The Unsung Heroes of the Culture War
UPDATE: Lookie here! I got the Qoute of the Day! 
Television has always gotten a lot of credit (or, depending on your perspective, blame) when it comes to helping to drive change in the culture. Most often, this comes in the form of sitcoms. When the issue is race, we often think of All in the Family or The Jeffersons. When it’s gender equality, we think of shows like Mary Tyler Moore or Murphy Brown. And when it’s homosexuality, we think of shows like Ellen and Will & Grace. Even though the moves away from bigotry were already in progress, the shows still did a lot to impact public opinion, and expedite those advances, just by the nature of how widely they were viewed.
But in all of those cases, the message was very deliberate. That is, the shows were trying to make a point to address the social issues in question. While such shows, and such methods, continue to be effective, and in many cases earn rightly-deserved praise, there are unsung heroes in this ongoing fight for equality, especially but not exclusively for same-sex couples, and they live on basic cable. More specifically, they live on channels like HGTV, DIY, and Fine Living; to a lesser extent, they live on channels like Food Network and The Travel Channel. I see it on shows like House Hunters and Landscaper’s Challenge and What You Get For The Money. And from where I sit, they’re doing an even more effective job than the sitcoms I’ve listed.
Why do I say this? Because where the sitcoms are dealing with fictional characters in contrived situations, the shows on the basic cable networks are showing real people in real scenarios. More importantly, they’re showing them not in extraordinary circumstances, but in every day circumstances. And even more importantly than that, whether they’re dealing with single (especially female) parents, mixed race couples, unmarried couples, or same-sex couples, they simply ignore those scenarios and the social baggage that comes with them, and present a show about the issue in question, whether that’s landscaping or home improvement or travel or cooking or whatever. In other words, the same-sex or mixed-race couple is treated no differently than any other.
Presented in this context, you’ll see a same-sex couple taking bids to improve their home, but the fact that they’re a same-sex couple isn’t even mentioned. You’ll see a single mom working to make her home work better for her needs, and there may only be a passing mention that she’s a single mom. You’ll see an unwed couple taking landscaping bids. The list goes on and on. They’re presented as homeowners like any other, because for all intents and purposes, they are homeowners like any other. And that’s what’s so uniquely powerful about this sort of television. It acutely underscores the fact that these people are just people, like you or me or anyone else, and that although their circumstances or preferences may be different from yours or mine, they’re still just ordinary people.
One of the most powerful drivers of equality on any issue is the recognition that others are more like us than unlike us. These shows and these networks are presenting a myriad of people in exactly that way, and this, to me, does a tremendous amount of good in advancing those goals.
I think you’re spot on, with the exception of Ellen. That show tanked after becoming ‘all lesbian all the time’. I used to watch it but it became terrible after that. She then blamed the gay thing for it’s tank but that was overshadowed by the fact Will & Grace just became popular. Oh, back to the point: I think you’re spot on, so long as it’s not shoved in the public’s collective face.
You’re right about Ellen post-outing. But in the lead-up to the outing episode, and in that episode itself, it did quite well. (And recall that Ellen came out publicly before she did so on the show.)
[...] The folks over at Lean Left have a well constructed post on the cultural battlefield where the forces of tolerance can gain the most traction. Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]
I’ve always said that if you want to change the world, the way to do it is not through politics but through the arts (and yes, like it or not, sitcoms are a form of “art.”) The creative process, be it music, books, television, films, etc., can change people’s perspective in a way that no politician or political activism can.
Which is what I’m going to get busy doing.
Are you suggesting that same sex couples are equal to married couples are equal to two people living together are equal to single-parenthood?
Other things equal is there a preferred model to raise children?
It is refreshing to see a liberal admit that there is a culture war going on. Many liberals have derided conservatives for saying that. Hopefully moral, decent people will prevail over the “anything goes” leftists.
It is also unusual for a liberal to admit to the propaganda that the leftists spew.
recall that Ellen came out publicly before she did so on the show
Well, it was by a matter of a few weeks. She resisted “coming out”, even though it was known she was a lesbian and there was a lot of public discussion about it, for a long time – and who can blame her? As the first openly gay star of her own major TV show (named after her!), she was just begging to become the Salman Rushdie of the Ameritaliban. And there was indeed backlash, in part contributing to her show’s cancellation the following year. They couldn’t not deal with it on the show because the screamers wouldn’t let them not deal with it in real life. She tried to keep it low-key long past the point that it could be a non-issue, and was forced to make her life public – by the people who then condemned her for doing so.
But at any rate, I think you post makes a fascinating point. You’re certainly right that it’s the everyday normalcy of living with marginalized groups that finally wears away prejudice (look at the steadily declining opposition to gay marriage in Massachusets in just 3 years – every one of the 4 legislative votes to authorize a Hate Amendment referendum has failed by a larger margin). I hadn’t considered the role of reality TV in bringing that normalcy to larger numbers of living rooms. It could be for gays and independent women what the evening news was to the Vietnam War – evidence that can’t be ignored, and finally tips the balance of public perception.
So, I guess that makes the “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” cast the new Walter Cronkite!
>in part contributing to her show’s
>cancellation the following year
The show’s ratings were spiraling downward even before the outing and was being looked out for cancellation. So I don’t think her coming out really affected the show’s lifespan one way or the other.
KTK and Stormy:
I had forgotten those aspects of the Ellen scenario. Thanks for refreshing my memory.
And I’m not sure Queer Eye counts, given that it doesn’t exactly present its homosexuals as “normal people just like anyone else.” Indeed, the show thrives on reinforcing homosexual stereotypes. That said, the fact that there could even be such a show, much less a hit show, speaks volumes about how far we’ve come.
Fred:
Well, the culture war is essentially a one-sided war, in which progress marches on, but social conservatives fight it, kicking and screaming every step of the way.
Pretty much every advancement in our nation’s modern history, from women’s suffrage to desegregation to the civil rights movement and beyond, has been vehemently opposed by the nation’s social conservatives. (And yes, before you tiringly point it out, there was a time when those social conservatives were Democrats — not liberals, but Democrats — and when the Democratic party squeezed them out, the GOP welcomed them with open arms.)
This tendency is actually helpful, in some ways. When you’re unsure about a given issue, whether it’s race relations or equal rights for women, or marriage equality or immigration, just look at what side the social conservatives are on, and it’s a fair bet that history will judge that side to be the wrong one.
Martin:
I’m not judging those family arrangements against one another with respect to parenting. Indeed, only a small percentage of the “non-traditional” families presented on these shows even have children (or, if they do, they’re often not shown). I’m talking about the individuals themselves. But with respect to what’s “good” for raising a child, I’d place a single, loving parent ahead of an unhappily married couple, and I’d place two loving parents (irrespective of gender or marital status) ahead of that. I don’t see why being raised by one’s biological parents is necessarily the best arrangement. That will vary greatly with the circumstances.
[...] Tom nails it. The impact of TeeVee on culture is strong. [...]
Mixed feelings here. I want to agree, but…
More often than not, these depictions are still restricted along class lines, which is really the umbrella under which most other “isms” essentially fall.
The “everyday” situations are still usually glorified forms of consumer-ism.
I think, more deeply, the implication isn’t so much of “we will accept gays like we accept straights” as much as it is “we may accept gays when they act like straights.”
I also don’t know what is so “everyday” about hiring an entire design team to re-model your home. It’s “everyday” in the sense that Rachel Ray is “everyday” because, you know, she’s just making something to eat… in a kitchen the size of your whole apartment and with equipment that is expensive enough that she might have bought it from Manny Ramirez on Ebay (props to anyone who gets that joke).
Carefully selected character types, placed into pre-fabricated, arranged and choreographed situations. Not much “reality” or “everyday” in that. All these shows ARE sit-coms, or sit-drams, or whatever, the “acting” has just been outsourced to amateurs to increase the profit margin. Sometimes the characters happen to be gay, or interracial or whatever. They’re on niche networks, so it works.
I wish I could be more enthusiastic about a camera crew filming two lesbians pick out lamps (paid for by the show’s budget), I really do. But, I can’t. Just narrowed-demographic commodity fetishism if you ask me.
Apropos of not much, in an insomnia-induced late night TV session, I watched “The Boys in the Band” last night. It is certainly the polar opposite of what tgirsch is describing above. The thing that kept running through my mind was: this film was released in 1970! I vaguely recall it was was very controversial when it was released. If you ever have a chance to watch it, do so (except for Fred of course).
(except for Fred of course).
Thanks for the warning. I try not to pollute my mind with perversion.
Fred, I can hardly imagine an adult worrying about “polluting his or her mind” by viewing a film. Having said that, I am not surprised you would make such a comment.
Garbage in, garbage out. I’m not at all surprised that you don’t mind putting garbage in you brain.
Fred, you really are a tool. Most people understand that the expression “garbage in, garbage out” refers to the fact that the output of a computer program is, at best, only as good as the input. The fact that you use this expression to describe yourself leads me to believe that you attribute to yourself the same lack of reasoning and perception that limits a computer program. Again, not something I would be proud of. An educated, intelligent, thinking adult should be able to process a variety of inputs and not be adversely affected by the occasional “bad” input.
It also strikes me as quite unchristian of you to categorize a story about fellow human beings as garbage and perversion. After all, you only hate the sin, not the sinner, remember?
“It also strikes me as quite unchristian of you to categorize a story about fellow human beings as garbage and perversion.”
It must have struck you in the head. The idea that just because a story is about fellow human beings that it can’t be garbage is strange logic. Do you believe that all stories are good? You had better put on a helmet before anything else strikes you.
BTW, the statement garbage in, garbage out is not confined to computers.
Fred: “I try not to pollute my mind with perversion.”
That’s hilarious. The infantilism notwithstanding, didn’t you go to seminary? Heck, don’t you read the Old Testament? No, no, I mustn’t see some gays depicted as people (This is what I’m assuming is in the work; I’ve not seen it.), but histories of genocide perpetrated in the name of magic sky beingsl are A-OK!
Fred, I agree that the garbage in/out statement need not be confined to computers. I was simply pointing out how it is a rather unflattering description of an unimpaired adult. I suppose I agree that it could be used to describe your thought process.
As for the story being garbage, my point was not that a story about people can not be garbage, but rather that it is a failing that you would prejudge the story to be so, simply because the characters in the story are gay. This is close-mindedness and prejudice on a grand scale. I imagine you would agree that Hitler was an evil, immoral person, perhaps you would even grant that he was more evil and immoral than the typical gay person (although I’m not sure about that). Would you automatically assume a film about Hitler was garbage because he was immoral? I doubt it. The fact that you automatically categorize a film about gay people as perversion and garbage – that is what strikes me as unchristian. I hope that clears it up for you.
(Will you go with the standard liar, strange person, or make things up retort to Dan M? My money is on strange person.)
Oh! Can I get in on this pool? I’m betting on “make things up”, along with some mumbo-jumbo about how the storm (or was it wind? Whatever.) god of the OT magically turned into the monotheists’ god two thousand years after it was written about.
[...] Quote of the Day When you’re unsure about a given issue, whether it’s race relations or equal rights for women, or marriage equality or immigration, just look at what side the social conservatives are on, and it’s a fair bet that history will judge that side to be the wrong one. — tgirsch [...]
“…immigration, just look at what side the social conservatives are on…”
That’s a nice trick that you liberals like to play. You leave out the word “illegal” before “immigration” and you try to make it seem as though conservatives are opposed to all immigration. That is a flat out lie. However, you think that if you repeat it often enough people will think your lie is truth. Of course, I wouldn’t expect anything less (or more) from such a dishonest group of people.
Yeah, just like the trick you guys play when you talk about illegal immigrants stealing your jobs.
You know, the one where you pretend that you want to deliver your own Chinese Food…
“You know, the one where you pretend that you want to deliver your own Chinese Food…”
Good one. You libs are good at making up thing that no one has said. Typical.
Hey, credit that one to Greg Giraldo. He’s very funny, but guys like you don’t understand humor, so here it is in bland, simple terms.
You are disingenuous too, because you say that the (illegal) immigrants are taking your jobs (ones that may theoretically be desirable), but they are not taking “your” jobs. They are taking the shit jobs that Americans won’t do, certainly not for the wages the employers want to pay.
They are doing jobs like delivering Chinese food for fifty cents per hour. Do you want to do that job? No. That’s the joke.
“Who else is going to peddle their bicycle against traffic on the highway to bring me a panini sandwich for lunch?” -Patrice O’Neal (another one of those so-called comedians).
Now, Fred, do you or your family aspire to do hard manual labor for less than minimum wage? If not, then they are not taking your jobs.
Did I really just have to explain that joke?
That was brutal…
Fred:
I guess I didn’t realize George W. Bush was a “liberal.” And in case you haven’t been paying attention, immigration reform involves a lot more than just illegal immigration.
For the record, I don’t support illegal immigration; I merely differ with most conservatives on what ought to be done about it. Going after the illegal immigrants is considerably less productive than going after the unscrupulous businesses who attract and hire them. You want people stop coming here illegally? Cut off their incentive for doing so.
Digg:
They are taking the shit jobs that Americans won’t do, certainly not for the wages the employers want to pay.
And that’s the kicker, right there. It’s not that Americans don’t want to pick lettuce. It’s that Americans don’t want to pick lettuce for $3 an hour.
“Going after the illegal immigrants is considerably less productive than going after the unscrupulous businesses who attract and hire them. You want people stop coming here illegally? Cut off their incentive for doing so.”
I agree with you. Therefore, you may want to rethink your position.
Fred says: “Thanks for the warning. I try not to pollute my mind with perversion.”
So why do you bother hanging out at places like Lean Left? By the above claim, you should have a little fortress in the woods somewhere, without TV service or Internet or radio or newspapers — just your safe little copy of the KJV, and maybe some Veggie Tales tapes. Then you’d be completely safe from the external world’s perversions. And subsisting takes a lot of work, so you wouldn’t even have to worry about that “idle hands” clause!
Whaddya think? Looks like possibly the best solution for your concerns. No gays, no temptations, no Libruls… it’d be great!