Guest Critic Laura McMaster on Oprah and Sexual Bullying

May 11th, 2009 · 9 Comments

oprah

Last week, my friend Laura McMaster sent me an e-mail about an episode of Oprah that dealt with the topic of sexual bullying. Among other guests, the show featured an expert named Dr. Dorothy Espelage. This quote comes from Oprah’s website:

Sexual bullying is really a form of sexual harassment, Dr. Espelage says. “Sexual harassment is calling others these names of ‘gay’ and ‘fag,’ and when you do that, directed to boys, it’s the most hurtful thing you can do to attack their masculinity,” she says. “When you call a girl a ‘whore,’ a ‘lesbian,’ it serves the same purpose.”

Um… wow. That’s a loaded statement. After the jump, and with permission, I’ll post Laura’s e-mail to me on this attitude and Oprah’s treatment of the subject in general. Laura sensed a lot of biases in the episode, and I’d love to hear your thoughts on what she brings up.

E-mail from Laura McMaster, received May 7, 2009

Hey Mark,

I was watching Oprah today, and the topic was sexual bullying. She interviewed mothers who had recently lost their school-aged sons to suicide following taunts of being gay, or faggy, or any of a host of other slurs which accused the boys of being less than masculine. At least, that was the opinion of the featured psychologist, Dr. Dorothy Espelage. I could not help but focus on the premise of the expert’s opinions and Oprah’s passive acceptance of the premise.

In this moment in our culture, it would seem that America is at a crucial stage in which homosexuality is moving closer and closer to a legitimate place in the romantic and family-building imagination of mainstream society. If this is truly the case, why is it acceptable to underscore these bullies’ insults by suggesting that their intent of emasculation is effective?

By taking this angle, health professionals and media moguls add fuel to the fire of homophobia by nullifying a young gay person’s right to celebrate who he or she might truly be. Having lost these boys to suicide, we will never know what their sexual orientation or adult lives would have finally been, but I think examining the language with which we are addressing such tension-filled incidents might create a better-rounded discussion for young children struggling with this very issue.

Dr. Espelage stated that children are using sexual slurs because they are being exposed to sexualized material at a younger and younger age. I disagree. I think that queer and questioning children are in the very difficult position of defending themselves against bullies who sense that American culture has changed. Bullies attack what frightens them, and at this moment, some bullies are afraid tha the adult world is making space for a new kind of love, a new kind of marriage, and a new kind of family. In my opinion, the bullying of children for a life they do not yet lead is actually a sign of true change in the culture these children will inherit.

It is no surprise that young people are hearing the vocabulary having to do with the battles for LGBT equality and misusing the snippets to which they are exposed in a variety of mediums. However, it is not acceptable to take this misuse of information and use it to further propel the term “gay” as an emasculating insult.

The real mission with young people is to usher them into a future in which their orientations and proclivities and curiosities are treated with respect. Despite the good intentions of the episode, it perpetuated Americans’ puritanical and sensationalized view of sex coupled with homophobia.

Rather than imply that homosexuality is degrading when named aloud, we have to help pre-teens understand that any type of orientation between cosenting adults is fine to explore and understand. There is no sexual insult which should be given the power to grow and fester in the way it obviously did for the children who tragically took their own live. The vocabulary of sexual orientation is not a weapon for embarrasment, hatred, and fear.

—I agree, Laura. Being called gay doesn’t have to be insulting. We can teach ourselves to remove the word’s power.

Tags: Television

9 responses so far ↓

1 Michael // May 11, 2009 at 3:11 pm

I agree–although without having seen the episode, I can’t contextualize–that the unvoiced assumptions seem to be that a) queer is less than masculine, and b) that’s a huge deal. It would have been helpful if the discussion had unpacked these.

As for the connection of these events to the new national discussion on gay marriage and gay equality, two thoughts from an older generation: 1. Queer is the new sissy–these insults were there a long time before Iowa went for gay marriage. Trust me. It’s possible that these particular bullying events may have been influenced by parental discussion of current controversies–but it’s not necessarily anything new, and I’m not sure it’s more intense than in the past. This weekend I mourned two adult gay men (who if alive would now be in their fifties) who killed themselves because of their sexuality. 2) The current controversies over gay marriage have a positive side–might it not be argued that the growing legitimation of gay lives could arm these bullied kids with better ego-armor? Might they not be hearing good things about gays as well as bad from their parents?

In short, I think the influence of contemporary gay rights struggles on these cases is hard to determine,

As far as the contemporary moment goes, as I see it, it’s actually a positive thing that there’s outrage and large discussion about these suicides and questioning, however inadequate, about the causes–there was a time when there would have been less questioning.
2 Deanna // May 11, 2009 at 3:49 pm

I actually saw that episode of “Oprah.” The young teen they were interviewing was shown meeting with a counselor who asked him what words his taunters used that made him the angriest. “Fag,” he replied. I kept waiting for the moment when she said something, ANYTHING, about the fact that being gay is OK, and not an insult. But it never happened. She just taught him to yell at his bullies the way he hollers for his dog to get down off the counter. *sigh*
3 Laura Mc. // May 11, 2009 at 4:55 pm

Thank you, Deanna! I wasn’t even going to get into the direction of the rest of the episode.. but that segment bothered me too.

That young man was so obviously tormented and unhappy, and the other Psychologist recommended adding fuel to the fire of dicord rather than helping him develop any sort of internalized self-confidence.
4 katy // May 11, 2009 at 5:11 pm

Not having seen the show either, I’m a little confused. Gay shouldn’t be an insult, but that doesn’t mean that it’s not being *used* as one, right? Was Oprah’s expert suggesting that damaging the masculinity of little boys was the Big Problem here?

There was a recent NYTime blog post by Judith Warner, who I usually think makes sense, but really came up with some baffling statements on this topic. She essentially seemed to be arguing that homophobic slurs weren’t really homophobic slurs.

http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/who-are-you-calling-gay/

She argued that a little boy being called “gay” as an insult wasn’t really about being antigay, it was about a policing of a version of masculinity. Here was her big headscratcher of a thesis:

“Being called a ‘fag,’ you see, actually has almost nothing to do with being gay. It’s really about showing any perceived weakness or femininity – by being emotional, seeming incompetent, caring too much about clothing, liking to dance or even having an interest in literature.”

Warner thinks that a too-rigid understanding of masculinity is the Big Problem. And hell, maybe it is, but dude, that doesn’t mean that getting called “fag” has nothing to do with being gay. I can’t even wrap my head around the logic of that.

Warner, as well as many media outlets that covered the story, also made it clear that the 11-year old from Massachusetts who committed suicide wasn’t “really” gay. Two thoughts about that: (A) how the hell does anybody know with any certainty whether a dead 11-year old was or wasn’t gay? and (B) is it the sexuality of the target that should define it as antigay bullying? Because surely antigay bullying is a kind of intimidation and oppression of gay kids even when it doesn’t directly target them?

I agree with Michael that I’m skeptical of the argument that there’s been any increase in antigay bullying recently. What *does* seem to be different is a media approach to covering it. Now we have a particular narrative frame for the Bully Story, which presses people’s buttons and gets the parents all worked up. It does seem to be, as Michael says, a pretty inadequate way to talk about homophobia.
5 katy // May 11, 2009 at 5:14 pm

Laura, I think I understand a little better by the additional comments. Sounds like nobody ever even said explicitly that the bullies were wrong to equate gayness with an insult … booooo.
6 Laura Mc. // May 11, 2009 at 5:31 pm

Right, and in addition to that, I wanted to explore how the bullying incidents could be related to the culture as it stands here and now.

Insults are normally insulting because of the taboos and shames of the day, and as an adult who participates in a world which influences young people, I really rail at the idea that homophobia will flourish “on my watch.” I don’t like this way of thinking, which I find so antiquated and unfair, being perpetuated in the media.

Also, I was really surprised at Oprah, who has been friendly toward the GLBT community what with her positive coverage of Thomas Beady and other more general topics.
7 Mark Blankenship // May 12, 2009 at 1:01 am

Michael raises a very good point that “fag” is the new “sissy.” These torments have always existed and possibly always will.

But what continually frustrates me is the element that Katy points out… that recent stories have been careful to clarify that these suicidal kids aren’t actually gay. I’ll optimistically doubt that journalists mean it to come across as homophobic, but that kind of assertion implies that there is indeed something wrong with being gay in the first place. Surely the way to combat the problem is not only to teach the bullied to stand up to their attackers, but also to change the entire system of thought that says “gay” is in fact an undesirable label. What if someone calls you gay, and you don’t care? As I said above, what if we remove the word’s power?

Like Katy, I’m also befuddled by Judith Warner’s logic that being called a fag has nothing to do with being gay. As a gay person who heard other kids calling each other fags in high school, I can tell you that it certainly does. Sure, the word “fag” (in this context) implies a general failure of masculinity, but it still represents the perception that gay sex is tantamount with not being a true man. Call someone a fag for playing violin, and on some level, you’re still saying that he’s as worthless as a homosexual.

Which is all ludicrous, really, because haven’t we all seen gay men who are butcher than Sly Stallone? Lord knows, they’re always in my gym, benching 250 and talking about their cars.
8 katy // May 12, 2009 at 7:21 am

Well, I’m with Judith Warner insofar as this: I’m fed up with any discussion of being a “true man” that involves being feminine, girly, girl-like, as a poisonous insult. That’s also what “sissy” was all about, and clearly sexuality and gender roles are all tied up together here. In my world, neither “gay” or “girly” would be an insult for little boys. We’d have to stick with “butthead” and “poopyface,” or whatever the kids are saying these days.

But I just keep coming back to imagining how they decided this kid in Massachusetts wasn’t actually gay. What, did they ask his mom and dad? Did they ask people that knew him if he “seemed” gay? Whether he’d talked about having a crush on a guy or not? Presumably, if he were like most 11 year olds, he didn’t have much of a sexual history, and if he were getting bullied to this extent, he would have had solid reasons for being deeply closeted. I can’t conjure up in my imagination how they could possibly know what kind of person he was / would be attracted to, given that it’s clear this kid was feeling some serious pressure to appear as straight as he could be, no matter what.

It’s telling that journalists (and even parents and friends) feel like they’d be able to “tell” if a kid was gay or not, just like the bullies thought they could “tell.” Actually, the idea that this kid might have indeed been gay and that that was erased by not only his own suicide, but by (well-meaning?) family, friends and journalists after his death is terribly sad. Of course my point is that we really don’t know.
9 karenG // May 12, 2009 at 9:06 pm

I am not a fan of the person Oprah has become, which makes me sad since I adored her when her show first aired in the 80s (ok, here I am dating myself). She’s just so profoundly out of touch. I think she gets caught up in a lot of psycho-babble and does not fully understand the implications. Kind of like when she hands out cars to the audience–it’s GREAT for promoting her own brand, and I do think she thinks she is being magnanimous, but at the end of the day, these people are stuck with the tax bill they maybe can’t afford. I think she is not even aware that what she was promoting has the potential to be as devastating as the bullying itself. Which is heartbreaking, since she has a pulpit and should be much more sensitive to this.

Featured Reviews

Archives

Buzz

Admin