LGBT Entertainment
Celebrities Continue to Come Out Against H8
Published July 10, 2009 @ 04:55AM PT
The No H8 Campaign has become one of the biggest pop culture successes when it comes to merging the celebrity world with the marriage equality world. The campaign started with a few photos of celebrities demonstrating their support for the No on Proposition 8 campaign, and has ballooned into a site where celebrities are clamoring to get their photos taken, and where individuals from around the country can submit their own "No on H8" photo.
The results? So far, photographer Adam Bouska has taken more than 780 photos, as well as filmed video with the likes of Fran Drescher and others to promote marriage equality. Cool stuff!
Some of our favorite photos? Debbie Gibson, Ashlee Simpson and Pete Wentz, Blake Lewis, Meghan McCain, filmmaker Bryan Singer, and Lt. Dan Choi (pictured above), who was recently discharged from the military for coming out, and has become one of the leading national spokespeople to overturn "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." But there are loads of pictures, so check them out.
For more information, or to view more photos, hit up their Facebook page here (and help site organizers in their quest to hit 1,000,000 members).
Ten Gay Curators Walk Into an Art Museum...
Published July 09, 2009 @ 04:47AM PT
The National Portrait Gallery in London has finally launched their much anticipated exhibit covering the best of the world of Gay Icons. What is a Gay Icon? It's a question open for debate, but here's the best definition we've seen, courtesy of Newsweek:
Spotting a gay icon is like being double-jointed or riding a unicycle: to laymen it is imperceptible, but to gay men it's like, well, duh.
Ok, Ok. Not that helpful. But funny, right? Here's another definition, courtesy of the men and women behind the curtains of Wikipedia:
A gay icon or LGBT icon is a historical figure, celebrity or public figure who is embraced by many in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities; the term Dykon, a portmanteau of the words "dyke" and "icon," has recently entered the lexicon as a word to describe lesbian icons.
To capitalize on the increasing role that LGBT rights are playing around the globe, from India to New Hampshire, the London Portrait Gallery has launched a show curated by 10 of the world's most famous LGBT folks that exhibits photographs and images of a host of icons and dykons. According to the Gallery, gay icons and dykons have played a major role in shaping social and cultural history - whether they are award-winning athletes, ground-breaking politicians (like the shot of Harvey Milk, above), stars of the screen or stage, or influential writers and artists.
The curators included Elton John, Billie Jean King, Sir Ian McKellan, Jackie Kay, Chris Smith, Sarah Waters, and a host of other folks, including comedian Sandi Toksvig, who said of the exhibit:
How I wish this selection had been available to me when I was young and trying to make sense of my reactions to the world. How inspirational to have had portraits of the great and the good staring out at me telling me that I was not by any measure on my own.
You can check out more information here. Sadly, the London Portrait Gallery doesn't post a ton of stuff from the show online. But there are a few fun shots on display. And hey, as if you needed one more reason to visit London... :)
The Sexy, Heterosexual-only Centre Court at Wimbledon
Published July 07, 2009 @ 08:02AM PT
One of the summer's hottest sports tickets, Wimbledon, just wrapped up this past weekend, drawing some of the largest television audiences that pro tennis has ever seen. Venus, Serena, Andy, Roger...the biggest names in the sport made their way to Centre Court to play in the championship rounds.
But one item overlooked during the course of the two-week tournament was an announcement by the All England Club that when it comes to deciding who plays on Centre Court, one of the major considerations is whether the player is (1) attractive, and (2) straight. Especially when it comes to women.
This piece over on NPR's Web site does a fantastic job of cutting through the sexist (and heterosexist) practices of tennis's grandest event. During the course of the tournament, according to writer Dave Zirin, less known but better looking players got to play in prime spots, while some of the best players in the league were relegated to the cheap seats because they didn't strike the same sex appeal to make them popular with the market that pro tennis wants to appeal to.
Funny, the more things seem to be different from thirty years ago, the more things stay the same.
According to Zirin, the Wimbledon policy is sexism at its worst in tennis:
[Wimbledon's policy shows] tolerance for sexism, an acceptance of the fact that no matter what their skills, women athletes should be prepared to be seen as objects first and athletes second....
Women athletes find themselves in the same vise they have been in for a century: with sexism on one side and homophobia on the other. Accepting this sexist construct has become conventional wisdom for how to market and sell women's sports: sex, and specifically hetero-sex, sells.
Sex sells in women's tennis. Could that be the reason why Anna Kournikova, who has never won a tournament at all (let alone even made it to the finals of a grand slam event) is the most popular player in the sport?
Dr. Mary Jo Kane, a sports sociologist from the University of Minnesota, added that homophobia also has a huge rule to play here. In choosing who gets prime playing space, pro tennis officials are mindful that at least when it comes to the women's game, there's a stigma that the sport is filled with too many lesbians. Here's Kane:
This is also about what runs in the bone marrow of women's sports, namely homophobia. They are very well-meaning but they also want to distance themselves from the lesbian label. How do you do that? You reassure the viewing audiences, the corporate sponsors, the TV networks, and the female athletes themselves, that, No, no, no— sports won't make your daughter gay. Women's sports will be more acceptable if you believe, even though it is stereotypical and inaccurate, that if you are pretty and feminine in a traditional sense then you are not gay.
Kind of ironic for a sport that has given us two of the most famous (and most successful) lesbian athletes in history, Billie Jean King and Martina Navratilova.
The real message that needs to be sent to the folks who run Wimbledon and pro tennis is that atypical sports stars - the ones who don't look like Maria Sharapova or who may cuddle with members of the same-sex in their bedroom at night - can be just as successful and popular as anyone else on the tour. Because what makes people popular in any given sport has a whole heck of a lot more to do with their ability than their prettiness. Trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator (sex, heterosexuality) only chepeans the sport, and disillusions fans who might otherwise tune in and watch.
A Gay Kiss in the Mainstream Comic World
Published July 06, 2009 @ 11:10AM PT
What do you get when you put two male comic book characters in a lip lock?
The mainstream comic world's first gay kiss. It's the "Ellen" moment of the comic book world, one might say, with the 45th issue of X-Factor, a critically-acclaimed series from Marvel. The same-sex kiss occurs between characters Rictor and Shatterstar, although don't take it as a sign that either of the characters are coming out. Here's X-Factor writer Peter David:
I have much more fun tweaking the fans than actually spelling anything out. I certainly don't think we could say at this point that Rictor is definitively gay. I think we could make the argument that he's bi, but I don't see the point at this juncture in spelling it out -- not because of any sense of homophobia or anything like that but out of a sense that I think it's more entertaining and more thought-provoking if we keep it ambiguous.
Gay, Bi, Questioning...either way, chalk this up as even more exposure for LGBT folks in the comic world. Now if only we could get Daredevil to kiss someone of the same-sex.... :)
Chicago Sports Retailers Demonstrate Some Homophobia
Published July 03, 2009 @ 06:29AM PT
We'll have to be careful here. This is not a dig at Chicago White Sox fans. But it is at a dig at the type of professional sports marketing that takes the word "Gay" and turns it into a epithet or a degrading term. And this time it comes in the form of two T-shirts being offered by Chicago sports retailers Chi-City Tees and Crosstown Tees.
Richard Roeper (yes, that Richard Roeper) has a column this week exposing the prevalence of the T-shirt designs (above). In both, it's easy to get the message: The Chicago White Sox know how to win championships, while the Chicago Cubs know how to be gay. Here's Roeper's take:
The signs, T-shirts and bumper stickers are literally a sign of the times. I talked to someone who had one of the signs posted at his tailgate party. Nicest guy in the world. Just poking a little fun at Cubs fans. I'll bet a lot of the folks who buy these shirts are for equal rights and aren't at all inclined to discriminate against gays -- but the explicit message in the parade "joke" is that it's a putdown to call someone gay....
As hundreds of thousands were declaring their gay pride or their support for gay pride at a parade last Sunday, there were myriad reminders at the Sox/Cubs game that for many, it's still considered an easy insult to call someone "gay."
Like it or not, that's essentially what these T-shirts are doing - taking the word "gay" and turning it into an insult. And that can have disastrous consequences.
I'm reminded of the award-winning Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) campaign, "Think Before You Speak," which shows how using the word "gay," which as of July 2, says that there are more than 154,000 Web sites that use the phrase "That's so gay" as a derogatory term. Maybe they can now say 154,000 Web sites, and at least two T-shirt retailers from Chicago.
We've created an action right here at change.org where you can email both Chi-City Tees and Crosstown Tees and ask them to stop selling these T-shirts. In these cases, language has the power to reinforce a rather negative stereotype. Forty years after Stonewall, and in a year where we're seeing the second largest country on earth decriminalize homosexuality and four states legalize marriage equality, it's time to turn the stereotype that "gay = weak" or "gay = lame" or "gay = loser" on its head.
A Look Back at the Uprising that Started a Gay Rights Movement
Published June 26, 2009 @ 07:15AM PT
Media Matters for America took the MSM to task yesterday for not doing an adequate enough job of covering the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, which are set to be commemorated this weekend (and on Monday). While their criticism was a little warranted up until yesterday, today the Web is exploding with Stonewall coverage (even in Germany!).
One of the best pieces we've seen comes from Democracy Now (hardly a bastion of the MSM, but still influential in their own right). It's a hybrid interview with David Carter (author of "Stonewall: The Riots That Sparked the Gay Revolution”), and a rebroadcast of a radio drama called "Remembering Stonewall," which was produced in 1989 to commemorate the 20th anniversary.
One interesting statistic, according to Democracy Now? At the time of Stonewall there were only 50 to 60 gay groups in the country. In the immediate aftermath of Stonewall? Well, one year later there were 1,500 groups. Two years later, there were 2,500 groups.
Kind of easy to draw some parallels there between Stonewall, and the resurgence of LGBT rights activism in the wake of Proposition 8, eh?
If you've got a half hour today, or over the weekend, or next week even, check out the Democracy Now piece. It's a great historical lesson, and a piece that gives historical weight to the anniversary we're about to celebrate this weekend. Video is below.
Will Sacha Baron Cohen's "Bruno" be Homophobic, or Funny?
Published June 18, 2009 @ 06:31AM PT
Given the success of his 2006 film "Borat," it's not surprising that filmmaker/actor/provocateur Sacha Baron Cohen is looking to stir controversy again, this time with the upcoming release of his film "Bruno," a mockumentary based on a character Cohen created in earlier comedy routines where he plays a flamboyant gay Austrian fashion reporter. Filmmakers suggest that Cohen's bold humor may actually serve the purpose of unmasking homophobia. But it's clear that the film is stradling that fine line between ingenious and inflammatory, which has lots of people asking right now: Will "Bruno" be homophobic, or funny?
The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) has expressed some skepticism about the film, while noting its potential to enlighten an audience. Here's GLAAD's Senior Director of Media Programs, Rashad Robinson, commenting on one scene that might go a little too far:
In one extended series of sequences, Bruno adopts a baby from Africa, giving Baron Cohen an opportunity to take aim at those celebrity parents who seem to treat their children like fashion accessories. What follows, though, shifts the film from smart social satire to something else entirely - a parade of over-the-top stereotypes that, whatever their intent, play to and could affirm troubling attitudes about gay people.
Bruno appears as a guest on a local TV talk show with the baby in tow. Then, following racially insensitive comments by Bruno in the presence of the largely African American audience, that audience is shown photos of what appears to be Bruno in a hot tub having sex with men inches away from the child. Horrified and outraged, the talk-show audience turns on Bruno.
What's disquieting about this scene - and others in the film - is that it doesn't call attention to or unmask cultural homophobia...in a country where gay and lesbian parents can still be denied the ability in some states to adopt the children they have raised since birth - and where those children can even be taken away from the only parents they've ever known - the idea of trivializing gay families, making them the butt of a series of crude jokes, and reinforcing pernicious stereotypes about gay men and children didn't feel funny. It felt dangerous.
And that might be the biggest concern with "Bruno"...that scenes meant to illicit extreme laughter and push the envelope actually end up hurting members of the LGBT community.
Still, there are a few other folks - Queerty, for instance - that resent the fact that organizations like GLAAD are telling people what to think of "Bruno." From Queerty's point of view, "Bruno" could be another tool in the arsenal to defeat homophobia. Here goes:
Yes, he plays a flamboyantly gay Austrian fashion reporter, but heterosexual Sacha Baron Cohen's character Bruno is, for all intents and purposes, a comedic exercise in exploring gay stereotypes and going on a witch hunt for homophobes — both concepts that, on their face, we're perfectly fine with...
[But] Bruno doesn't need to be a finely tuned teaching moment; that's asking too much of mainstream cinema fare. But the film let's us laugh with and at stereotypes. It's a pornographic enterprise into America's remaining taboos. If the film starts even one conversation about "how wrong" all of that is, it's a success — and, dare we suggest, something we should support.
So there's the question: Is "Bruno" going to help or hurt the larger movement? Or does it even matter?
It's easy to see how some scenes, like the one pointed out by GLAAD's Robinson, could be an offensive portrayal of LGBT families, and reinforce the stereotype that many hold that LGBT men and women are unfit parents. But I also agree with Queerty to some extent that, sometimes, we all just need to lighten up and trust that most people will see the funny, and not the homophobic, in comedy like this.
Either way, it's clear that the answer to whether "Bruno" will be funny or homophobic won't likely be known until it premieres here in the States in July. Until then, we all get to play the role of pundit (or blowhard) in deciding whether the film will sink or swim.
