"Who's A Sissy?"

[Pete Bruno]

The choice of this topic is the result of a discussion about the hit show 'Modern Family', I personally dislike the show for many reasons, especially what I consider low and gratuitous humor; but what I find most offensive is the portrayal of the gay characters. Yes, there are many gay men who are effeminate in the world, but is it necessary to make them the face of all homosexual men? In my opinion no, I find it much like the treatment of blacks in the old movies, shuffling and bugged eyed; it fits the stereotype that a still basically homophobic society wants perpetuated. Then I remembered the documentary 'The Celluloid Closet' and it's discussion of the use of the stock "sissy" character in movies. From the review of the book: "The screen version of THE CELLULOID CLOSET ironically points out another shortcoming of the book. The film showcases interviews with gay actors Harvey Fierstein and Quentin Crisp, and the discussion of the “sissies” is particularly illuminating. In the book, Russo trashes the Hollywood sissies, pointing out all of their negative and stereotypical implications. In the film, Fierstein readily admits that he loves the sissies, in all their stereotyped glory. Is Fierstein not toeing the politically correct line? Didn't he read Russo's dissection of the sissy? Doesn't he know the sissies are part of his oppression as a gay man?"

 

As previously stated I disagree, especially with Mr. Fierstein in one sense, if the sissy was part of a larger gay cast it would be fine, and even funny, in that it would be showing the diversity of the homosexual community. But when the only representation is the sissy, it feeds into the common misconception that all gay men are sissies and all lesbians are lumberjacks.

 

Okay, that's my take. What say you?

 

This is the link to the review quoted above.

http://gaybookreview...review/2543/543

Edited November 1, 2011 by Pete Bruno

[Cia]

I believe the word you are looking for is 'type-cast' The bimbo blond cheerleader that always goes downstairs with the killer, the quirky brunette with the slightly chunky body best friend, the nerd with the scrawny body and glasses, the jock with no neck and a penchant for saying dude, and the well dressed-finger snapping-lisping gay man.

 

Hollywood takes the most well known stereotypes about ANYONE and blows it up. Personalities on the screen, tv or movie, have to be big to be interesting. The quiet, average man who likes sports and men? Pfft, no way, who wants to go see that?

 

I'm not advocating for those stereotypes being perpetuated, trust me, I'm a redhead. Do you know how many times my husband has said, 'I married a redhead' and people are like, oh man, I am so sorry! Then again, it's better than being a dumb blonde, right? *insert sarcastic smile* IMO, stereotypes are everywhere.

 

I'm pretty sure that MOST people nowadays know that the face of 'gay men' is not accurately portrayed by Hollywood in the majority of shows. Hell, unless they are doing a based on a true story movie, all of that crap is made up. Fantasy, fake. It can be offensive to some but since they've been doing it to just about EVERYONE since the movie/tv business began, I don't see it changing anytime soon.

[Gene Splicer PHD]

I've watched a few times and I disagree with you. I don't think Cam and Mitchell are portrayed as sissies, although they may have effeminate characteristics.

 

There is a big difference between being effeminate and being weak: a "sissy" as presented in the Celluloid Closet and in so many movies was a weak and often crazy person. I don't think either Cam or Mitchell are weak (crazy, yes). In fact, they are some of the stronger characters on the show: Phil Dunphy is witless and unable to stand up to his father in law, his wife is shown as a hysteric and overreacts to everything; the father (Ed O'Neill's character) and his unintelligent trophy wife - need I go on?

 

I think Mitchell and Cam are effeminate in their characteristics, but when needed, both characters have stepped up and not allowed themselves to be treated as sissies. Cam in particular has stepped up (even dropping the effeminate mannerisms) and put people in their place on more than one occasion.

 

And what does it mean when I can see characteristics in Mitchell and Cam in myself and in my friends?

Am I "typecasting" when Mitchell responds to Cam with a really cutting, funny rejoinder, and I'm immediately thinking that Mitchell is so much like my friend Chris that its scary?

 

Also: Portraying LGBT people as we really are would be really, really boring.

[Cia]

Also: Portraying LGBT people as we really are would be really, really boring.

 

You mean normal, average, every day people who just happen to like canoodling with their own gender Gene Splicer?

[Michael9344]

I agree with Gene. I wouldn't be very interested in the show if Mitch and Cam were sissies. They are effeminate, but not exactly sissy. Sissy would be that wedding planner from Sex and the City.

But, you're right though. Too many (not all) gay characters are effeminate and some 'sissies'. But there are some exceptions like Andrew and that boyfriends of his from Desperate Housewives.

[Pete Bruno]

Just for the sake of this discussion I would like to clear up one point. When I (and the author of Celluloid Closet) use the term "sissy" it was not ever meant to illustrate the degree of effeminacy of a character. In the context that it was used all gay men were sissies, they happened to feature the most flamboyant men they could find. Since I don't watch D Housewives I wasn't aware of the characters mentioned, but glad to hear about them. My family and friends all know I'm gay, but they also know I don't like to make a big deal about it, and given my size and build many times I'm in social situations were people who don't know me assume that I am straight; and gives me the opportunity to hear the unvarnished true feelings about gay men and women. It's like being a spy and undercover; believe me, there is much less tolerance out there than you could believe.

[PrivateTim]

My family and friends all know I'm gay, but they also know I don't like to make a big deal about it, and given my size and build many times I'm in social situations were people who don't know me assume that I am straight; and gives me the opportunity to hear the unvarnished true feelings about gay men and women. It's like being a spy and undercover; believe me, there is much less tolerance out there than you could believe.

 

My family and friends all know I'm bi, but many assume I am gay, but they also know I don't like to make a big deal about it, and given my size and build many times I'm in social situations were gay people who don't know me assume that I am a Democrat and atheist or agnostic like them; and it gives me the opportunity to hear the unvarnished true feelings about Republicans and Christians, not to mention fat gays, older gays, overly effeminate gays, and a whole host of other people including lesbians. It's like being a spy and undercover; believe me, there is much less tolerance out there than you could believe.

Edited November 3, 2011 by PrivateTim

[methodwriter85]

I'm curious- what would your size and build have to do with what people perceive about your party affiliation?

Edited November 3, 2011 by methodwriter85

[PrivateTim]

I'm curious- what would your size and build have to do with what people perceive about your party affiliation?

 

It was a stylistic decision hun, work with me here

[Pete Bruno]

My family and friends all know I'm bi, but many assume I am gay, but they also know I don't like to make a big deal about it, and given my size and build many times I'm in social situations were gay people who don't know me assume that I am a Democrat and atheist or agnostic like them; and it gives me the opportunity to hear the unvarnished true feelings about Republicans and Christians, not to mention fat gays, older gays, overly effeminate gays, and a whole host of other people including lesbians. It's like being a spy and undercover; believe me, there is much less tolerance out there than you could believe.

 

Thank God, I hope you're not kidding me, because I though I was the only one who had this experience. And it has been my experience that those who claim to be the most tolerant and open minded are usually the opposite.

[Persinette]

Just for the sake of this discussion I would like to clear up one point. When I (and the author of Celluloid Closet) use the term "sissy" it was not ever meant to illustrate the degree of effeminacy of a character. In the context that it was used all gay men were sissies, they happened to feature the most flamboyant men they could find.

 

It's been a while since I picked up the book (or watched the documentary), but that really doesn't sound like what I remember.

 

The sissy was a fairly specific stock character, not a term used for any portrayal of a gay man.

[Pete Bruno]

It's been a while since I picked up the book (or watched the documentary), but that really doesn't sound like what I remember.

 

The sissy was a fairly specific stock character, not a term used for any portrayal of a gay man.

 

Then I would suggest that you do; or at least go to the link I provided in my original post to support the quote I used to support my argument.

[Conner]

I fail to see the point of this topic. Yes, gays are often portrayed as effeminate in film. It has sterotype written all over it. Your average straight male when impersonating a gay man always uses a lisp with the accompanying limp wrist. Nothing new here.

 

Are you making a distinction between effeminate and sissy? If you are, what is that distinction?

[Pete Bruno]

"it fits the stereotype that a still basically homophobic society wants perpetuated"

This is from my original post, I really don't know how much clearer I can state may point; and I also think that it also supports my discussion.

[Gene Splicer PHD]

Here's the beginning of the discussion of sissies in The Celluloid Closet. It contains Fierstein's comments, and the subject continues in part 2, should you be so inclined to continue watching. In this clip, it's clearly stated in the narration that the "sissy" was a stock character, in fact, the first type of portrayal of gays in the movies. That's how I remember the movie portraying the sissy, as a specific type of gay character (there is also the strong lesbian (Marlene Dietrich), the psycho, the hapless victim, etc). A non-sexualized, flamboyant, stupid character, who flounced around in flamboyant clothing with exaggerated mannerisms, to the derision of all around him, played up for a laugh.

 

I don't see that in Cameron and Mitchell. I'm sorry, I don't think they are equivalent examples. Are Cameron and Mitchell exaggerated examples of a modern gay couple? Sure. They're sitcom characters. They're expected to be exaggerations, just like the rest of the characters in the show.

 

Are they sissies, flouncing around in flamboyant clothes, unable to keep their hands off the gorgeous dresses and mincing up to straight men and hitting on them? No. The characters don't do those things. They are effeminate. They are not "sissies".

 

What they are, are stable. They own a home together. They're raising a child. They participate in family events. They work. They have fights. They have fun. They are also quite stupid and generally clueless, but that's because they're characters in a sitcom.

 

 

But I understand your wider point: Effeminate men should not portray the "stereotypical" gay man.

 

In your original post, let's flesh out your point of view a bit:

 

Yes, there are many gay men who are effeminate in the world, but is it necessary to make them the face of all homosexual men? In my opinion no, I find it much like the treatment of blacks in the old movies, shuffling and bugged eyed; it fits the stereotype that a still basically homophobic society wants perpetuated.

This here:

 

Yes, there are many gay men who are effeminate in the world, but is it necessary to make them the face of all homosexual men?

You imply that being effeminate is a negative trait; that it's an inappropriate way to portray gay men, that it's wrong to be effeminate. And that we shouldn't allow effeminacy to equivocate to gayness.

 

So all you effeminate men? Could you just tone it down a bit? Is it necessary to be so obvious? Why can't you just butch it up so we don't have to see that?

 

You imply that you don't have a problem with effeminate men as long as they're not near you or making you uncomfortable or representing you. Gay people are okay as long as they don't shove it in my face all the time.

 

I think that seeing effeminacy as a negative, especially when you're a member of a community that is supposed to be accepting of other members of the same community regardless of their mannerisms, shows the bigger problem: bigotry within the gay community itself.

 

Just as there is racism within the African American community between people of varying skin tones. Rather than calling out the wider portrayal of gay men on TV shows, I'd suggest we need to address internalized bigotry first.

 

And finally, going back to Cameron and Mitchell for a minute. Pretend that the producers of the show tone down the characters. That they take out the effeminate characteristics, leaving all the rest of it in place - the house, the kid, the jobs, the good relationships with the rest of the family. Two solidly male men, instead of two effeminate men.

 

Would that make them more suited to represent you as a member of the gay community?

Edited November 5, 2011 by Gene Splicer PHD

[Persinette]

Then I would suggest that you do; or at least go to the link I provided in my original post to support the quote I used to support my argument.

 

That's funny, because doing so has confirmed that not only does Vito Russo use it to refer to a specific archetype, but so does Richard Barrios in Screened Out. In fact, I do believe that it's a term widely used in queer analysis of early cinema. Who'd have thought it?

 

Here's the beginning of the discussion of sissies in The Celluloid Closet. It contains Fierstein's comments, and the subject continues in part 2, should you be so inclined to continue watching. In this clip, it's clearly stated in the narration that the "sissy" was a stock character, in fact, the first type of portrayal of gays in the movies. That's how I remember the movie portraying the sissy, as a specific type of gay character (there is also the strong lesbian (Marlene Dietrich), the psycho, the hapless victim, etc). A non-sexualized, flamboyant, stupid character, who flounced around in flamboyant clothing with exaggerated mannerisms, to the derision of all around him, played up for a laugh.

 

I don't know if it's your area of interest enough for this to be any use to you, but Richard Barrios' Screened Out is a fantastic book on the subject. I remember Andrea Weiss' Vampires and Violets as being very good as well (and specifically focused on lesbians).

[PrivateTim]

The choice of this topic is the result of a discussion about the hit show 'Modern Family', I personally dislike the show for many reasons, especially what I consider low and gratuitous humor; but what I find most offensive is the portrayal of the gay characters. Yes, there are many gay men who are effeminate in the world, but is it necessary to make them the face of all homosexual men? In my opinion no, I find it much like the treatment of blacks in the old movies, shuffling and bugged eyed; it fits the stereotype that a still basically homophobic society wants perpetuated.

 

Actually you are giving Hollywood television writers way too much credit. They don't write characters like the two guys in Modern Family the way they are to perpetuate a stereotype that "society" wants because by and large modern Hollywood is deeply sympathetic to gay rights and sensibilities. Leaving aside for a minute that Modern Family is a sit-com and they use exaggerated stereotypes for comedic reasons (in case you hadn't noticed, Ed O'Neil is an exaggerated stereotype of an older, white male and Sofia Vergara is a stereotype of Latin women), most TV writers just don't have the talent to create complex, three dimensional characters and real just isn't funny either.

 

They stereotype coaches on TV shows, every coach wears a shirt that says "Coach", isn't very bright and only cares about winning not the individual athlete, they'll do anything to win, even push an injured athlete to play (or they cheat to make the player eligible, or make him choose between being in the school play, etc). That isn't the real world of coaches I've been exposed to. Do those guys exist, sure, are they typical of coaches or even a sizable group, no.

 

They stereotype Christians, sorority girls and fraternity boys, fat people, skinny people, old people, athletes, drama club kids, and.... well create your own list.

 

There are very few shows I can think of on television that stay away from stereotypes or that portray accurate situations in life. Even the very best shows like Law & Order take poetic license to move the plot along.

 

I do get your point though because I remember hating Will & Grace, not because it was a bad show, but because all my gay friends loved the Jack character and were "enh" on the "normal" Will character.

 

And slightly off topic, but I am sure you've been to a gay pride parade and they positively seethe with stereotypes, outrageous drag queens, men in chains and leather, twinks is hot pants, bears in clothes bears just should not wear and so on. Stereotypes will go away when the GBLT community eschews them, not embraces them.

 

An interesting book I read in college was Amusing Ourselves to Death, by Neil Postman. It is a scathing look at televisions impact on culture and politics.

[clumber]

Actually you are giving Hollywood television writers way too much credit. They don't write characters like the two guys in Modern Family the way they are to perpetuate a stereotype that "society" wants because by and large modern Hollywood is deeply sympathetic to gay rights and sensibilities. Leaving aside for a minute that Modern Family is a sit-com and they use exaggerated stereotypes for comedic reasons (in case you hadn't noticed, Ed O'Neil is an exaggerated stereotype of an older, white male and Sofia Vergara is a stereotype of Latin women), most TV writers just don't have the talent to create complex, three dimensional characters and real just isn't funny either.

 

They stereotype coaches on TV shows, every coach wears a shirt that says "Coach", isn't very bright and only cares about winning not the individual athlete, they'll do anything to win, even push an injured athlete to play (or they cheat to make the player eligible, or make him choose between being in the school play, etc). That isn't the real world of coaches I've been exposed to. Do those guys exist, sure, are they typical of coaches or even a sizable group, no.

 

They stereotype Christians, sorority girls and fraternity boys, fat people, skinny people, old people, athletes, drama club kids, and.... well create your own list.

 

There are very few shows I can think of on television that stay away from stereotypes or that portray accurate situations in life. Even the very best shows like Law & Order take poetic license to move the plot along.

 

I do get your point though because I remember hating Will & Grace, not because it was a bad show, but because all my gay friends loved the Jack character and were "enh" on the "normal" Will character.

 

And slightly off topic, but I am sure you've been to a gay pride parade and they positively seethe with stereotypes, outrageous drag queens, men in chains and leather, twinks is hot pants, bears in clothes bears just should not wear and so on. Stereotypes will go away when the GBLT community eschews them, not embraces them.

 

An interesting book I read in college was Amusing Ourselves to Death, by Neil Postman. It is a scathing look at televisions impact on culture and politics.

 

 

Just because stereotypes are commonly used does not make them acceptable... also, there are a lot of shows which avoid those stereotypes.

 

As for the issue of effeminate or feminine gay characters - they are not inherently bad. To suggest they are is to suggest that effeminate or feminine men are a bad thing which is blatant sissyphobia and heavily connected to a number of sexist and hetero-centric problems.

 

(Oh, and the gay pride comment? Those are the people who actually fought for gay rights. The people who could pass as gay were too busy hiding.)

 

Martin

[W_L]

It's kind of funny and sad at the same time.

 

When a gay character is effeminate, I wonder what zany thing will happen next. When a gay character is normal and average, the character will have to sell himself to me (Yes, Hollywood man whores aside ).

 

It is for that reason that I prefer Science fiction and Fantasy character offerings of gay and bisexual characters.

 

This is not true though for Lesbian characters, who by in large seem to have captured a great median between sense and sensibility. While the "manly" lesbian appears from time to time, Lesbian characters have broken out in their roles. They can be mothers, cops, gun toting vigilantes, drug dealers, prostitutes, and everything under the sun.

 

What gay males need is a break out character, some one who can be be tough like a leather guy, sensitive to their feelings like an emo, fearful like most closet cases, and simply put human.

 

The reason why effeminate gay male characters are still the norm rather than the exception is that there is still no breakout character for us. Lesbians have had a feast of strong female characters. Heck, whenever I hear a girl at a Halloween party do the shrill "yell" in make believe armor, I still think of Xena and I was only like 10 when I caught the shows re-runs on as a kid (It was campy, but I loved it). Recently, new shows have female leads, who are openly lesbians without the issue of their sexuality bogging them down.

 

Can some one name a gay breakout character with the same effect?

[Pete Bruno]

Just because stereotypes are commonly used does not make them acceptable... also, there are a lot of shows which avoid those stereotypes.

 

As for the issue of effeminate or feminine gay characters - they are not inherently bad. To suggest they are is to suggest that effeminate or feminine men are a bad thing which is blatant sissyphobia and heavily connected to a number of sexist and hetero-centric problems.

 

(Oh, and the gay pride comment? Those are the people who actually fought for gay rights. The people who could pass as gay were too busy hiding.)

 

Martin

 

I think that you meant to type "could pass as straight were too busy hiding."

If that is the case you really don't know what you are talking about. It says that you are a 21 year old gay man from the UK, if that is correct you really do not have enough information to make such a comment; but fortunately I do. Being a gay 13 year old boy in 1969 or a 21 year old man for that matter was not easy, let alone safe, you forced to "butch it up" as much as possible or risk getting your ass beat on a daily basis. There was also little help available for gay men in small town America, almost everyone was homophobic from your teachers (priests and nuns included) to the police and even parents. Myself, I was lucky, my size and build along with the fact that I played sports deflected unwanted attention, but when I was a young and skinny 10 year old with a lisp I got plenty of unwanted attention in the form of bullying, so I did what I had to do. It wasn't hiding as you put, it was survival. Remember that the men who fought at the Stonewall in '69 had the protection of living in a huge city, or that scene would have ended much differently in small town America; and remember they were the ones "who actually fought" for gay rights, they were the brave men who risked everything so there could be gay pride parades. Finally, I envy your youth, and the fact that you are lucky enough to live in a time that gives you much more freedom and safety to be yourself than was ever afforded men my age and older, but please try and remember the next time you feel the need to accuse anyone of "hiding" you must remember the times and circumstances we lived in.

Edited November 6, 2011 by Pete Bruno

[Pete Bruno]

It's kind of funny and sad at the same time.

 

When a gay character is effeminate, I wonder what zany thing will happen next. When a gay character is normal and average, the character will have to sell himself to me (Yes, Hollywood man whores aside ).

 

It is for that reason that I prefer Science fiction and Fantasy character offerings of gay and bisexual characters.

 

This is not true though for Lesbian characters, who by in large seem to have captured a great median between sense and sensibility. While the "manly" lesbian appears from time to time, Lesbian characters have broken out in their roles. They can be mothers, cops, gun toting vigilantes, drug dealers, prostitutes, and everything under the sun.

 

What gay males need is a break out character, some one who can be be tough like a leather guy, sensitive to their feelings like an emo, fearful like most closet cases, and simply put human.

 

The reason why effeminate gay male characters are still the norm rather than the exception is that there is still no breakout character for us. Lesbians have had a feast of strong female characters. Heck, whenever I hear a girl at a Halloween party do the shrill "yell" in make believe armor, I still think of Xena and I was only like 10 when I caught the shows re-runs on as a kid (It was campy, but I loved it). Recently, new shows have female leads, who are openly lesbians without the issue of their sexuality bogging them down.

 

Can some one name a gay breakout character with the same effect?

 

You make some very good points, and I like the lesbian take; one explanation for it I think is that lesbians are not threatening to male sexuality in fact most of my 'straight' buddies love lesbian porn. A strong male character as you suggest would freak them out, and I think your point is an excellent. As to the reasons why there hasn't been one yet I'm not sure, there must be plenty of writers out there who can develop the character, but my money is on the executives not buying it, thinking it wouldn't sell to middle America. The only character I can think of that comes close is from "Tourchwood" named Captain Jack Harkness from the BBC.

[PrivateTim]

It wasn't hiding as you put, it was survival. Remember that the men who fought at the Stonewall in '69 had the protection of living in a huge city, or that scene would have ended much differently in small town America; and remember they were the ones "who actually fought" for gay rights, they were the brave men who risked everything so there could be gay pride parades. Finally, I envy your youth, and the fact that you are lucky enough to live in a time that gives you much more freedom and safety to be yourself than was ever afforded men my age and older, but please try and remember the next time you feel the need to accuse anyone of "hiding" you must remember the times and circumstances we lived in.

 

All very well stated.

 

I remember this topic from a while back:

 

https://www.gayauthors.org/forums/topic/27699-your-first-pride-day/page__p__246708__fromsearch__1#entry246708

 

Tipdin had an especially poignant post about how the early marches were civil rights marches and how he felt they had degenerated over the years.

 

It is off topic for the celluloid closet topic, but it a thread worth reading.

[JamesSavik]

Gay stereotypes are taking a beating these days.

 

If you want to find gay men, go to the gym. They are the power-lifters.

 

< whut are you lookin' at hippie!?

[Pete Bruno]

Gay stereotypes are taking a beating these days.

 

If you want to find gay men, go to the gym. They are the power-lifters.

 

< whut are you lookin' at hippie!?

 

I agree, and don't forget Home Depot and Lowes or your local hardware store!

[PrivateTim]

I agree, and don't forget Home Depot and Lowes or your local hardware store!

 

Oh hun, that is just the lesbians... the gay men are at Ikea.