Feminist
Pro-Queer
Anti-Racist
Gaming

So while I was checking an old email account on yahoo, I noticed a story in the little news section. It read: Transgender Wife gets 4 years for killing husband. And I thought to myself, what does her being transgendered have to even do with that? But I clicked it anyway and searched again for it to see what other news sources had to say about it. This actually made for an even more interesting discovery. If you search for this story on the MSNBC website it says "Transgender wife gets 4 years for killing a man". But on most other news sites of not so self proclaimed leftist views the title reads that she killed her husband. Kinda strange. It is possible that the only reason the story made national news was because it involved a transgendered person and LGBTQ (which I'll refer to as queer after this) tensions are high awaiting the California Supreme Court decision ? But what I think- and you can call me a pessimist- is that this story has national coverage because it paints a transgendered person in a negative light.

Follow up:

Although it has been common practice in history to find, 'other', and make a scapegoat and villain out of minorities...I feel that the film business has really done better than anything else (even the media) to paint a really vile picture. Queer people as villains, unnatural anomalies, and dangerous predators is not a new trend. In American cinema, at least, it has been commonly practiced since Edison first tried to screw over all the other filmmakers with the MPPC. I mean, we're talking that effeminate gay cowboy from The Soilers, to Countess Marya Zaleska from Dracula's Daughter, to the infamous unidentified killer in Cruising (ooooh, the twist is that the killer is...homosexuality -just pause and let that blow your mind before you continue).

However, this vilification reached a staggering height in the 1970s and it seems to be making a strong return. I suppose it never really went away. In the 90s, there were plenty of queer villains featured in bigger films like The Jackal, Basic Instinct, and the majority of Disney films (although who doesn't love Jafar in all of his gay and gross stereotypical Arabian-ness, right?). The problem is that this is occurring more and more in major recent productions. And to be honest, I thought I was being paranoid about its return until 3:10 to Yuma. Then I really started paying attention.

Now, I've thought that hey, maybe making gay villains return is sort of cool. They're not being victims, there is some exposure, etc. But then I saw The Watchmen. And let me just say, to all the other Alan Moore fans out there, I am not snubbing him...I'm snubbing Zack Snyder (i.e. the most overrated director of this decade) and Hollywood in general. You have the main villain, Ozymandias, who is possibly the most stereotypically coded queer of the past few years and the earlier scenes with the two lesbian characters-who end up murdered with some fairly offensive stuff scrawled in their own blood on the wall above them.

There are not a lot of queer characters in major films. And when they do show up it is either to provide comic relief or apparently, destroy the major cities of the world or at least kill a few people. I know I risk sounding sentimental but as a lil' queer kid these depictions really frightened and sickened me. If that was what I was, then why not just pop a bullet in my head and end it? A little depressing for me and I imagine that I am far from being the only person to feel that way. In Vito Russo's The Celluloid Closet, the final chapter is called 'Taking the Game Away from Hollywood: Finding a voice and facing a backlash'. Granted, the book was published in 1985, but its message seems to remain strong today. There are a large amount of queer people out there who feel that queer cinema should just forget about mainstream films and ignore Hollywood. Even in the teacher in a Queer Cinema class I had asserted this. When I questioned him about the effects of this negative coding in mainstream cinema on queer kids and teens who do not have access to what he called “the wealth of amazing and well done queer independent cinema that comes out every year” (his words, not kidding...clearly he has not seen such gems as Adam and Steve), he informed me that queer kids are great at using the internet and that there are movie rental sites, torrents, and the library. To say that I was amazed by the ignorance of this is an understatement. What kid has a credit card? And if they do, what kid has a credit card that is not monitored by their parents? I know for a fact that you cannot get most queer films in the library (especially in the midwest) and that on a shared computer and all the monitoring software for parents out there, it would be risky at best to download or watch queer movies. I'm sure there are supportive parents out there who recognize the need for role models or at least cinematic representations of yourself (since film is all about the validation of existence...I exist on film therefore I exist in the world...there are more of me...etc), but not all kids are that lucky. Plus, even if they have access to queer films they have a barrage of mainstream media like films, television, music, magazines and anything else you can possibly think of negating the positive or at least neutral self image they might get from those films.

That is why what the The Watchmen depicts is such a big deal. I know, I'm beating a dead horse, but seriously, it really needs to be talked about. The lesbian superhero and her partner are the least defined and even then their definition comes solely from their sexuality- like the kiss in Times Square. So straight from that to them blipping in for a second during the retirement party photo to them dead. The really fucked up part of that is that their death is not only sexualized by their wardrobe, positioning, and message on the wall but it is only dealt with for a second by Rorschach who says they died because they were “victims of their own indecent lifestyle”. Yes, I understand that Rorschach is fucking crazy and a misogynist because of the abuse suffered by his mother. But in the film, he is romanticized. He is seen as the real American hero. The bad ass who kills pedophiles, villains, figures out the plot that even Dr. Manhattan cannot glean, and does not comprise his morals. So if Rorschach says it, why refute it? It certainly isn't refuted in the film. How many people out there who already have an idea of what queer people are like thanks to mainstream representation heard that and refuted it in their own head? How does the quality of life and humanization of queer people even occur if there are consistent depictions like that in mainstream media? How many nonqueer people are going to actively search out independent queer cinema to gain a better idea of the queer populace?

All any of us really want is a queer person who just happens to be queer. So many queers are tiring of (or like me, have always been opposed to) the Jacks, Wills and other loud, rainbow wearing, politically apathetic, de- or ultra- sexualized, and villainous queers getting all the representation. Just show a queer person sitting around eating a candy bar and being a normal person (since we are) and maybe not having them always blowing up cities, seducing helpless young straight people like Countess Marya Zaleska, trying to score with everyone they meet, and twirling around like a ballerina. Just a thought.