LGBTQ+ Media & Backlash
PREFACE:
I wrote this essay a few months ago but never published it. On the SaintHoax instagram page, I saw in the comments much lamentation over corporations dropping their LGBTQ+ brandings and products that were created in the spirit of “solidarity” and “representation". But personally I started to question if it was even a good idea in the first place given the immense backlash that was happening!
________________________________________________________________________
Sometimes I wonder if the LGBTQ+ movement has made somewhat of a mistake to align themselves so prominently with marketing corporations and advertising.
Most people of all political persuasions regard the field of marketing as something that manipulates the senses in order to sell to you. In agreeing to collaborate with marketing conglomerates, LGBTQ+ movements have conflated themselves with the art of manipulation in the minds of the general public (and complicit in the capitalism they proclaim to hate).
Have activists been short-sighted to associate themselves with something that is generally mistrusted and regarded as deceitful for short-term "visibility"?
The general consensus of people whom mistrust LGBTQ+ activist movements is that they feel something is being pushed on them, with insinuations of social engineering that arguably delve into the realms of conspiracy. You only have to scroll through comments left on youtube videos and online newspapers which are addressing LGBTQ+ issues, to see the overwhelming perception of LGBTQ+ as propaganda and even indoctrination. One could argue that this is merely the opinion of people whom spend too much time online, but the fact that this has turned into legislative action such as the recent DRAG BANS (for under 18s) in some states shows that burgeoning backlash could be rather serious.
Some of such conservatives are not in fact anti-gay or anti-trans, and applaud Youtubers like Blaire White, a trans conservative, for what they see as "keeping it real" by refusing to adhere to PC rhetoric and its tendency to shut down conversation. It is not homosexuality or transgenderism that this portion of society oppose, but the pushing of it and the issue of what's appropriate for children, which is significantly different to out-and-out evangelical phobes whom deem homosexuality and transgenderism itself as abhorrent and condemnable, let alone the tactics it's of its activists.
The reaction of suspicion and mistrust is understandable, when in conjunction with the dangerous repercussions of merely questioning, is every Hollywood celebrity appearing to express allyship to the extent that it feels disingenuous and insincere; absent-minded lip service.
By no means am I saying LGBTQ+ individuals should never accept any jobs in TV commercials etc. What I question is the sheer level to which, and the way in which LGBTQ+, is currently appearing in the media. In the case of celebrities, overexposure almost always leads to either apathy and fatigue, or downright public disdain! The Box Office Poison phenomena: the dreaded curse of many an Old Hollywood star.
Great PR is extremely important for any celebrity winning public approval, and I’m surprised queer activists have not considered this.
Morning news shows love to have nonbinary individuals whose ideas and manner they predict will be confusing for viewers, sat next to a conservative pundit whom appears more digestible, more respectable, and relatable to conventional thinking and already established ideas, making the non-binary individual and all they stand for seem rather absurd — all for ratings. (Though in recent times we have seen more nuanced pundits such as Blaire White making appearances).
I certainly don’t think it’s all negative however, even many heterosexual men have felt inspired to loosen the shackles of rigid masculinity and explore their gender and sexuality, but at this point of a highly polarised political landscape — drag bans, a spike in conservatism, inflamed culture and backlash — I wonder if it is time for a less divisive, less inflammatory, and more strategic approach to be considered.
Combined with the lecturing tone leftist activists tend to adopt, lumping people with genuine questions in with those whom do espouse racist, transphobic, classist sentiments etc. has not only inspired disdain, but downright opposition from some people, in attitude and politics.
Aside from the genuinely vitriolic anti-gay anti-trans, there are political moderates, whom I would say are the majority. I would assess that the politically moderate whom aren’t anti-gay or anti-trans have started to sway in conservative favour, since they see the left as a claustrophobic arena devoid of any freedom to express oneself unless you conform to their ideological worldview, or else face online attack. Being attacked by rabid keyboard warriors is frankly unappealing to most people.
No matter what leftists say about "PC gone mad rhetoric" being exaggeration and hyperbole, I do feel there has been an increased suppression of speech due to political correctness. As someone who loves pondering philosophically, alarm bells go off in my head at every turn whilst I am writing, at things which could be construed (or misconstrued) as offensive, when I merely want to explore. Engaging with uncomfortable ideas is an essential part of philosophising and critically thinking. Open discussion can also be uncomfortable — but it is a necessary forum for the progression of ideas and understanding. When this possibility for progressing understanding gets lumped in and unfairly tarnished with the brush of bigotry, "hate-speech", and discrimination, it threatens to shut down the art of thinking itself. We are in grave danger of people no longer being able to think critically, or at least fear thinking critically.
And when being lectured to or stifled, it's many people's nature that they want to rebel. Who aside from a masochist wants to live suppressed or in constant fear of being vindicated?
Even if you as a leftist do think it’s all hyperbole, the evidence is clear that people have felt stifled in speech, and therefore fled to the other side -- drag bans in America; and the TERF movement being comprised of people whom are originally left-wing feminists, opposing transgender ideology in the same manner right-wingers do. The left would be wise to re-strategise and re-think their techniques.
The lecturing, vindicating tone is off-putting and alienating, even for people whom have traditionally identified as left-wing.
(Years ago, it was the other way around! The youth of the 1950s tired of being lectured to by their moralistic, do-gooder, Christian parents, leading into the 1960s sexual revolution and hippy era of free love. Also in part due to the birth control pill).
- VISIBILITY -
Media moguls are also playing a dangerous game, agitating an already inflamed culture war. Though those media moguls whom are conservative may think they are out of the firing line, such a toxic, hotbed environment is not good for either side as it drains the energy of human morale.
The visibility queers are accruing for themselves is not only that of other queers, and it’s true many heterosexual identifying "allies" (whom may also be feeling more fluid and open about their own sexuality) but the attitude of the conservative, such as orthodox Christian, Islamic, and also non-religious but nevertheless traditionally minded gazes.
Will the pendulum swing to the right so far the leftism and the marginalised are swung back into oppression?
- PROVOCATION -
What does Sam Smith and Kim Petras’ provocation, using imagery that deliberately evokes the "satanic", do to progress LGBTQ+ rights and change the opinion of the conservative? What is the Sam Smith and Kim Petras shtick actually doing other than poking the hornet's nest? These stunts have been done many times before, and only got us so far — surely it is time for something other than mere provocation?
Madonna is probably the premier figure that comes to mind in terms of provocation: pushing boundaries on how a woman who sexually expresses herself openly is viewed by juxtaposing power, autonomy and business acumen with her sexual boundary pushing, as well as supporting gay rights, and playing with religious motifs (having been raised a Catholic, which gives her some skin in the game, and her name is Madonna “Mother of God” after all). At the time it was a powerful provocation that was extremely effective in help reduce the dichotomy of women as only virgin or whore, and she had the obsession with millions of young girls on her side.
Modern stars doing this shtick has a deathly feel, and the constant flouting of religious symbols by juxtaposing it with the flaunting of body in flagrant sexual displays seems to have made people more conservative and emboldened against LGBTQ+ people. Especially when Christianity is rather marginal and lax, making some feel like it is an easy target. (Though we are seeing a surprising revival of Christianity by people whom feel it is the loss of tradition and disrupted roles of man and woman that have led to sexual confusion).
Were there not such an emphasis on media visibility, would trans people have in fact been left alone on their gender transition journeys?
- HOLLYWOOD & ALLYSHIP -
Even I myself as a gender bender feel fatigued by hearing every Hollywood star talk of their allyship. For me it starts to feel disingenuous, even if the intentions are noble.
Modern shows are marred with heavy-handed political messages, particularly Ryan Murphy’s productions. It feels contrived, on-the-nose, and bashing you over the head. As a "PoC", I began to tire of racial issues being mentioned in every episode in Murphy’s Hollywood. There was no ambiguity to the extent that I found this crude and offensive in its cynical pandering. Not every PoC talks daily . It felt revisionist, phoney and pandering. Even though racial issues effect me, I still have standards for great art and historical accuracy. PoC and queers should not accept this patronising second-rate crap for one second! Like being happy for breadcrumbs. Demand excellence!
I do fear the LGBTQ+ movement has painted itself into a corner. If a movie like Billy Elliot, with a scene like Billy giving his gay friend a kiss to comfort him was produced today, because of the context of our times where the media is saturated in LGBTQ-issues, people would see it as propagandistic — a political agenda — that’s being pushed on them, rather than an authentic and poignant portrait of being gay in the working class North. The obsession with politics has poisoned many people’s ability to see art.
- CONCLUSION -
I feel there needs to be a new, more considered and careful approach in navigating LGBTQ+ issues. LGBTQ+ figures have given themselves over to the exploitation of media executives whom only seek the sensationalistic and inflammatory aspects of it for views and financial gain, further distorting a message that — in its contradictory concept that gender does not exist yet purported support for TRANSgender people to whom gender is extremely important — is already confused and incoherent.
On the positive, there does seem to be a sympathetic ear and even a liberation of heterosexual men whom have felt shackled by the stringent, rigid expectations of traditional masculinity and aspire to a more experiment.
But with the tactics demonstrated by leftist activists and public figures currently, there seems to be more backlash, lethargy and apathy than empathy inspired. In the face of LGBTQ+ politics appearing, many otherwise sympathetic and moderate people have become more conservative.
I definitely think there are positives to the increase of queer visibility, but I think it is time to be more strategic. Being mindful of the burgeoning force of other marginalised identities whom feel sidelined and attacked, identifying queers as the cause as they rumble with resentment underground, as well as trivialising religious groups and more traditional people.