Advertisement

Sleeping with the Enemy: The Male Gaze and Same-Sex Relationships on Broadcast Network Television

Chapter
Part of the Comparative Feminist Studies book series (CFS)

Abstract

With 1975’s “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema,” Laura Mulvey forced us to acknowledge that our “fascination with film” hinges on seeing women through a male gaze. But in recent years, the concept has been derided as irrelevant with today’s fragmented intellectual and media landscape that favors intersectionality. Cory Albertson redeploys Mulvey’s theoretical acumen to analyze how the male gaze still functions as a mechanism to illuminate patriarchal influence, but within societal representations (and acceptability of) lesbian, bisexual, and queer relationships. Albertson situates his analysis around a 2011 Gallup poll which marked the first year a majority of the American public “favored” same-sex marriage—a nine-point (and largest ever year to year) increase from 2010. The previous year’s GLAAD “Where We Are on TV” report found the 2010–2011 television season’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Queer (LGBQ) characters had their highest percentage in the report’s then-15-year history. This season saw Glee and The Good Wife hit their ratings zenith while stalwarts like Grey’s Anatomy hit new, important LGBQ milestones. Using these shows, Albertson demonstrates how the male gaze, as a feminist methodology (and, by extension, feminism as an activist ideology) maintains its relevance through its mobilization in/by the aesthetics, sexual practices, and gender acceptability of LGBQ characters. He finds the shows create “normal” same-sex relationships remarkably similar to the heteronormative ideal. And the central component of that normalcy hinges on being bound by the male gaze where lesbian, bisexual, and queer characters are sexualized in service of heterosexual men’s pleasure.

References

  1. Albertson, Cory. 2018. A Perfect Union? Television and the Winning of Same-Sex Marriage. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Bordo, Susan. 2015. It’s Not the Same for Women. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Its-Not-the-Same-for-Women/234535?cid=cp20.
  3. Ciasullo, Ann M. 2001. Making Her (In)visible: Cultural Representations of Lesbianism and the Lesbian Body in the 1990s. Feminist Studies 27: 577–609.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3178806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Doane, Mary A. 1980. Misrecognition and Identity. Cine-Tracts 11: 25–32.Google Scholar
  5. Duggan, Lisa. 2002. The New Homonormativity: The Sexual Politics of Neoliberalism. In Materializing Democracy: Toward a Revitalized Cultural Politics, ed. Russ Castronovo and Dana D. Nelson, 175–194. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Farr, Daniel, and Nathalie Degroult. 2008. Understand the Queer World of the L-esbian Body: Using Queer as Folk and The L Word to Address the Construction of the Lesbian Body. Journal of Lesbian Studies 12: 423–434.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10894160802278580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fisher, Deborah A., Douglas L. Hill, Joel W. Grube, and Enid Gruber. 2007. Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Content on Television. Journal of Homosexuality 52: 167–188.  https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v52n03_08.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gallup. 2011. For First Time, Majority of Americans Favor Legal Gay Marriage. Gallup.com. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/first-time-majority-americans-favor-legal-gay-marriage.aspx.
  9. Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. 2011. Where We Are on TV 2010–2011 Season [Electronic Version]. Retrieved from http://www.glaad.org/publications/tvreport10.
  10. Gledhill, Christine, and Vicky Ball. 2013. Genre and Gender: The Case of Soap Opera. In Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices, ed. Stuart Hall, Jessica Evans, and Sean Nixon. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Hall, Stuart. 1996. Encoding/Decoding in Media Studies: A Reader. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Hantzis, Darlene M., and Valerie Lehr. 1994. Whose Desire? Lesbian (Non)sexuality and Television’s Perpetuation of Hetero/sexism. In Queer Words, Queer Images, ed. R. Jeffrey Ringer, 107–121. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Jenks, Chris. 1995. Visual Culture. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Koch, Gertrude. 1985. Ex-Changing the Gaze: Revisioning Feminist Film Theory. New German Critique 34: 139–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lipman-Blumen, Jean. 1984. Gender Roles and Power. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  16. Manlove, Clifford T. 2007. Visual “Drive” and Cinematic Narrative: Reading Gaze Theory in Lacan, Hitchcock, and Mulvey. Cinema Journal 46 (3): 83–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Marcus, Sharon. 2015. A Richer, Stranger Essay. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/A-Richer-Stranger-Essay/234538?cid=cp20
  18. Mirzoeff, Nicholas. 2011. The Right to Look: A Counterhistory of Visuality. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Moritz, Marguerite J. 1994. Old Strategies for New Texts: How American Television Is Creating and Treating Lesbian Characters. In Queer Words, Queer Images, ed. R. Jeffrey Ringer, 122–142. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Mulvey, Laura. 1975. Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema. Screen 16: 6–18.  https://doi.org/10.1093/screen/16.3.6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. ———. 1989. Visual and Other Pleasures. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nosek, Brian A., Mahzarin R. Banaji, and Anthony G. Greenwald. 2002. Harvesting Implicit Group Attitudes and Beliefs from a Demonstration Web Site. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 6 (1): 101–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Puar, Jasbir K. 2007. Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationlism in Queer Times. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Raley, Amber B., and Jennifer Lucas. 2006. Stereotype or Success? Prime-Time Television’s Portrayals of Gay Male, Lesbian, and Bisexual Characters. Journal of Homosexuality 51: 19–38.  https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v51n02_02.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rich, Adrienne. 1980. Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence. Signs 5: 631–660.  https://doi.org/10.1086/493756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rose, Gillian. 2012. Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to the Interpretation of Visual Methods. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Seidman, Steven. 2002. Beyond the Closet: The Transformation of Gay and Lesbian Life. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Silverman, Kaja. 1980. Masochism and Subjectivity. Framework 12: 2–9.Google Scholar
  29. Studlar, Gaylyn. 1984. Masochism and the Perverse Pleasures of the Cinema. Quarterly Review of Film Studies 9: 267–282.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10509208409361219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Smith CollegeNorthamptonUSA

Personalised recommendations