In HBO’s Six Feet Under, two of the main characters are
David Fisher and Keith Charles, an interracial homosexual couple. David, a
white conservative male, is portrayed as conflicted and weaker, while Keith, an
African American, is very sure of himself and extremely masculine. In this blog
post, I will be talking about the differences in characterization of the two
characters.
As the show starts out, David Fisher is a white male who
works in a funeral home. He is ultra conservative and is never seen as particularly
strong-willed and seemed to be very prone to emotional trauma. He initially
refused to reveal his homosexuality to anyone other than his partner because he
was afraid. David always suspected his own homosexuality even in his childhood,
but tried to deny and fight it by having relations with women. However, he does
eventually come around and comes out. He would probably relate to John D’Emilio’s
description of coming out in the article “Homosexuality and American Society:
An Overview.” “‘Coming out’—recognizing one’s homosexual desires, subsequently
attempting to act upon them, and acknowledging one’s sexual preferences to
others of the same persuasion—was a lonely, difficult, and sometimes even
excruciatingly painful experience” (D’Emilio 29).
Keith Charles, on the other hand, is portrayed as a
confident, muscular, very masculine African American male. When he is
introduced to the Fisher family, no one suspected him of being homosexual because
of how “manly” he seemed. He does not get many grievances for being homosexual,
which Tomas Almaguer talks about in his article “Chicano Men: A Cartography of
Homosexual Identity and Behavior.” He says that “it is primarily the
anal-passive individual who is stigmatized for playing the subservient feminine
role. His partner typically is not stigmatized at all” (Almaguer 539). Although
Almaguer is speaking of Latin culture, the same concept can be applied to this
situation in Six Feet Under.
Compared
to his boyfriend, David is obviously portrayed as the “woman,” the more
effeminate one, and Keith is given the role of the man. Perhaps it is because
of their races. In the article “The down loe: Origins, risk identification, and
intervention” by John Barnshaw and Lynn Letukas, they mention that “since the
ideal identity for non-White men is linked with masculinity and fatherhood,
homosexuality remains stigmatized by Black and Latino individuals” (Barnshaw
and Letukas 482). This could explain why it is more common for a white man to
be portrayed in the media as feminine than it is for a black man—because it is
more socially acceptable
Works Cited
Almaguer, Tomas.
“Chicano Men: A Cartography of Homosexual Identity and Behavior.” Differences:
A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 3.2 (1991): 75-100 Print
Ball, Alan, prod. Six Feet Under. HBO: 2001-2005. Television.
Bradshaw, John
and Letulas, Lynn. “The Low Down on the Down Low: Origins, Risk Identification
and Invervention” from Health Sociology Review Volume 19, Issue 4, December
2010
D’Emilio, John. "Homosexuality and American Society: An
Overview" from Sexual
Politics, Sexual, Communities in the United States
1940- 1970. Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press, 1983.
As this blog post has mentioned that there are different views of homosexual men. There are masculine men, feminine men and other classifications. The downside to this is that it creates a rift in the community itself. Society views all LGBTQ members under one category. This creates a problem, as masculine gay men do not want to be viewed as the stereotypical gay man. An example is displayed in the article “Searching for Community: Filipino Gay Men from New York City.” Martin Manalasan writes about how in the Filipino gay community there is a conflict between gay Filipino men that were born in the Philippines and the ones who were born in the United States. The rift created by these differences jeopardizes the unity of the LGBTQ community. Instead of coming together and banning as one the community, at times create a distinction among one another. It is not only a distinction of lesbians and gay men but also the distinctions created among gay: masculine and feminine. These distinctions become a problem as the competing groups fight to keep the difference apparent because they do not want to be classified under the same group. Instead of arguing with each other over what group they belong in, they need to realize that they all fall under an umbrella: the LGBTQ community. Regardless of how different one is from another, they all have one thing in common. They belong to the LGBTQ community, regardless of how feminine or masculine. This needs to be the priority: banning all the groups together under the same name: the LGBTQ community.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I agree that television does depict gay couples in a fashion that resembles the gender roles of heterosexual couples, I will argue that white men are not necessarily more commonly depicted as the more feminine partner. In your article, you supported your claim that white men are more commonly depicted as feminine over black men because it is more socially acceptable for white males to be gay. I don’t think that this is necessarily true, because I believe that it is extremely difficult to measure acceptability of feminine men in different cultures. For instance, it may be true that homosexual white males are more socially accepted in urban areas like Los Angeles or New York, but they might also be completely looked down upon in southern rural areas. I would even argue that it is more difficult for gay white males to be socially accepted, because of sexual stratification ideals that were established during the “industrial transformation of Western Europe and North America” (Rubin, 1993, p.9). Rubin (1993) discusses in her article how sex law in this time period was harsh and “a single act of illicit sex was punished in many states with more severity than rape, battery or murder” (p. 9). I think that Rubin’s argument supports my idea on how American standards of sexuality have been established as part of our culture, and it puts more pressure on white males to live up to the American ideal of being masculine breadwinners. I have also seen many homosexual feminine black men portrayed through television, and I would say that the ratio of feminine black men to feminine white men varies.
ReplyDeleteReferences
Rubin, Gayle. "Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality"
from Social Perspectives in Gay and Lesbian Studies ed. Peter M Nardi and Beth
Schneider. 1993.
LGBTQ people are not commonly portrayed in pop culture, but when they are there is a definite sense of stereotypes. In Six Feet Under, there is a more feminine, passive male and a more dominate, masculine male in the gay relationship. In true LGBTQ relationships, some do have the masculine-feminine roles, but many relationships don’t have those types of constrictions. Its common in pop culture to portray gay people in a straight way. Yes, the characters are gay, but ones more of a girl and ones more of a boy, so really, it’s more like a straight relationship and therefor more easily accepted. In Latino culture, the receptive partners are made “into feminized men; biologically males, but not truly men”. Even the races of the characters play into these roles; the African-American man is the more masculine partner because it would be difficult for some to imagine him as a receptive partner. Racial stereotypes often influence how a character is portrayed. Even in the LGBTQ community, its not uncommon to make assumptions of roles in a relationship based on skin color.
ReplyDeleteAlamaguer, Tomas. “Chicano Men: A Cartography of Homosexual, Identity and Behavior” Social Perspectives in Gay and Lesbian Studies. Ed. Peter M Nardi and Beth Schneider, 1998.