Lesbian Cliche FAQ - Final (tentative)

[Epicurus]

Hmm another trend. Not only do all the homosexuals end up dead or evil or crazy but also they are forever being blackmailed or sent into a jealous rage.
Hello, been there done that much?

[IvanovaDV]

More than 1 year ago, I summed up those clichs I perceived to be typical for lesbian storylines on tv, you can find them here:
12 Golden Rules For A Lesbian Story.
It does not include the DEAD/ Insane thingie because I really thought they wouldn't go there anymore...well, I was naiive.

[Sheridan]

In defence of CSI it has had killers of every colour, creed, age, social group and orientation, with by far the largest group being upper income white males. The two teachers were relatively sympathetic, the dean pretty much brought it on himself. It was his homophobia and general weaslyness that brought about his death.

[IvanovaDV]

Hi Sheridan,
I must admit that I never watched CSI.
But, generally, I would find another ratio more interesting (vs. the "there are also straight evil/whatever characters" argument) far more interesting: How many nice, funny,happy, competent lesbians have they portrayed, and how does this number relate to the number of evil/ weak/ whacko/ dead whatever lesbians. That is what every tv show has to answer to (for me), and although I do not know CSI, can I say the result with shows I know is just devastating.

[Sheridan]

Well the show is about a Police forensics team, almost by definition 99% of the people they come across are criminals. None of the main characters are gay and pretty much everyone else is there one week and gone the next. Basically that means for a show like CSI if you are going to feature gay characters they are going to have to be criminals, or would it be better simply to have no gay characters. With CSI the crime always comes first, everything else is pretty much secondary.

Edited to add:
In more general terms I think the cliche persists because even with a liberal audience there is still a presumption that any female character will be straight. This means that lesbianism remains a form of misdirection for crime dramas. Or put it another way if the audience were more aware it wouldn't work and they wouldn't do it.

[June Leigh]

drlloyd11, that is a beautiful quote. It made me choke up since it resonates so well with Willow and Tara's relationship and the unlimited possibility of their love. If I ever have the privilege of becoming a writer (of books, television, movies, or theatre) I will remember that quote.

[urnofosiris]

[quote:500ce1435b][b:500ce1435b][i:500ce1435b]Quote:[/i:500ce1435b][/b:500ce1435b]

---

Basically that means for a show like CSI if you are going to feature gay characters they are going to have to be criminals, or would it be better simply to have no gay characters.

---

[/quote:500ce1435b]

My first impulse answer to that would be yes, it would be better to simply have no gay characters, if they can't balance them with showing non law breaking non miserable gay characters, which I really don't believe would be that hard to do, then it might just be better to not have any gay characters at all, at least that is how I feel.

[Coma123]

I have nothing against showing 'bad' gay/lesbian characters, just as in real life there aren't only 'good' gay/lesbian people. The problem as is obviously the case is when the negative is the only image of gays and lesbians you see.
Its a question of balance and as it stands the scales are tipped horribly in the wrong way.

[Sheridan]

I think the fundamental problem is that when a crime shoew like CSI features a 'bad' leasbian there aren't any positive images in sitcoms, soaps and other shows to balance it out. Again I feel a lot of this is lazy writing, simply the fact that when most writers are still straight males they aren't going to try and write lesbian characters, after all it requires more effort and imagination than simply writing what they already know.

Edited to add:
Oh yeah [b:9c0d03cd15] Xita[/b:9c0d03cd15] go check Pens, you will be happy.

[CrazyJaneTalks]

I was thinking about other current movies that might be listed amongst the cliches. I didn't see these--forgive me if they are already listed and I missed them.

Being John Malkovich and Bound.

In Being John Malkovich, remember Cameron Diaz running around with a butcher knife? I would say that qualifies as a lesbian cliche--a scorned lesbian lover on a murderous streak--despite the happy ending. And in Bound, Jennifer Tilly and Gina Gershon (bestill my heart) play two lesbians who are repectively a mafia slut and an ex-con, and who together commit a plethora of crimes including murder. Bound is a gorgeous movie, but I don't think it does much to further the cause of lesbian sanity and normalcy, either.

Just some thoughts! Even in movies where the lesbians live, sterotypes still abound...

[Epicurus]

Now that think about it I can see how Beng John Malkovich could be seen as having a happy ending...

[Rally]

Thanks for the update Amy.

[Willowlicious]

Ah, Rally, you beat me to the punch!

The FAQ has been minorly updated to include a summary at the beginning that states, among other things, that Joss and ME are NOT being accused of being homophobic. This is both for those who don't bother to read the whole thing and an effort to dispell the nagging misconception that we are--or have ever--made that charge.

Other updates include the addition of a Jane Espenson SC quote and tagging that lovely Gore Vidal quote to the end of the document.

Amy

[tyche]

Just thinking about 'Homicide: Life on the Street'. I didn't see the last series (damn British TV and their screwy scheduling, buying the rights to shows and then NOT AIRING THEM), but there was a male character (played by Kyle Secor) on that show who came out as bisexual.

[Pixie gishmock]

I've been mainly lurking in this thread, but reading it avidly. I first want to join the crowd by thanking and congratulating all the people who worked on the FAQ for creating such a thoughtful, detailed, and well-written document.

Secondly, re: Homicide: Life On the Street. It was a great show. And Detective Bayliss' (Kyle Secor's character) coming out process was handled well if I remember correctly. The only thing that bothered me was that he had been molested as a child, which I think could lead people to the wrong stereotype. If anyone else has seen the show, and remembers this storyline better than I do right now, please weigh in.

[superherofan]

Hi, delurking to post a link to a website I found recently. It's about how women are treated in comics. It's a list of "superheroines who have been either depowered, raped, or cut up and stuck in the refrigerator", hence the title of the website.

I just thought it was an interesting parallel to the lesbian/gay cliche of death and insanity.

Women in Refrigerators

I'd also like to add another voice congratulating the authors of the FAQ. It's an eloquent, thorough examination regarding ME's treatment of Willow and Tara's relationship and the ramifications of its demise.

[kyraroc]

That's an excellent site. It's more about misogynistic cliches than the lesbian cliche . . . of course, one reason for that is there are simply hardly any lesbians in mainstream superhero comics at all. Heck, as far as I know, it wasn't until 1992, when Northstar came out as gay in the comic book Alpha Flight, that there were any queer superheroes in the major comics anywhere.

Offhand, I can't think of any lesbians that are main or major characters. Shrinking Violet and Lightning Lass from The Legion of Super Heroes are bit players in a huge ensemble, and were never explicitly lovers anyway. The Silhouette in The Watchmen, although definitely a lesbian, got about one line, and was killed. Mystique and Destiny from X-Men appear only occasionally, were never explicitly lovers (although it's hinted at strongly in a couple of issues), are evil villains, and, oh yeah, Destiny's dead (and they seem to have made Mystique straight for the movie version.) And so on.

Of course, non-superhero comics and a very few independent superhero titles do somewhat better . . . Katchoo from Strangers in Paradise, Foxglove and Hazel from Sandman (who essentially got their own miniseries later in Death: The Time of Your Life), practically the whole cast of Dykes To Watch Out For, etc., etc., etc.

I'm sure if lesbians in superhero comic books weren't completely nonexistent, they would be treated just as badly as their fellow Women In Refrigerators . . . It's weird to feel like having characters killed off would be a step UP for a medium.

--- KR

[Zahir al Daoud]

You know, its odd but I just can't think of the characters in [i:9315cad89d]Bound[/i:9315cad89d] as part of a cliche. Maybe because of its genre, i.e. a noir heist flick. In these the protagonist is supposed to be a thief, but one we root for.

Likewise, crime dramas such as [i:9315cad89d]Law and Order[/i:9315cad89d] can't help but deal with criminals and victims. Avoiding cliches in that is mighty tricky, and the fact they generally do in my book earns them credit (plus, as someone pointed out earlier, that show has always taken the view that hate crimes are especially repellent).

I'm reminded of possibly the most brilliant use of a stereotype against itself, namely Shylock in [i:9315cad89d]The Merchant of Venice[/i:9315cad89d]. He only appears in five scenes, during which he utterly lives up to each and every stereotype of a miserly Jew one can imagine. Shylock is a nasty man, who ironically uses a brilliant speech about justice to justify cold-blooded murder. Yet the play is set up so that its practically impossible not to feel Shylock has been wronged, especially at the end.

Of course, Shakespeare had quite a bit of talent...

Anyway, I'm also reminded (don't ask me why) of a quote from [i:9315cad89d]Major Barbara[/i:9315cad89d] by GB Shaw. In it, an arms dealer who was born penniless puts his philosophy very simply: "I'd rather be a thief than a begger, just as I'd be a murderer rather than a slave. I don't want to be either but if you force me I'll take the braver and more moral choice." Part of me was profoundly moved by that speech. Along those lines, I'd rather see gays portrayed as successful criminals that simpering victims.

But then again, maybe I'm saying that because [i:9315cad89d]Bound[/i:9315cad89d] is just so hot...

[Sheridan]

I think [i:4a644b21d0] Bound[/i:4a644b21d0] avoids the cliche because of the environment the pair find themselves in. Violence and criminality are part of the social group they move with. They are not discriminated against because all the other characters infdulge in the same sort of behaviour, and in fact are worse because their motivations are distinctly less reasonable than the lesbian couples, whose major drive is to escape from the life they are in. I think it only becomes cliche if lesbians are portrayed differently from other characters, that is they are are murderous, devious, or criminal because they are lesbian. I think this defence can be mounted for many crime shows including CSI and Law & Order.

[xita]

Zahir says,
[quote:69ba2d01a2][b:69ba2d01a2][i:69ba2d01a2]Quote:[/i:69ba2d01a2][/b:69ba2d01a2]

---

Anyway, I'm also reminded (don't ask me why) of a quote from Major Barbara by GB Shaw. In it, an arms dealer who was born penniless puts his philosophy very simply: "I'd rather be a thief than a begger, just as I'd be a murderer rather than a slave. I don't want to be either but if you force me I'll take the braver and more moral choice." Part of me was profoundly moved by that speech. Along those lines, I'd rather see gays portrayed as successful criminals that simpering victims.

---

[/quote:69ba2d01a2]

You know, I'd rather be a person, fortunately there are other options. Which is not to say I think Bound falls into a cliche. I don't but mostly because they had a queer woman's perspective and didn't decide they knew all about lesbians (no matter how well one might imagine one knows them). Also because they aren't just thiefs, they are stealing from crooks which puts them in a robin hood type situation as supposed to just being criminals.

and [quote:69ba2d01a2][b:69ba2d01a2][i:69ba2d01a2]Quote:[/i:69ba2d01a2][/b:69ba2d01a2]

---

But then again, maybe I'm saying that because Bound is just so hot...

---

[/quote:69ba2d01a2]

Well, in this thread that is just so appropriate. Much like SKD, who doesn't mind killing a lesbian as long as he takes his uncensored love scene tape home.

[urnofosiris]

[quote:11c5df1f7e][b:11c5df1f7e][i:11c5df1f7e]Quote:[/i:11c5df1f7e][/b:11c5df1f7e]

---

an arms dealer who was born penniless puts his philosophy very simply: "I'd rather be a thief than a begger, just as I'd be a murderer rather than a slave. I don't want to be either but if you force me I'll take the braver and more moral choice." Part of me was profoundly moved by that speech.

---

[/quote:11c5df1f7e]

That's quite a disturbing philosophy. I must have the wrong definition of moral and brave in my dictionary.

[quote:11c5df1f7e][b:11c5df1f7e][i:11c5df1f7e]Quote:[/i:11c5df1f7e][/b:11c5df1f7e]

---

Along those lines, I'd rather see gays portrayed as successful criminals that simpering victims.

---

[/quote:11c5df1f7e]

Well if these are the only 2 choices something is not right in the world.

[Zahir al Daoud]

Was there something about the words [i:78cc4ce07d][b:78cc4ce07d]"...I don't want to be either but if you force me..."[/b:78cc4ce07d][/i:78cc4ce07d] that was somehow unclear?

The character in question ([i:78cc4ce07d]this, btw, is one of Shaw's greatest plays[/i:78cc4ce07d]) is making a powerful, vivid statement about taking hold of life, about changing the world. Don't complain, he says--Act!

Using a modern example, one of the reasons there [i:78cc4ce07d]is[/i:78cc4ce07d] a Gay Rights Movement today is because a bunch of folks in Stonewall rose up in a fury rather than be arrested. Those riots embody (IMO) exactly what that character was saying. I don't want to hit people with my fists--but if its a choice between that and being hit, I know which one I'd rather. How else can we change the world except by saying NO in a loud voice and [i:78cc4ce07d]backing up those words with actions[/i:78cc4ce07d]?

I for one, would love it if nobody attempted to bash another gay man or woman ever again. But since that isn't going to happen, I'll wish and hope that more and more of their would-be victims turn around and put the f*ckers in a hospital. Because yes, that [i:78cc4ce07d]is[/i:78cc4ce07d] the moral and brave response. Don't be a victim. Seize what power you have, and wrench the future into the shape you want it to be.

Rant over now.

[Epicurus]

Zahir, I think you are comparing two completely different issues here. One is a matter of choice and one isnt. Defending yourself against gay bashing or someone beating the shit out of you doesnt really give you the choice to defend yourself.
On the other hand becoming a thief instead of a beggar is only a matter of choice. There are many options to choose from. There will never be a case of ok chose Beggar or Criminal because you dont have to be a criminal in order to not be a beggar.

You say:
[b:3d9fe04a64]I don't want to hit people with my fists--but if its a choice between that and being hit, I know which one I'd rather. How else can we change the world except by saying NO in a loud voice and backing up those words with actions? [/b:3d9fe04a64]

I totally agree with this statement
But... if you were take it and place it under the beggar or criminal philosophy then it would be like going out and beating up random straight people so they never have the chance to beat on you in the first place.

[Zahir al Daoud]

In essence that is the choice we are faced with day after day. Will you beg for a better life or will you make it? And if the rules say you should beg, do you obey those rules? How far do you go in breaking them? Under what circumstances?

And if the situation is extreme, does the same principal apply?

The quote is piece of grand speech-making. Its truth is essential, not incidental. The character isn't talking about someone specifically holding a gun to his head and saying "Be my slave or kill your neighbor." He's referring to the habit of powerlessness, of shrouding weakness in a mask of virtue, of finding excuses not to do the unpleasant but very necesary thing.

He (the arms manufacturer) even says to his wife "The slavemongers and tyrants have stood up for centuries to your lectures and sermons. They won't stand up to my machine guns."

[Epicurus]

My point:
No one can force you to be a criminal.
Anyone can force you to defend youself.

[Zahir al Daoud]

...oops...

I thought better of my off-the-cuff response and gave a much better reply (I think).

But not before you responded (quite rightly) to the off-the-cuff.

That'll teach me.

[Epicurus]

Maybe I don't get what you are getting at.

[i:1b3298b92c]Will you beg for a better life or will you make it? [/i:1b3298b92c]

I dunno, I see these types of situations as a means that does not justify the ends. Making your life better at the expense of or the sacrifce of others don't hold weight with me. I'm not saying that you shouldn't take actions to overcome you oppression but that the extreame measures which are suggested only create a worse life for yourself, not a better one. Find a means that will help you not hinder you.

[Zahir al Daoud]

Hmmmm...I'm trying to find another way to put it.

Lets try it this way.

We are taught from an early age to be nice and obey the rules--even if (as most of us eventually figure out) some of those rules don't make any sense.

Some of those rules are based on very sweet but deeply mistaken ideas. One is that somehow the world is fair, that if you behave fairly the universe will reward you. Nonsense. "Fair" and "Justice" are artificial notions we force on reality with our actions. The meek do [i:cea15ff059]not[/i:cea15ff059] inheirit the earth--that piece of property ends up in the hands of those strong and wise enough to take it.

This is not a call for random violence. We're taught that force is "evil" and power always corrupts. Not true, either one. But there is a price for pursuing a goal to the point of success. Freedom and responsibility lie in accepting that price. Lots of people don't want you to. They'd rather you take the role of victim, because that leaves them with the power (tho' they may be completely innocent of this awareness). And we often accept it because (among other things) then we don't have to live with the consequences of hard choices.

But when you accept that responsiblity, that's when you gain the power to shape the future.

[hilarita]

um...i dont know why we're talking about this, but i am responding anyways...
i get the impression that there are two completely different conversations going on here...one being, will you defend your safety with force if necessary? to which, of course, i would rather be violent than be a victim if it were to come down to that. as to the other conversation, i have a couple of thoughts.

[quote:46f9d265bd][b:46f9d265bd][i:46f9d265bd]Quote:[/i:46f9d265bd][/b:46f9d265bd]

---

"I'd rather be a thief than a begger, just as I'd be a murderer rather than a slave. I don't want to be either but if you force me I'll take the braver and more moral choice."

---

[/quote:46f9d265bd]

there is nothing brave about hurting people, period. given the choice, i would willingly be a slave. not because i am weak or incapable of action, but because i honestly believe it is the lesser of two evils.

[quote:46f9d265bd][b:46f9d265bd][i:46f9d265bd]Quote:[/i:46f9d265bd][/b:46f9d265bd]

---

I for one, would love it if nobody attempted to bash another gay man or woman ever again. But since that isn't going to happen, I'll wish and hope that more and more of their would-be victims turn around and put the f*ckers in a hospital. Because yes, that is the moral and brave response. Don't be a victim. Seize what power you have, and wrench the future into the shape you want it to be.

---

[/quote:46f9d265bd]

i have to respectfully disagree. there are other ways to change the future than by force. violence, once it becomes an established practice between dissenting factions, only leads to escalated violence. the situation in the middle east is an example of exactly that- two sides trying to force the other to understand. it doesnt work that way.

[quote:46f9d265bd][b:46f9d265bd][i:46f9d265bd]Quote:[/i:46f9d265bd][/b:46f9d265bd]

---

They'd rather you take the role of victim, because that leaves them with the power (tho' they may be completely innocent of this awareness). And we often accept it because (among other things) then we don't have to live with the consequences of hard choices.
But when you accept that responsiblity, that's when you gain the power to shape the future.

---

[/quote:46f9d265bd]

power and violence are not the same thing. Gandhi had the power to shape countless lives, without violence of any kind. he took responsibility and action, without "breaking the rules" of decent human behavior.

if people hurt me, i do not hurt them back. i suppose that makes me a victim, but my hurting them back only makes me a victim and a perpetrator. it doesnt take away whatever hurt me to begin with. vengeance does not count as brave and moral action. hurting people, at its most basic and fundamental level, just isnt good for you. this doesnt mean i dont take action- i take plenty of action for what i believe in, and i take responsibility for my actions. but i dont do it by hurting other people- even if these other people hate me, even if these other people want to hurt me. not because i am weak- because i am *stronger* than that.

besides this, if i have learned nothing else over the course of my life, it is that you impact more people with respect than you ever will with hatred, and violence against people you dont agree with is nothing if not hatred.

[Warduke]

Ok people, this is the Lesbian Cliche FAQ thread, so let's get back on topic.

If you want to continue this discussion, do it in the daily thread, or do it by email or IM.