Gay Bashing
I now finished reading two articles, both about the same topic: the attitude of the writer's community toward gays.
The first, Who Cares About The Death of a Gay Superhero Anyway?, is by Perry Moore. It's a list of gay and lesbian super-heroes in comic books, and how they're treated. The main argument of the article is that gay super-heroes get ( Read more... )
The first, Who Cares About The Death of a Gay Superhero Anyway?, is by Perry Moore. It's a list of gay and lesbian super-heroes in comic books, and how they're treated. The main argument of the article is that gay super-heroes get ( Read more... )
Why, after all, was it so surprising that Dumbledore is gay, even to the gay community? Because Rowling did not care to mark him as gay by inserting easily identifiable gay-like characteristics when building his character. Jim Hanson, on the other hand, was probably surprised to find out that Statler and Waldorf are under suspicion of being gay, just because they're two guys who like to hang out together, know each other well and have a developed sense of humor.
The reason that this argument is not a rehash of your argument but is indeed the mirror argument to it, is that those easily identifiable qualities are often positive, like Seinfeld complaining about being mistaken for gay just because he's "white, well-groomed and tidy."
So, you're right in that characters need to exhibit a specific set of characteristics to be easily conceivable as gay. It's just that lately, it seems that popular media (Will and Grace and Queer Eye being two very strong examples) seems to focus on the positive ones, doing us straights a disservice just as big as the one you're describing, and in popular media a bit more... Uhh... Popular than superhero comics.
Also: I agree with Zivitties that any conclusion about society's treatment of violence drawn from superhero comics should be considered dubious at best.
Also the second: Card makes several fatal errors in the same paragraph you're quoting, making most of the rest of his article devoid of meaning. Card says: "...those who flagrantly violate society’s regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society."
1. Usually, those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of anything aren't considered as any less of a citizen. They're just punished.
2. No one agreed to the assumption that society needs to regulate sexual behavior, specifically (as opposed to gun control or health care, for example). Many would disagree with that.
3. Did Mr. Card forget that his community, as far as marriage laws are concerned, is not the Mormon community? At the very least, it will be the state of North Carolina, where he resides. Quote soon, it might come to be the entire US. Which of these communities considers same-sex relationships to be a sin? Did he conduct a survey? If the situation changes in the future, will he accept it as no longer being a "sin"?
Bleh. I'm running out of brain juice. Enjoy.
Reply
Leave a comment