Race, Gender, Sexuality, Violence, and the Media

There are posters from this anti-rape campaign all over campus.  It's a great idea, but as often happens, they got so wrapped up in one cause that they damage another.  Observe:  every single couple is color-coordinated - even the white people are divided into the blond couple and the brunette couple - except the gays. 

They are also the only pair where one isn't looking at the other or resting her head trustingly on his shoulder.  Maybe it is because in all the heterosexual posters, it is the girl (victim) looking at the boy, and they did not want to say which gay was being (not) raped.  Still, they could gaze adoringly at each other?  Or at least smile, or put their arms around each other?  Instead of standing awkwardly with their shoulders squished together, glaring at the camera.  Maybe they're holding hands?  I can't tell.  It may or may not have been intentional, but the way the background looks, there seems to be a line running between them, separating them.  Most of the other couples are entwined in some way, making such a view impossible.  While I appreciate the homosexual inclusion, I feel it could have been a bit more inclusive.

So what are these posters really saying?  1.  People can't date outside of their color scheme.  2.  Gays can't date within their color scheme because then you can't tell if they're gay, they might be brothers or just friends or something.  Oh, and 3. Women don't rape.  Granted, I can see where there might be difficulties, but it is certainly not impossible for a woman to rape a man or a woman.  After all, it isn't always a brutal holding down by force - hence the poster campaign.  There's date rape, coercion, drugs, alcohol, etc.

Obviously, chicks dig guys who don't rape.  You can tell by the way she is gazing adoringly up at you.  Guy, you want this hot chick to be clinging to you like this?  Don't rape her, and don't look at her.  The women are trophialized. 

Except in one of the African-American couples towards the bottom, where she is staring at the camera with a little smile as if to say "Yeah.  My boyrfriend's awesome.  He asks.  Girls, you don't have to put up with a guy who doesn't ask."


I get that the posters are trying to pander to the lowest common denominator, hence the "Guys who don't rape get chicks hanging off them."  This, however, promotes trophialization, a word I just made up.  For a definition, watch a chick flick.  Then watch a dude flick.  There's a romantic subplot in the dude flick too, isn't there?  But she doesn't really do anything except have sex with the guy once he saves the day.  In the chick flick, even if it is about something else, the relationship with the guy is a larger subplot.  I just saw the film "Morning Glory" which was not too bad overall but the plot could have been interpreted as "A girl has to choose between her career and her boyfriend."  Guys don't have to choose.  They just get women as prizes.

Going back to race, I can admit there would be problems with an interracial straight couple as well.  Of course the woman is the darker-skinned minority dating a white guy!  Or:  Of course it is the darker-skinned minority preying on the white female.  Or:  Of course the minorities date each other.  So with the gays, it's on equal footing and they are not sexualizing a minority by showing it as the female (that seems like another unfortunate implication right there).  Solution?  Avoid tokenism.  There are three African-Americans, two caucasions, one latino (and considering the posters are also available in Spanish, you'd think there would be more), one gay/interracial, and one Asian (and personally, I think she has the most sickeing facial expression; it's like she's sniffing him).


I also get that there is a target audience of racial minorities, but what about interracial minorities?  Gays?  Especially gays, because they are much less likely to report it - you would have to out yourself twice shamefully, once as homosexual and once as a victim (not saying straight guys can't get raped, but it's more likely to be date rape for anyone).  However, by including an interracial gay couple, they get two minorities for the price of one!

You may think I am missing the point of this entire campaign, and the truth is that I think it is awesome rhetoric to tell guys that sticking their dick in something doesn't make them cooler and that being a gentlemen is manly and sexy.  But like I said at the beginning, they got so focused on their cause they ignored unfortunate implications - and racism is no longer built of laws and institutions, but implications.  Tread carefully, my friends.

What Should Theater Look Like and What Should Theater Be About?

Above are the two driving questions for my Theater History class that I am currently taking for a fine arts GE.  It's not that bad of a class, even though the professor has a tendency to analyze things for us and not encourage discussion and argument against her; I'm bored, but that's why I crochet.  No, the problem arises when we do three plays in a row about race relations, and that is the sum total of our look at American theater.  See, apparently "being American" means what race you are and how you're being oppressed.

There is a quote from August Wilson which I would like to paraphrase and dispute.  He argued against colorblind casting, claiming that it was devaluing African-American identity, and that instead there should be more plays written by blacks about blacks.  That way, black people would learn to respect their black identity.

While I respect the sentiment, and can agree it was probably appropriate for the times, I would like to bring up one point - namely, myself.  Am I even going to see the German-Chinese lesbian identity validated on the stage or in print?  Probably not.  The bigger question for me, though, is that if I did find a story that was not my own about a German-Chinese lesbian in America, would it mean anything to me?  Would that character really have anything to do with me?  Would this hypothetical character be obsessed with languages?  Would she be a ruthless literary critic?  A laconic feminist?  Would she have struggles with identity and independence that have nothing to do with her race or sexuality?

I don't think so.  I think that I am more than my race, ethnicity, and sexuality.

It bothers me when people try to portray themselves and their characters solely as representations of their race.  Yes, more racial and cultural awareness is good, but the whole purpose of racial inclusion is to show that people who aren't white Christian heterosexual able-bodied males are people too.  That does not happen if your black character is a cardboard cutout of a black person, and not a fully developed person with dark skin and African heritage.

Compare the last two plays we had to read:  "Zoot Suit" and "Cloud Nine."  "Zoot Suit" bored and frustrated me.  It is a whiny minority play, about Mexican-Americans in the 1940's bitching about how they're being oppressed and thrown in jail just because they're Mexican.  There is one line that goes something like "You just don't understand the Chicano people."  To which I reply "No, I don't, because I haven't seen any of your culture or personality, I'm just hearing how you're discriminated against.  I don't understand you any better than I did before."

Now, "Cloud Nine" focuses more on gender and sexuality than race, though there is a small racial component.  What "Cloud Nine" does is crossgender casting - Betty is played by a man, Edward is played by a woman; also, the black servant is played by a white man.  This shows how gender (and race) roles are just that - roles that we play.  It questions the very institutions.  That is so much more interesting and thought-provoking than "Look at us!  We're being oppressed!"  Is it not?