(Crossposted on “Alas” and on “TADA.” “Alas” is, if not “safe” space — no such thing, alas — intended to be relatively pro-queer space.)
Stephen Fry was recently listed number three in The Independent’s “Pink List” of 100 admired lesbian and gay celebrities. The Independent also included a “Rogues Gallery” of non-approved queers, in which they listed minor British celebrity Louie Spence. Who is Louie Spence, you ask?
Anyhow, on his blog, Fry printed this letter from his friend Kim Harris:
Very nice to see you ranking high on The Independent’s Pink List. Quite right too. They made one vast and vastly suggestive mistake, though. They instituted a Rogues Gallery and frogmarched Louie Spence into it. Do you know who I mean? He’s a big old lisping, nelly screamer at Pineapple Dance Studios (Sky something) whom Joe Sixpack has clasped to his bosom because he’s sweet and funny and fabulous. Brightens the day, cheers the hour. There’s another reason the public loves him, but we’ll get to that in a mo. The compilers of the List, however, hate him because – well, can’t you guess? What’s the least imaginative, least penetrating thing you could possibly say about an unreconstructed flamer? That’s right – he “perpetuates the stereotype.” Christ on a marmalade cross but that pisses me right off.
Occupying the top spot was the rugby player, Gareth Thomas, who came out (finally) last year. Well done for that, boyo, I suppose. Can’t have been easy. It usually isn’t for most people, even on the Liberal Riviera where we’re all supposed to be basking today. Now, you can see where I’m going with this, can’t you? Gareth is a “real man”. He was married to a real woman. Louie is not and was not. If only we could all disport ourselves like Gareth the straights won’t hate us whereas if we all carry on like Louie….ach, how quickly these cowardly, self-oppressed, social-climbing McCarthyites forget where they come from. If I remember rightly, the whole Gay Lib thing wasn’t engineered by “real” men at all. It wasn’t sponsored by marines or scaffolders or rugby players. It was ignited by…ah, yes: drag queens.
So, instead of getting a hate on at poor Louie, instead of frantically trying to patrol their butch and instead of gussying up their drool for Gareth into blather about bravery, these creeps should remember the Rainbow. They should remember Diversity. They should remember Tolerance. They should remember that in evincing a distaste for effeminacy they’re simply making an exhibition of their own misogyny.
Fry added:
By singling out Louie Spence for lofty disapproval, by sneering at his “mincing” they are turning their back on, dissociating themselves from, insulting and demeaning a fine man and whole way of being. An authentic, strong, charming and loveable person, every bit as “courageous” as the others on the list, certainly more courageous than me, Louie deserves respect and support, not insult and derision. Do they want people like him not to count, do they see him as being guilty of a choice in his manner and his demeanour, just as homophobes everywhere accuse all gay people of choosing their sexuality and preferences? How dare they of all people dismiss a gay man in a few contemptuous, bigoted phrases because he doesn’t fit the “type” that they think a gay man should exemplify?
Hear, hear.
(Emily, Sex Nerd, also has some comments.)
9 Comments
Do people have an opinion about the long-running Amos ‘n Andy Show?
Do we give Cathy a pass for perpetuating negative stereotypes about women?
Both those examples are fictional to my knowledge, Louie Spence is a real human person.
True, to the extent that anyone can be said to present a “real” person when performing.
Miss America and the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders are real, too. Does that matter for this purpose?
Miss America is a title, not an individual. (You’re only Miss America for a year, not your whole life.) Cheerleader is a job, not an individual. I’m not sure if I’d really criticize someone for being a cheerleader, but at least the criticism has a possible remedy; someone can stop being a cheerleader. It’s not the same as saying that someone should stop being themselves.
The equivalent would be to point to some ultra-femme woman and say “she should be ashamed for being so very effeminate. For her self to be so femme makes her a bad role model.” Or to point to a black celebrity with an AAVE dialect and say that makes him a bad role model. I don’t think I’d make either of those critiques, and I’d disagree with someone who did.
A year at most. Once they get those photos of you, just see how long they let you keep your crown. Not that I’m bitter….
Here’s the issue, as far as I can tell: To what extent do we strive to transcend stereotype by expressing disapproval of people who perpetuate stereotypes? The principle being articulated is that “authentic” behavior gets a pass, even if it does perpetuate the stereotype; individualism trumps group welfare.
And I guess that’s a fair principle. The cost of expecting authentic people to modify their authentic behavior for the sake of the larger group may be too great, whereas the cost of expecting inauthentic people to refrain is not as great.
As an aside, what to make of Legally Blonde? Here’s a character that depicts all kinds of stereotypical behaviors while also demonstrating intelligence, resourcefulness and resolve. Yes, it’s a fictional depiction. Yes, she perpetuates one kind of stereotype of female behavior — but arguably a stereotype that derive a negative connotation because it’s associated with lack of intelligence, resolve or resourcefulness. Seems to me as if she rehabilitates the harmless aspects of the stereotype. Hey, the fact that you wear pink and join a sorority doesn’t mean you have to be an airhead!
(Sure, the films also function as male fantasies. Get over it.)
Ok, maybe cute white cheerleaders aren’t the most oppressed class in the world, but then again….
My first boy friend was a nelly, lisping queen, and he used to tell me that there are two kinds of gay men; those who are butch and spend their formative years hiding their sexuality and those who are not butch and had no hope of hiding their sexuality. I didn’t necessarily agree with his assessment then–I don’t like to think of “nelly” as a monolith, since there are numerous degrees between the Marlboro Man and Queerduck–but I think he was right about one thing. Those who are butch enough to pass often think themselves more deserving of dignity, respect and even equality than those who are not butch enough to pass.
As far as I can tell, in the context of this discussion, “stereotype” is nothing more than a way of creating a boundary between the two.
1. Creating a boundary? Or acknowledging a boundary — at least as perceived by others?
There are two types of people in the world: Type 1 people realize that attributes vary along a continuum (often with bell-shaped distributions). Type 2 people don’t realize this. Type 2 people are easy to spot: they go around saying things such as “There are two types of people in the world….”
I invite you to go around describing the two types of people, and then ask people to categorize themselves. If someone claims to be a Type 2 person, then you’ve found a Type 2 person. If someone claims to be a Type 1 person, then you’ve found a Type 2 person. If someone responds by saying –
…then you’ve found a Type 1 person.
2. I subscribe to the view that attributes vary along a continuum – generally, etc., etc.
I also subscribe to the view that the world is too complicated for me to grasp. Consequently I build a simplified version of the world and navigate by that. Yup, to the extent that my model differs from reality, I’m prone to error. Bummer.
Do stereotypes reflect reality? Yes, in a sense. No, the stereotype of a gay man may not reflect the variety of gay men. But the fact that stereotypes exist reflects the reality that the world is more complicated than I can grasp, so I rely on simplified models. Sure, experience/education can give me ever more refined stereotypes, and perhaps cause me to rely on stereotypes less. But I doubt that any amount of experience/education will enable me to make decisions based on reality in all its complexity. I suspect that I will always rely on stereotypes, at least to some extent.
3. I suspect that Louie Spence perpetuates stereotypes of gay men.
That is, I find it foreseeable that people seeing Louie Spence will draw inferences that they will apply to gay men generally. I find it foreseeable that when a man discloses that he’s gay, some people who hear this disclosure will immediately think of Louie Spence. Admittedly, this stereotype is not accurate for most gay men. And it’s divisive. And unjust. And irrelevant.
And persistent. The fact that Spence’s conduct is not malevolent – heck, the fact that it may even be heroic — does not render it harmless.
On reading your comment, nobody.really, it occurred to me that there are two different types of groups of people: those who, when playing the game of classifying acquaintances/celebrities/etc. into two categories, go right down a list and put everybody under A or B, and those who, after a minute or so, are discussing how so-and-so is kinda A but more B.
I am also thinking that I saw a “Dykes to Watch Out For” strip somewhere, sometime on the question of butch and femme, which included a description of someone as “your typical butchy femme”. This is all undoubtedly completely irrelevant.
Ledasmom, there are two kinds of people in the world: those who divide the world into two kinds of people, and those who don’t.
One Trackback/Pingback
[...] on “Alas” and on “TADA.” “Alas” is, if not “safe” space — no such thing, alas — [...]
Post a Comment