Law and Order: SVU with Special Guest Kathy Griffin as lesbian

[Cyclopea]

Originally Posted by Mister Bent

I read this whole thread hoping to find out what might be at all compelling in this as a topic.

Maybe we could just talk some more about Meredith Baxter Birney.

Originally Posted by Mister Bent

Who said anything about being bored?

My question was entirely legitimate. I wanted to know what made this a compelling topic. Nothing was revealed.

The end.

Media representations of Lesbians and Gays are of great interest to Lesbians and Gays. So much so that many of us even fund a lobbying group to combat defamatory portrayals of Lesbians and Gays. (GLAAD- Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation). Historically, media representations of Lesbians and Gays have had a huge impact on the opinions of the majority culture. As minorities, our depiction in mainstream media is of great interest and concern to us. Hence the interest in discussing the upcoming airing of a Lesbian theme on a popular mainstream TV show. Lesbians are also interested in celebrities and public figures who come out of the closet, such as Ms. Baxter-Birney.
I highly recommend you look into why Lesbian and Gay people are so keenly interested in media depictions of us. It's quite interesting, actually.
The GLAAD website would be a good place to start.

[PapaC]

oh whatever, whining about straight portraying queering situations on TV... yes, so oppressive... like the rednecks on South Park clammering.. "they took our jobs!"

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLni3wbndls"]YouTube- south park-they took our jobs!!![/ame]

Sometimes some of us really just wanna see two hot chicks make out on tv regardless of whether they're out in RT or not.

but I suppose I'm having a very non-feminist moment for saying that. :P

[Cyclopea]

Originally Posted by PapaC

oh whatever, whining

Sometimes some of us really just wanna see two hot chicks make out on tv regardless of whether they're out in RT or not.
:P

Well here ya go enjoy
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tHppucxMrM"]YouTube- Lady Kisses: That's Gay[/ame]

[Martina]

Originally Posted by PapaC

oh whatever, whining about straight portraying queering situations on TV... yes, so oppressive... like the rednecks on South Park clammering.. "they took our jobs!"

YouTube- south park-they took our jobs!!!

Sometimes some of us really just wanna see two hot chicks make out on tv regardless of whether they're out in RT or not.

but I suppose I'm having a very non-feminist moment for saying that. :P

No, just a rude one. Is this the red zone?

[Mister Bent]

Originally Posted by Cyclopea

Media representations of Lesbians and Gays are of great interest to Lesbians and Gays. So much so that many of us even fund a lobbying group to combat defamatory portrayals of Lesbians and Gays. (GLAAD- Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation). Historically, media representations of Lesbians and Gays have had a huge impact on the opinions of the majority culture. As minorities, our depiction in mainstream media is of great interest and concern to us. Hence the interest in discussing the upcoming airing of a Lesbian theme on a popular mainstream TV show. Lesbians are also interested in celebrities and public figures who come out of the closet, such as Ms. Baxter-Birney.
I highly recommend you look into why Lesbian and Gay people are so keenly interested in media depictions of us. It's quite interesting, actually.
The GLAAD website would be a good place to start.

Well, sure, that would be a great argument if that were actually the conversation being had here, but it's not. Actually, this post - in response to mine - is the first that has directly addressed the issue of media representation and cultural perception. Perhaps I missed a post along the way that also does so, please direct me to it if I'm mistaken.

Conversation about "what team" an actor is playing for, or, as Papa Chris said, "whining about straight portraying queering situations on TV" lacks as informed dialogue on media representation of lgbt "minority" culture. If we're worried about how the mainstream views lgbt individuals, then what is the relevance of the actor's sexuality? It's acting. The concern would be for plot line and script writing.

[Sybelle]

Cool thread. [insert IMHO here]

Tom Hanks was amazing in Philadelphia. I haven't seen Milk, so no rating Sean Penn's performance. What they both have in common though for studio producers is bankable star quality. Studios want to put names that can sell a movie, into their productions. They like to break even and make a few bucks (bucks - translated to mean millions and millions).

An actor's "bankable" name depends on you and I, as consumers. But we are a small drop in the bucket when it comes down to getting people to shell out money at the box office. Demographics come into play. Studios also often screen a movie with several test audiences to see if it has that right combination of actors/storyline. If it doesn't they take it back to the drawing board and tweak it.

All of those creative juices are also watched by groups like GLAAD and other groups. Lots of tweaking goes on, more than likely.

That reminds me, there were a number of various groups that came out against Avatar. It was an equal opportunity offending film, apparently. But in spite of that, it had bankable people involved with the production.

There is more to it than blatantly discriminating. Studios will continue to make movies, that make them money. [/imho]

[Queerasfck]

Various gossip websites online and Griffin herself tweeted that the her scene with Hargitay has been cut from the episode.........

[Sybelle]

[insert IMHO here]

We are fortunate though, that movies today are made without the guidance of the "Motion Picture Production Code" that used to regulate the industry from 1930 to 1968. The code came about in response to the horrific scandals of that time period. It was decided that Hollywood aka "Sin City" needed cleaning up. Lawd sakes, the field day evengelicals would have if they got their hands onto Hollywood today!

Mr. Will H. Hays, a prominent Republican was at the helm of setting the law in that day. And given how diligent he and other Republicans of that era were diligent in their duties, I still am at a loss to understand why there are gay Republicans. But that's another discussion thread.[/end IMHO]

[Cyclopea]

Originally Posted by Mister Bent

Well, sure, that would be a great argument if that were actually the conversation being had here, but it's not. Actually, this post - in response to mine - is the first that has directly addressed the issue of media representation and cultural perception. Perhaps I missed a post along the way that also does so, please direct me to it if I'm mistaken.

Conversation about "what team" an actor is playing for, or, as Papa Chris said, "whining about straight portraying queering situations on TV" lacks as informed dialogue on media representation of lgbt "minority" culture. If we're worried about how the mainstream views lgbt individuals, then what is the relevance of the actor's sexuality? It's acting. The concern would be for plot line and script writing.

That's weird- a conversation on media representation and cultural perception of lesbians is exactly what I've seen taking place in this thread. So yes, you are mistaken. I'm not going to "direct you" because I'm not going to waste my time breaking it down for someone whose apparent agenda is instructing lesbians and women on how they should frame conversations on their issues to more properly engage his interest.
If the subject is not interesting to you then don't read it. Insulting the intelligence of everyone who posted in the thread may not be the best tactic for getting what it is that you seek.

[Mister Bent]

Originally Posted by Cyclopea

That's weird- a conversation on media representation and cultural perception of lesbians is exactly what I've seen taking place in this thread. So yes, you are mistaken. I'm not going to "direct you" because I'm not going to waste my time breaking it down for someone whose apparent agenda is instructing lesbians and women on how they should frame conversations on their issues to more properly engage his interest.
If the subject is not interesting to you then don't read it. Insulting the intelligence of everyone who posted in the thread may not be the best tactic for getting what it is that you seek.

To state my "agenda" as you did was a huge leap of illogic wrought of assumption. "Instructing lesbians and women on how they should frame conversations on their issues?"

You completely dismiss that there are trans/queer/and male members of the site posting in this thread, yet you state that I was only addressing the lesbians and women. Interesting, though false.

A conversation on media representation of lgbt individuals and community could be quite compelling, speculation about whether Mariska Hargitay is gay or not, how many gays will jump for joy should she reveal herself to be, is not. And frankly, I found the whole conversation about lesbians who are former strippers sort of gross. (Which is more about the way it was presented than the topic itself.)

Yes, I think it's safe to say you entirely misread my "agenda."

If you really want to discuss what the conversation here has been, the fact is lately it's been more focused on the imbalance of power in Hollywood (in terms of revenue & status) than on "media representation." Otherwise, I'm done discussing your offense at my post and would much prefer to discuss that while Ellen's tv sitcom tanked after she came out, she now has a very widely viewed talk show and was selected to host the immensely popular American Idol.

Tiny in-road for gays and lesbians or mainstream culture tossing us a bone?

[torchiegirl]

That clip was weird. My eyebrows are still pulled down.

[Cyclopea]

Originally Posted by Mister Bent

To state my "agenda" as you did was a huge leap of illogic wrought of assumption. "Instructing lesbians and women on how they should frame conversations on their issues?"

You completely dismiss that there are trans/queer/and male members of the site posting in this thread, yet you state that I was only addressing the lesbians and women. Interesting, though false.

Not at all. I do believe it was you that insulted everyone posting, not me. I appreciate the input of allies in this discussion which began on the topic of a specific media representation of lesbians. No one else instructed lesbians and women on how they should alter their discussion to maintain the interest of non-lesbians. Only you. Interesting the assumption you made. Very interesting.


A conversation on media representation of lgbt individuals and community could be quite compelling, speculation about whether Mariska Hargitay is gay or not, how many gays will jump for joy should she reveal herself to be, is not. And frankly, I found the whole conversation about lesbians who are former strippers sort of gross. (Which is more about the way it was presented than the topic itself.)
Yes, you've already made clear that the topic is not of interest to you. It is to others. Obviously.


Yes, I think it's safe to say you entirely misread my "agenda."

If you really want to discuss what the conversation here has been, the fact is lately it's been more focused on the imbalance of power in Hollywood (in terms of revenue & status) than on "media representation." Otherwise, I'm done discussing your offense at my post and would much prefer to discuss that while Ellen's tv sitcom tanked after she came out, she now has a very widely viewed talk show and was selected to host the immensely popular American Idol.

Tiny in-road for gays and lesbians or mainstream culture tossing us a bone?

----------------------------

[Mister Bent]

Cyclopea, if you feel insulted or dismissed by my post, that's one thing.

But to consistently try to apply to me an agenda that is nowhere in evidence simply comes across as personal issue on your part.

Nowhere did I address my comments toward "lesbians and women." I'm not sure why it's so important to you to paint me as a misogynist homophobe, but I can assure you, I am not.

If you'd like to continue to promote your argument, please consider using the handy PM feature, because this is tiresome.

Thanks.

[Cyclopea]

Originally Posted by Mister Bent

Cyclopea, if you feel insulted or dismissed by my post, that's one thing.

But to consistently try to apply to me an agenda that is nowhere in evidence simply comes across as personal issue on your part.

Nowhere did I address my comments toward "lesbians and women." I'm not sure why it's so important to you to paint me as a misogynist homophobe, but I can assure you, I am not.

If you'd like to continue to promote your argument, please consider using the handy PM feature, because this is tiresome.

Thanks.

I have a “personal issue”? Yes, I do. My “personal issue” is that most LGBTQQI people find the topic of whether or not a public figure is “one of us” quite interesting. Meredith Baxter, Markista Hargitray, Vin Deisel, Chaz Bono, Jodi Foster or Caster Semenya, all interesting to LGBTQQI peeps and our allies. We also find the “coming out” of celebrities quite interesting. Media representations of LGBTQQI people: also intrinsically interesting. We don’t need to frame our comments by outlining the social history of LGBTQQI people because most of us have been soaking in it for years. Therefore we often speak in a shorthand on such topics among ourselves.

You’ve stated repeatedly that the topic of whether famous actors are lesbian or not is of no interest to you, and instructed posters repeatedly to frame our conversation on lesbian visibility in a way that is more interesting to you. My “personal” response is to ask you to desist insulting lesbian members and our allies that do find this conversation interesting. It’s unfortunate that I am not able to effectively communicate something to you that seems so obvious and fundamental. Perhaps that is my failing, or perhaps simply a sign of your personal issues. I am not interested in PMing a stranger who insults me and everyone in the thread. If you continue to make dismissive comments I will continue to address them.

[Soft*Silver]

and I wasnt even Kissed...

but neither was Marisa...

OH but HE was kissed...

and the flaming lesbo was iced down and refried into a bisexual....

personally there is nothing wrong with bisexuals in my book. My ANGER is that they marketed to and targeted lesbians and the show was hyped as having a lesbian kiss segment

and the video promo I saw, the gals DID kiss..but oh no not tonight...

I am boycotting SVU..... they lost my loyalty...

damn..this was worse than when my batteries ran out...

[Dylan]

Originally Posted by Mister Bent

Well, sure, that would be a great argument if that were actually the conversation being had here, but it's not. Actually, this post - in response to mine - is the first that has directly addressed the issue of media representation and cultural perception. Perhaps I missed a post along the way that also does so, please direct me to it if I'm mistaken.

Conversation about "what team" an actor is playing for, or, as Papa Chris said, "whining about straight portraying queering situations on TV" lacks as informed dialogue on media representation of lgbt "minority" culture. If we're worried about how the mainstream views lgbt individuals, then what is the relevance of the actor's sexuality? It's acting. The concern would be for plot line and script writing.

I'll engage you because I have a few minutes to waste.

So, let's take 'Milk' as an example. How much money did that movie make? A ton, right? And how much money did, let's say, Sean Penn make from that movie? A ton, right (comparatively speaking)? And how much of that money was made OFF of the queer community/queer history/etc? All of it, right? That was a movie about queer rights, based on queer history, etc. And how much of that money went back into to the queer community? To my knowledge NONE of it went back into the queer community.

So here's where (part of) the privilege comes into effect. Straight people USE the queer community to make a shit ton of money while giving NONE of it back to the queer community. That's exploitation, for one. But it's also the way dominant culture works to oppress the oppressed group and keep them down. TAKE from the oppressed group, without utilizing the oppressed group's skills/without giving back to the oppressed group/etc.

Now, by using straight actors to 'play gay', what does that say to mainstream (homophobic) America? If I go to my neighbor (who's straight), and I say 'act gay'. What's the first thing my straight neighbor is probably going to do? He's probably going to lisp, show me the limp wrist, flutter around, etc. He's going to 'act' based on stereotypes...which perpetuates stereotypes.

And now a question for you. If you see nothing wrong with straights playing gay (while gays are kept out of the career field), can you please break down the difference between white actors doing blackface or men playing drag roles, because women weren't allowed to be actors? Can you tell me the difference?


Thanks,
Dylan...keeping it brief, because there's a helluva lot more to break down in straights 'playing gay'.

[NJFemmie]

I loved this

I don't think it could have been done any better, by anyone else.

[SassyLeo]

Originally Posted by Dylan

I'll engage you because I have a few minutes to waste.

So, let's take 'Milk' as an example. How much money did that movie make? A ton, right? And how much money did, let's say, Sean Penn make from that movie? A ton, right (comparatively speaking)? And how much of that money was made OFF of the queer community/queer history/etc? All of it, right? That was a movie about queer rights, based on queer history, etc. And how much of that money went back into to the queer community? To my knowledge NONE of it went back into the queer community.

So here's where (part of) the privilege comes into effect. Straight people USE the queer community to make a shit ton of money while giving NONE of it back to the queer community. That's exploitation, for one. But it's also the way dominant culture works to oppress the oppressed group and keep them down. TAKE from the oppressed group, without utilizing the oppressed group's skills/without giving back to the oppressed group/etc.

*snip*

First-
I attended the premier showing of Milk here in Portland. Gus Van Sant lives here and donates a TON of money to our community as well as other non-profits. He hosted the event along with Josh Brolin. All of the proceeds from our premier were donated to Outside In, which, among other programs has several LGBTQ programs including a TRANS health clinic.
Sean Penn donated one of the suits he wore in the movie to charity which was auctioned off to support 2 non-profits, one being the Hetrick-Martin Institute, home of the Harvey Milk High School in New York City. He also is a huge supporter of the No on Prop 8 initiatives. Gus Van Sant also donated to the No on Prop 8 campaign.

Sure, it is not millions…well, actually I don't know for sure. I'm not privvy to private donations made to orgs. I sorta see your point, however...

Second-
A well-known straight actor portrayed a super Queer one. And who knows maybe a Queer actor could have played the part just as well. I’m of course, supporting that. OF COURSE!

In this case, I think because a well know actor (regardless of gay or not) acted the part and WELL, tons of awareness was raised about Queers!

Levi’s (you know, the jeans?) launched a huge campaign with, again the Hetrick-Martin Insitute, to raise funds to provide financial stability for the Harvey Milk School. I think it was like $500,000…? Because of the movie!

I’m not saying, let’s bust out some gold medals for Sean Penn or Gus Van Sant based on the info I just pointed out, but NONE is a big statement to make.

[Dylan]

Originally Posted by SassyLeo

First-
I attended the premier showing of Milk here in Portland. Gus Van Sant lives here and donates a TON of money to our community as well as other non-profits. He hosted the event along with Josh Brolin. All of the proceeds from our premier were donated to Outside In, which, among other programs has several LGBTQ programs including a TRANS health clinic.
Sean Penn donated one of the suits he wore in the movie to charity which was auctioned off to support 2 non-profits, one being the Hetrick-Martin Institute, home of the Harvey Milk High School in New York City. He also is a huge supporter of the No on Prop 8 initiatives. Gus Van Sant also donated to the No on Prop 8 campaign.

Sure, it is not millions…well, actually I don't know for sure. I'm not privvy to private donations made to orgs. I sorta see your point, however...

Second-
A well-known straight actor portrayed a super Queer one. And who knows maybe a Queer actor could have played the part just as well. I’m of course, supporting that. OF COURSE!

In this case, I think because a well know actor (regardless of gay or not) acted the part and WELL, tons of awareness was raised about Queers!

Levi’s (you know, the jeans?) launched a huge campaign with, again the Hetrick-Martin Insitute, to raise funds to provide financial stability for the Harvey Milk School. I think it was like $500,000…? Because of the movie!

I’m not saying, let’s bust out some gold medals for Sean Penn or Gus Van Sant based on the info I just pointed out, but NONE is a big statement to make.

Your points are valid

Soooo, Sean Penn donated a suit he didn't even pay for? Wow! That must have been tough for him to part with, eh? While a majority of the money he made (and academy award that should have gone into the queer community) gets spent in straightdom. While, had a queer actor had this role, it would have A) made queer actors more visible, B) would have mainstreamed queerdom even a little more, C) would have put more queer money into the queer economy, D) would have opened more doors between queers and straightdom.

Why is it no one can name a queer actor who's won an academy award? Why is it that when an actor comes out as queer, he/she no longer really has a career? Do you think if, say, George Clooney came out, his career would pretty much be over? Why is it they've glammed up and feminized Queen Latifah (who's a big ol' butch in real time)? Do you think Queen Latifah would be making money the way she is if she were to come out? What happened to Wanda Sykes career after she came out? She certainly doesn't have her own sitcom anymore. Ellen's show went pretty much down the tubes after she came out. Do you think 'Milk' would have made the same amount of money without a completely straight cast? How many straight people benefitted and made gads of money in Milk? How many queers? How many queers suffered to make the story of Milk? How many queers died to make that story? Now, how many straight people made gads of money off of that suffering while not one queer played a queer, because 'real' queers aren't palatable or profitable enough for mainstream America? How about that movie NJFemmie posted a pic from? How many trans folks and gender variant people suffer everyday, so straight/cis actors can make a killing off of making gender variance 'humorous' and palatable for mainstream America? And how about RuPaul? Wouldn't that have been a prime opportunity to cast a gender variant person? Oh, but wait, it wouldn't have been a) funny or b) profitable. Oh, and how about The Birdcage and Robin Williams and that other guy who's name I can't remember. Oh, or Brokeback Mountain.

Here's the thing, had queer played themselves, more of that millions of dollars paid to those actors would be back INSIDE the queer community, making the queer community stronger. Generally speaking, do you think queers would have given more money to fighting Prop 8 or do you think queers would have given token donations to a school? Do you think queer academy award winners would be speaking out against Prop 8 and using whatever big name leverage they have against Prop 8 or giving a suit to a non-profit? When queers make money, the queer community (generally) makes money...money that is used to fight hate crimes bills, Mormons, support queers with jobs, etc. When that money is given to straights, more of that money stays in the straight community...at the expense of queers. AND stereotypes are perpetuated.

And again, can you explain to me how straights playing queers is different from blackface and/or men playing women (as in Shakespeare days when women weren't allowed to act), etc from a dynamic of power/oppression? I mean, even now, women only make up 29% of speaking roles in major movies, and only 3 of 100 films are directed by women. Is that sexism or just 'directing'. I have a really hard time believing ANYONE here would be in agreement with men playing all the roles of women in major movies and would just call it 'acting'.


Dylan

[SassyLeo]

Originally Posted by Dylan

*snip*
Why is it no one can name a queer actor who's won an academy award? Why is it that when an actor comes out as queer, he/she no longer really has a career? Do you think if, say, George Clooney came out, his career would pretty much be over? Why is it they've glammed up and feminized Queen Latifah (who's a big ol' butch in real time)? Do you think Queen Latifah would be making money the way she is if she were to come out? What happened to Wanda Sykes career after she came out? She certainly doesn't have her own sitcom anymore. Ellen's show went pretty much down the tubes after she came out.
*snip*

I have more to respond to this, but I gotta get back to work.

However I wanted to answer the academy award bit.

I get what you are saying...You are right, not many. I can only think of 2.
Jodie Foster
Ian McKellen

Of course, the rumors fly about Kevin Spacey and Phillip Seymour Hoffman