-- starting kids on puberty blockers, then testosterone/estrogen, etc., and encouraging surgeries-- sends a steady stream of customers to for-profit companies that those billionaires own. There are some articles I've read about the money aspect of it, if you're curious I can link some.

[–]lovelyspearmintLesbeing a lesbian[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I believe you. It's like the saying goes: Just follow the money.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Absolutely, US money and billionaires are a HUGE part of it. If anyone is curious about the rabbit hole I went down, it led to Automattic Inc. They funded the majority of big-tech companies in the past and present (at the time).

I'm sure thing have gotten worse and more "diversified" since then, I just haven't had to the time or energy lately to sink into going down the rabbit hole again.

Follow that money trail u/lovelyspearmint. It's there. As to why Silicon Valley? It's the start-up capital of the tech world, and all the major players have base offices here. This area is a beacon for mass-distribution to the people and internet, which means the world can hear even the tiniest message. If all the investors say "make sure this message is/isn't part of your repertoire", companies will in order to survive, and then eventually the people running it will start believing it themselves since everyone around them is spouting the same. That's the nature of propaganda.

To u/reluctant_commenter's second point, the medical pipeline of ANYTHING in the USA ... it's disgusting. Medical and insurance industries in this country are for-profit, not for-citizens, and cancel culture is causing corruption among even those who swore to be ethical. It all just keeps feeding itself, and TG is the latest nutritional source.

Please do share some links! Newer people need to know, and those of us who already know, we need to not forget.

[–]reluctant_commenter 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ok, don't have a lot of time right now but here's some links I sent someone else before!

Also: probably worth making a post about this at some point? I think there are more likes besides these, I would recommend starting with the Sue Donym articles.

Okay, here's one of the articles I was thinking of, probably the best one to start with: https://archive.is/7tIce

Sue Donym is an anonymous writer who actually has a saidit account and posts his/her writings occasionally: u/suedonym1984

Google "billionaire trans medical industry" and you'll find a bunch more articles. I'm just gonna throw out a few, but bear in mind that some of these have a religious-right bias:

[–]PatsyStoneMaverique 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

These are all opinions, if I had the time I could dig up links to support them but... here I go:

----The international/global left has invented a system of sexual ethics that suits their desired economic structure and biases. They see same-sex attraction, really all sexual attraction, as inherently dangerous and under need of expression in order to avoid you doing something crazy or becoming violent.

That's the only common thread to current LGBT umbrella really shares. Reading the subtext: sexual weirdos who need to be accepted so we don't kill ourselves or abuse children.

----As for the censorship, it was this global left gearing up for the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Most of the backbone of the internet is American.

American Republicans control the conversation on social media thoroughly. They have turned trolling into a philosophical discipline (seriously, I could get into a lot of detail on this.) They are so effective they essentially replaced the news media for working class Americans between 2016 and 2018.

The Democrats had no chance at all of victory without massive changes to the entire online space, which took about a year for them to enact. Democrats are dependent on narratives of oppression and triumph, large public outcries, and protest movements to gain and maintain power. They are dependent on traditional media totally.

This covered everything from Reddit quarantining subs, to Google changing search algorithms, to web hosts booting their own customers.

What is common now was still shocking two years ago. That's how fast things changed.

Because it worked.

[–]Neo_Shadow_LurkerPronouns: I/Don't/Care 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

as seen with shows like Schitt's Creek where the gay stereotype character (revealed to be pan 🤮), played by Dan Levy, personally makes it unwatchable for me. It's especially made worse by the fact Dan Levy is gay himself and should know better.

Most actors have little control or imput on how their characters are portrayed on-screen, so this is not simply a matter of them 'knowing better' or not.

What the hell is going on? Why are LGB given the short end of the stick when it comes to creating representational media, when pretty much everyone else is being catered to?

Because in the discourse of Queer Theory the same stereotypes we consider to be harmful are lauded as a subversive virtue that must be embraced with pride.

That's why these stereotypes are never going away.

[–]lovelyspearmintLesbeing a lesbian[S] 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

In other cases, I can forgive people for taking what roles they can get, but in this case, Levy has no such excuse. He created the show and wrote for it with his father. If he didn't want the character to be that way, it wouldn't be.

[–][deleted] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

It's kind of a double-edged sword though, right?

I do find it irritating that the character's sexual orientation was phrased as "pan" instead of "bi", but at the end of the day, we can't have it both ways.

Either his character is gay, continuing to perpetuate the stereotype, or his character is Kinsey 1-5, showing that the stereotype isn't always the case and people should open their minds.

[–]Neo_Shadow_LurkerPronouns: I/Don't/Care 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Either his character is gay, continuing to perpetuate the stereotype, or his character is Kinsey 1-5, showing that the stereotype isn't always the case and people should open their minds.

It would be groundbreaking only if the character in question was straight, at least in my view.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Agree, that would be the better and more poignant expression.

I don't think straight people are quite there yet though.

[–]altmehere 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Frasier has multiple plot lines about straight men being taken for gay based on stereotypes and a plot line about a gay man being mistaken for being straight.

And that was in the 90s.

[–]lovelyspearmintLesbeing a lesbian[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Wasn't that the whole joke with Chandler on Friends? That he was being mistaken for gay.

And somehow it's one of the favourite shows of modern LGBTQ, especially Qs. Barely anyone calls that show 'problematic'.

[–]Neo_Shadow_LurkerPronouns: I/Don't/Care 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks for the info.

So what probably happened is that he wanted to cater to the alphabet soup woke brigade and wrote his show accordingly.

In the end It was more of a marketing stunt than anything.

[–]RedEyedWarriorGay | Male | 🇮🇪 Irish 🇮🇪 | Antineoliberal | Cocks are Compulsory 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

In the 20th century there were lots of movies and tv shows with magical Asian martial artists. Then Asians actors got sick of it, and they refused to participate in these roles. So these portrayals have declined. So those actors do have a choice.

[–]usehername 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Agreed. At some point, the people participating in it need to take responsibility.

[–]JulienMayfair 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Most actors have little control or input on how their characters are portrayed on-screen, so this is not simply a matter of them 'knowing better' or not.

In this case, the original concept of the show came from Dan Levy, and he's an executive producer and screenwriter of many of the episodes, so he has an unusual degree of control over the character since he's the main force behind the whole show.

[–]Neo_Shadow_LurkerPronouns: I/Don't/Care 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I was already informed of this, but still, this deserves a yikes then.

[–][deleted] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Stereotypes in mass media are used for quick and easy establishment of characters.

[–]RedEyedWarriorGay | Male | 🇮🇪 Irish 🇮🇪 | Antineoliberal | Cocks are Compulsory 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I’m bothered by these stereotypes as well. Not so much that they exist, because I’m fine with stereotypical gay people who are genuinely being themselves so it’s natural they’ll get represented. What I do have a problem with is the fact that oftentimes the only gays who get representation are stereotypical gays, as if other kinds of gay people don’t exist. But the reason why they’re so accepted is because a lot of gay people allow these stereotypes to persist. And it just so happens that those gays who allow those stereotypes to persist have a lot of power in the media. Plus, stereotypical gay guys and stereotypical lesbians are seen as less threatening, and you can tell right away that they are homosexual so you don’t have to think about them. There’s nothing wrong with a gay person being a gay stereotype, but as far as a homophobic person is concerned, a stereotypical gay person can be seen from a mile away, so it gives the homophobic person time to leave the area or mentally prepare for a potential interaction with the gay person. Whereas a gay guy like me looks and acts like a straight guy, so a homophobic person wouldn’t know he’s gay until after he’s been up close and personal with him, which the homophobic person doesn’t want. Plus, straight men aren’t attracted to butch lesbians and straight women aren’t attracted to sassy gays, so they’re fine with butch women being lesbian or sassy men being gay.

As for why a lot of gay people tolerate or promote the gay stereotype being the only type of gay, I’m not sure why. Maybe they think that if you’re not stereotypical you’re not fully comfortable with your sexuality for whatever reason. Maybe they associate the stereotypes with a certain culture they want all gays to be a part of, not realising that different gays have different interests and behaviours. I don’t know.

[–]JulienMayfair 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Part of it is simple laziness. Writers know that they can get laughs with portrayals of gay men as fussy, shallow, obsessed with fashion and pop culture, etc...

The perennial problem with writing interesting gay characters is that unless you're navigating social disapproval in the script, being gay, in and of itself, does not move plots forward. A lot of gay men live pretty average lives, so the question is how do you bring attention to the character without resorting to flamboyant stereotypes?

My personal least favorite is the character of Leonard, the gay curate in the UK show Grantchester. He's perpetually simpering and looks as though he would screech or faint if he saw a mouse. Of course, that show is pretty bad overall.

[–]lovelyspearmintLesbeing a lesbian[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

On the other hand, how do you write interesting straight people without drawing attention to their sexuality? With them, you don't have to. It's assumed they're straight and therefore you can expand other parts of their character without ever having to touch on the fact that they're straight. But then if it turns out they're not straight, it's often treated as a twist and their character immediately becomes defined by being gay.

It's a Catch-22. You can make the character interesting without mentioning that they're gay, but then it's assumed they're straight. If you reveal that they're gay, then the character becomes gay and anything interesting about them is immediately attributed to them being gay as opposed to them being a complex character, which they would be considered to be if they were straight.

[–]JulienMayfair 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Fair points. I recall the gay couple on the TV show Northern Exposure, back in the 1990s, and the salient thing about them was now average they were and the fact that they shared so many interests with Maurice, the town's resident conservative crank. They did run an upscale B&B, so I guess there is some stereotyping there, but it was obvious that the writers were trying to play against previous stereotypes.

[–]boypower 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The widespread liberal '' choice '' feminism and social media activism rampant with awful takes by social reject teenagers and young adults who aren't qualified to make any sort of insightful comment on any subject, have made it so that conforming and consenting to stereotypes and reclaiming them is the biggest form of rebellion towards the heteronormative, homophobic society. Fighting back against stereotypes is considered self-hating, misogynist, racist or homophobic. The critical analysis of homosexual male and female stereotypes in media has left the building somewhere around the early 2010s, as has the marketability of homosexual male and female characters.

But there's also a lack of passionate gay and lesbian artists and content creators (in their perspectives industries) in the first place. I've also seen several gay artists who once created exclusively gay content get hired and then mostly disappear completely from creating the content they used to. Besides that, most gay content in cartoons, TV shows and video games aren't being made by gay people, but often by non-binary demisexual heteroflexibles or just straight people. We aren't producing our own representation, and I reckon it will stay that way for a long, long time.

With all that said, there's nothing necessarily wrong with homosexual characters who happen to be more or less stereotypical. It all comes down to what the writer does with them and whether the character is just a one note stereotype or just happens to inhabit stereotypical traits while being a complex character. But that often doesn't seem to be the case.

[–]usehername 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Fighting back against stereotypes is considered self-hating, misogynist, racist or homophobic.

This describes the new pro-conformity movement.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I hate 99% of media “representation” for LGB. There are some decent films but that’s it. The TV series and TV movies are terrible. I thought I was the only lesbian who hates Happiest Season... everyone on the internet was constantly praising it. Ugh.

Why can’t there just be normal men and women who happen to be gay or lesbian. Gay men especially. There’s always gotta be some stereotype or work storyline to go along with it.

Ironically, the best examples of gay characters on TV that I can think of came before gay marriage, sometimes long before. Omar Little on The Wire was groundbreaking because he played into zero stereotypes. He was a badass masculine guy who was morally complex, and his gayness had nothing to do with what made his character interesting. The Sopranos had a similar situation with a gay male side character.

The most recent show I can think of that I thought did it right was NBC Hannibal, with Margot and Alana being normal lesbian and bisexual women, respectively. Black Sails also had good lesbian characters, and the main gay male character was excellent too for being very masculine and non-stereotypical, although admittedly his gayness did play a huge role in the storyline.

But generally, the current state of media with gay characters is absolutely ridiculous.

Edit: that one Black Mirror episode with the lesbian and the bisexual woman was good too.

[–]SuperGayIsOkay 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Brooklyn Nine-Nine had Captain Holt who was absolutely perfect.

Bayonetta has Bayonetta x Jeanne who literally go to hell and back for each other, and also are basically confirmed lesbians by the sheer amount of official creator artwork of them living together.

[–]lovelyspearmintLesbeing a lesbian[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Interestingly enough, Mackenzie Davis, who played one of the lesbians in San Junipero (Black Mirror) was also the love interest in Happiest Season.

[–]sadbihours 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Well I’ll add that racial stereotypes are being brought back too since you can’t have a Black character now without being political (example: A superhero called Static Shock I grew up with was rewritten to have gotten his powers during a BLM March. ) So I think it is safe to say that all media portrayals unless they are Trans are a mess right now.

[–]lovelyspearmintLesbeing a lesbian[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I thought more along the lines of older stereotypes associated with races, but now the new stereotype is being an activist, so you're right in that respect.

[–]Rubyredpython 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That makes me so angry. Static Shock is one of my favorite super heroes and to have him politicized is so annoying.