I am currently sluggishly plugging away at my MEd at UMass, reveling as often as I can in the disenfranchisement of part-time student/full-time worker. Everything there is geared towards the full-time student. Offices are only open from 9 - 4 when, I don't know, I'M WORKING, and readings are email access-only, which is great, because I, as a non-degree student don't qualify for an email address. So, I've run into a variety of obstacles in my experience so far, but none larger than the obstacle I ran into in class last night.
I am taking College Student Development Theory, which might sound really boring to most people but is actually very interesting and the psychological theories we learn are much more widely applicable than just to college students. We are study everything in stages: first, the general theories of college-age development, then specifically and in this order: gender development, sexual identity development, racial development, cognitive development, moral development and faith and religious development.
The general theories were interesting enough, but fell short in that 99% of the studies were done on upper middle class white males from Princeton, and, for variation, sometimes upper middle class white males from Harvard. When it came time to discuss gender development I thought, "All right. Now we can get into the nitty gritty. We can talk about feminism, marginlization, sexism, skewed studies, identity intersections! It will be great and lively!" Well, I was wrong. Our potentially wonderful conversation about gender development was instead replaced by a discussion about popular media and Barbie and Ken. BARBIE and KEN and GI JOE, people. Do you really want to know when I last talked about Barbie and Ken and GI Joe in relationship to my gender identity formation?! Do you?!
Nine years ago in my first-year of college in Women's Studies 101. Have we not progressed in our conversation about gender beyond Barbie? Did we not have six massive theories in front of us to discuss in a more relevant way?
Yesterday we discussed sexual identity formation, reading articles that, for variation, studied upper middle class white GAY men from elite colleges. Really, it's all about diversity in sources. Being the hyper-intellectual class that we are, we spent most of the discussion talking about (sounds of trumpets blaring here):
Will and Grace.
Oh, and for flavor:
Queer Eye for the Straight Guy
After several assaults on Carsen's "character" I thought it was important to point out that Carsen is actually a real person who is not acting as himself but rather is actually HIMSELF. And it is TELEVISION, which is, generally speaking, very very loosely rooted in reality ANYWAY. The professor found it problematic that Jack from W&G is so effeminate, and "won't that be a problem for someone watching the show who will then think that all gay people act that way?" We started talking about perception and identity, and how maybe Jack was an important character for gay men who are silly and snarky and funny and effeminate, and maybe FUCK ALL to those who leap to conclusions about all those they meet who might be gay and act like Jack.
She ended the conversation by saying that she thought only gay actors should play gay characters, and that gay characters should only be played by gay actors. This is the same as blackface, she said. Then, to top it all off, she throws in some lovely comments about four of the five African American women in her study of five African American lesbians felt that gay marriage wasn't a civil right. No context, no follow up. She just felt that was important to put out there.
Needless to say I was fuming, and when I talked to Sarah later I told her all of the above. She said that she thought only cancer patients should play cancer patients on TV, and then paused....
"Not that being gay is like having cancer. That's not what I mean..."
And I replied, "Well, you know, it is a disease of the mind, so I'm not sure if it's fair for me to comment."