Necessary Evil.
("well that's what life is, you get the wind knocked out of you time after time, but you just wont quit 'cos you just don't wanna stop playin' the game.")
Okay so I'm just going to put this out there. This is my thought process of my workings for my thesis so I can try to get it locked down and start writing.
Gay Stereotypes.
There.
Okay, though. Fuh'reals. So There are a lot of gay stereotypes out there. Here are a few of them in list format for your perusal and enjoyment:
•child molester
•promiscuous
•have AIDS
•wealthy
•no body hair
•very physically fit
•move into partners home too quickly (after one date) (lesbian)
•pervert
•effeminate
•butch (lesbian)
•Fetishist (leather, kink, drugs)
•noncommital (relationships)
•partiers
•well-paid
•good looking
•dress nicely / nice appearance
•vain
Those are just a few. In my research and discussions with people, I've learned that stereotypes work because they are commonly known and the general public can identify with them. Some of these (the positive ones?) are non-threatening to the sexuality of dominant culture (If heterosexuals don't need to see a gay man having sex, kissing another man, etc.) whereas the other stereotypes (the negative ones?) are threatening because they insist that dominant culture question their own beliefs. When dominant culture is asked to do this, they begin to feel threatened because they may lose their sense of self. They're being told they might be someone else or something else, and if they're not open to that, our minds tell us "RUN AWAY. SHUT IT DOWN. MAKE IT STOP. PRESERVE!"
In the last two decades in the media, however, we've seen a larger and larger increase in visibility of gay related issues, such as the struggle for equality and human rights, equal representation in the media, and the ability to go where and do what our heterosexual counterparts do. In order to achieve this, though, gay culture has needed a voice. When corporate America came knocking with the voices, the gay community answered the door.
What's driving that? Advertisers are finding that gays have a larger disposable income due to differences in lifestyle. Gays have a larger disposable income. Gays have become the untapped "golden market" and are gaining more and more recognition as advertisers are realizing that gaining the trust and loyalty of the gay demographic is profitable.
Studies have shown that 80% of gays prefer to buy from companies who advertise in the gay market. When advertisers realized this, they became aware of the potential profit of selling to the gays.
How are advertisers accomplishing this? Advertising, yes. But their strategies vary. Stereotypes most commonly find their way into advertising to identify with a cause or a statement, and to gain the trust of the targeted audience. There are benefits to stereotypes and drawbacks, regardless of whether the stereotypes are good or bad. For instance, the gay stereotype of being muscular, thin, attractive, hairless and "sexy" makes the gay community look good. It's non-threatening to heterosexuals in that it doesn't cause them to question their own sexuality. However, what does that stereotype do to the already marginalized gay community? It marginalizes it again by excluding the gays who don't look like that. What about all the gays who aren't muscular, who aren't thin, who are hairy, who aren't sexy and don't care if they are? They get pushed to the edges of their own subculture and face the exclusion of not having a voice. This in turn creates many subcultures within the gay community (i.e. bears, daddies, transexuals, etc.)
Then there are the negative stereotypes. When advertisers target the gay man as narcisistic, superficial, party-and-alcohol loving, overly sexual and promiscuous to sell their Vodka or Rum, they're selling a stereotype. That portrayal perpetuates bad habits and portrays the community as a whole to dominant culture (and everyone else who sees) as a monster who should be kept away from their children. The advertisers wants to sell their product and need to create advertising that is effective in attracting it's target audience, but perhaps throw responsibility out the window to make the ends justify the means. How does this then affect the gay man who doesn't drink alcohol, who doesn't go out to a club and practices safe sex and abstains? Marginalization again within the already marginalized group. These negative stereotypes sell product and make money for advertisers and give a voice to the gay culture, but at what expense?
There's an overlap between gay culture and the dominant culture, and that overlap seems to be where the advertising and power is found. That is where the negotiation happens. Dominant culture can take from the gay culture what it feels is positive or useful (art, fashion, wealth, trends) and gay culture can take from dominant culture what it needs (representation, a voice, power, opportunity) but within that overlap there's still marginalization. Who has access to that overlap and what group do they belong to, and who is denied access and where do they belong?
That overlap gives a voice to gays through representation in the media. Ellen, Ikea, Beer and clothing ads, The Arts, fashion advertising (D&G, haute couture, etc.) and also allows for identification of individuals. With higher visibility, more people can access information they might not have found as easily or at all before. An effeminate man with a knack for good fashion design may not ever know there are others like him or opportunities for him if it weren't for him seeing "Project Runway" on the Bravo! network. A lesbian might not realize there are opportunities for her in the world if it weren't for shows like Ellen (starring a lesbian actress, Ellen DeGeneres.)
Do these shows portray stereotypes? Do those stereotypes serve merely as entertainment with a side effect of representation in the media allowing a greater good to come of it (self-identification?)
Does the struggle between good and bad have to be a struggle? Is it even a struggle? Perhaps it is it more of a dialogue between these two entities and the bad is a necessary evil to gain a voice, or to enrich a culture. And if you were to read a 9-15 page paper on this, what is the one thing I'd want you to take away from it? What am I trying to prove? That although stereotypes are bad, they serve a purpose and they exist for a reason? That stereotypes sould be eliminated all together and never used at all, ignoring them? Is there balance between the good and the bad of stereotypes, or is it just yin and yang? There has to be the good to counteract the evil, and the evil exists to give the good something to be better than. maybe that all sounds like rubbish.
What do I want people to take away from this paper, if there's one message I can send, what would it be. What is it? Simply to be aware? For people to understand what a stereotype is, that they can be good and bad, that the good ones can do harm to others, and the bad ones can produce good for some? Maybe the point is just that Stereotypes exist and that you have to be aware of them. YOne must b concious of them and that they are around and serve purposes whether they be good or EVIL.
hrm. that's something to think about. Stereotypes exist. can't get rid of them, can't pussyfoot around them, society states that they shouldn't be perpetuated, but how would advertising work without them? And there they are. The focal point of advertising. Whether subtle or obvious, stereotypes are there and serve a purpose sometimes good and sometimes bad. NECESSARY EVIL.
Okay so I'm just going to put this out there. This is my thought process of my workings for my thesis so I can try to get it locked down and start writing.
Gay Stereotypes.
There.
Okay, though. Fuh'reals. So There are a lot of gay stereotypes out there. Here are a few of them in list format for your perusal and enjoyment:
•child molester
•promiscuous
•have AIDS
•wealthy
•no body hair
•very physically fit
•move into partners home too quickly (after one date) (lesbian)
•pervert
•effeminate
•butch (lesbian)
•Fetishist (leather, kink, drugs)
•noncommital (relationships)
•partiers
•well-paid
•good looking
•dress nicely / nice appearance
•vain
Those are just a few. In my research and discussions with people, I've learned that stereotypes work because they are commonly known and the general public can identify with them. Some of these (the positive ones?) are non-threatening to the sexuality of dominant culture (If heterosexuals don't need to see a gay man having sex, kissing another man, etc.) whereas the other stereotypes (the negative ones?) are threatening because they insist that dominant culture question their own beliefs. When dominant culture is asked to do this, they begin to feel threatened because they may lose their sense of self. They're being told they might be someone else or something else, and if they're not open to that, our minds tell us "RUN AWAY. SHUT IT DOWN. MAKE IT STOP. PRESERVE!"
In the last two decades in the media, however, we've seen a larger and larger increase in visibility of gay related issues, such as the struggle for equality and human rights, equal representation in the media, and the ability to go where and do what our heterosexual counterparts do. In order to achieve this, though, gay culture has needed a voice. When corporate America came knocking with the voices, the gay community answered the door.
What's driving that? Advertisers are finding that gays have a larger disposable income due to differences in lifestyle. Gays have a larger disposable income. Gays have become the untapped "golden market" and are gaining more and more recognition as advertisers are realizing that gaining the trust and loyalty of the gay demographic is profitable.
Studies have shown that 80% of gays prefer to buy from companies who advertise in the gay market. When advertisers realized this, they became aware of the potential profit of selling to the gays.
How are advertisers accomplishing this? Advertising, yes. But their strategies vary. Stereotypes most commonly find their way into advertising to identify with a cause or a statement, and to gain the trust of the targeted audience. There are benefits to stereotypes and drawbacks, regardless of whether the stereotypes are good or bad. For instance, the gay stereotype of being muscular, thin, attractive, hairless and "sexy" makes the gay community look good. It's non-threatening to heterosexuals in that it doesn't cause them to question their own sexuality. However, what does that stereotype do to the already marginalized gay community? It marginalizes it again by excluding the gays who don't look like that. What about all the gays who aren't muscular, who aren't thin, who are hairy, who aren't sexy and don't care if they are? They get pushed to the edges of their own subculture and face the exclusion of not having a voice. This in turn creates many subcultures within the gay community (i.e. bears, daddies, transexuals, etc.)
Then there are the negative stereotypes. When advertisers target the gay man as narcisistic, superficial, party-and-alcohol loving, overly sexual and promiscuous to sell their Vodka or Rum, they're selling a stereotype. That portrayal perpetuates bad habits and portrays the community as a whole to dominant culture (and everyone else who sees) as a monster who should be kept away from their children. The advertisers wants to sell their product and need to create advertising that is effective in attracting it's target audience, but perhaps throw responsibility out the window to make the ends justify the means. How does this then affect the gay man who doesn't drink alcohol, who doesn't go out to a club and practices safe sex and abstains? Marginalization again within the already marginalized group. These negative stereotypes sell product and make money for advertisers and give a voice to the gay culture, but at what expense?
There's an overlap between gay culture and the dominant culture, and that overlap seems to be where the advertising and power is found. That is where the negotiation happens. Dominant culture can take from the gay culture what it feels is positive or useful (art, fashion, wealth, trends) and gay culture can take from dominant culture what it needs (representation, a voice, power, opportunity) but within that overlap there's still marginalization. Who has access to that overlap and what group do they belong to, and who is denied access and where do they belong?
That overlap gives a voice to gays through representation in the media. Ellen, Ikea, Beer and clothing ads, The Arts, fashion advertising (D&G, haute couture, etc.) and also allows for identification of individuals. With higher visibility, more people can access information they might not have found as easily or at all before. An effeminate man with a knack for good fashion design may not ever know there are others like him or opportunities for him if it weren't for him seeing "Project Runway" on the Bravo! network. A lesbian might not realize there are opportunities for her in the world if it weren't for shows like Ellen (starring a lesbian actress, Ellen DeGeneres.)
Do these shows portray stereotypes? Do those stereotypes serve merely as entertainment with a side effect of representation in the media allowing a greater good to come of it (self-identification?)
Does the struggle between good and bad have to be a struggle? Is it even a struggle? Perhaps it is it more of a dialogue between these two entities and the bad is a necessary evil to gain a voice, or to enrich a culture. And if you were to read a 9-15 page paper on this, what is the one thing I'd want you to take away from it? What am I trying to prove? That although stereotypes are bad, they serve a purpose and they exist for a reason? That stereotypes sould be eliminated all together and never used at all, ignoring them? Is there balance between the good and the bad of stereotypes, or is it just yin and yang? There has to be the good to counteract the evil, and the evil exists to give the good something to be better than. maybe that all sounds like rubbish.
What do I want people to take away from this paper, if there's one message I can send, what would it be. What is it? Simply to be aware? For people to understand what a stereotype is, that they can be good and bad, that the good ones can do harm to others, and the bad ones can produce good for some? Maybe the point is just that Stereotypes exist and that you have to be aware of them. YOne must b concious of them and that they are around and serve purposes whether they be good or EVIL.
hrm. that's something to think about. Stereotypes exist. can't get rid of them, can't pussyfoot around them, society states that they shouldn't be perpetuated, but how would advertising work without them? And there they are. The focal point of advertising. Whether subtle or obvious, stereotypes are there and serve a purpose sometimes good and sometimes bad. NECESSARY EVIL.