Opinions
Tuesday, September 22, 2020
The Marquette Tribune
LGBTQ media must go beyond depressing tropes Jenna Koch
LGBTQ characters must be allowed to exist in narratives that normalize their identities. Media with LGBTQ characters should allow those characters to have personalities and conflicts outside ones that pertain to being queer. Lifetime, a channel notorious for its cheesy Christmas rom-coms, announced its firstever Christmas movie centered around a gay couple, titled “The Christmas Set Up.” The movie focuses on the couple’s romance rather than their sexualities, which is sorely needed in LGBTQ media. Too often, queer media involves a conflict or depressing ending that only came about because the characters are queer. For example, one character might die from homophobic violence, as is seen in the Academy Award winning film “Brokeback Mountain.”
Other critically acclaimed films such as “A Portrait of a Lady on Fire” and “Call Me By Your Name” end with one character marrying a member of the opposite sex, terminating the romance started in the film. Many other pieces of LGBTQ media are based around conversion therapy, such as “Boy Erased” and “The Miseducation of Cameron Post,” or the AIDS crisis. Both topics are important to cover, but should not make up a majority of LGBTQ media. The FX show “Pose” is a great example of media that covers historical LGBTQ oppression as well as LGBTQ joy, romance and culture. It follows a group of mostly trans women and gay men in New York City’s 1980s underground ball culture. Issues like AIDS are covered, but the characters also have rich lives full of voguing and elaborate costumes. Most importantly, it focuses on how they find community with one another despite the adversity they face.
Often in AIDS focused media, the LGBTQ “scene” is shown as deviant or unhealthy, such as in “Bohemian Rhapsody,” a fictionalized account of Freddie Mercury’s life. In one scene, the singer enters a gay club with his partner. The red lights and BDSM gear paint the LGBTQ club scene of the 1970s in hyper-sexualized light. His homosexuality is almost treated as the cause of his unhealthy lifestyle. This isn’t to say that LGBTQ scenes weren’t harmful to queer people in the past. It wasn’t because they were gay, but because society had pushed them into the margins. LGBTQ people coped however they could. This also isn’t to say bad things can’t, or shouldn’t, happen to LGBTQ characters. However, when all conflict in queer media is based around issues only queer people face, there is a problem. LGBTQ viewers should not have to be constantly reminded of their historical and present-day struggles simply to
see representation of themselves on screen. Furthermore, LGBTQ people still experience struggles unrelated to sexuality or gender. Some of my favorite pieces of LGBTQ media are not even about being LGBTQ at all. For example, the 2020 Netflix show “I Am Not Okay With This” features a lesbian main character, but the majority of the plot is focused on her newfound psychic abilities. We need more media like this. And we also need to be critical of LGBTQ narratives while also examining who is telling them. For example, the book “Call Me By Your Name,” which the movie is based off, was written by a straight man while “A Portrait of a Lady on Fire” was directed by a lesbian. The difference is evident. The latter’s ending is more important to the plot, which encompasses not just lesbian experiences, but also how female experiences are always influenced by the patriarchy.
The ending of “Call Me By Your Name” feels almost like a lazy ending. The main character, Elio, gets a call from his summer fling, Oliver, who tells him he’s set to be married in the spring. It creates an emotional experience for the viewer, but it isn’t entirely creative or interesting. Endings such as these send a message to viewers. It tells them that LGBTQ people’s stories will always result in strife. I don’t want people to equate LGBTQ experiences with suffering. Consumers, especially straight and cisgender consumers, must not buy into these tropes and call out poor representation. As a queer woman, I want to watch media in which I am represented, not pitied.
Jenna Koch is a first-year student studying journalism. She can be reached at jenna.koch@marquette.edu
Protecting essential workers must be a priority Hope Moses While strict COVID-19 guidelines have been developed in hospitals and medical care facilities, Americans have not taken health guidelines seriously protecting essential workers beyond
the hospital environment. Most essential workers include those we often forget about — fast food workers, retail associates, cleaners and many others we have desperately leaned on to fulfill our daily needs. When the coronavirus became known to the American public in March and critical businesses began to close, millions of people across the nation started
Photo via Flickr
A sign in a front yard showcases appreciation for essential workers.
panic-buying, forcing essential workers to stay employed amid a pandemic. Essential workers are those who conduct a range of operations and services that are typically necessary to continue critical infrastructure operations. Many of these industries have seen continued demand for their products and services, such as grocery stores, health care facilities and water utilities. With this being said, what occupations are considered essential vary from state to state. For instance, in Arizona, the governor considered golf courses a necessity, thus making golf course workers essential. In addition, laws vary from state to state. All 50 states have reopened, but only four states met the requirements to reopen, according to Forbes. States must meet four basic criteria: there must be a two-week decrease in coronavirus cases, fewer than four daily cases per 100,000 people per day, positive test rates must be below 5% and states should have at least 40% of their intensive care unit beds free in case things worsen. States reopening did not meet all of this criteria. Not only should we be embarrassed that our federal government has not done much to protect us, we should be equally concerned for essential workers. Most essential workers are those who are already economically disadvantaged, earning
lower wages and having little to no health insurance. The reopening of our economy has put these citizens at high risk for contracting the virus. Many essential workers with families cannot afford to quarantine for two weeks because it will set them back in numerous ways. For example, a fast-food worker does not receive paid leave so if one were to be stricken with the virus, they would miss out on a paycheck, making it harder to pay monthly bills. We as American citizens are also equally ineffective with how we handle the pandemic. The mask debate, which has sparked numerous of protests across the country, is endangering the lives of so many — including essential workers. Every time a citizen disobeys mask rules by not wearing one, or wearing it incorrectly, they endanger essential workers who have already risked their lives to service them in restaurants, stores, and many other public settings. In an odd way, antimaskers see this as being patriotic. However, actual patriotism would be to protect people of the country you love. This kind of mindset change can ensure that essential workers are protected. All in all, the nation has a duty to protect essential workers. Beyond being “essential” for our economy’s progress, they are human. These workers deserve much better than what is being done to
protect them. The federal government and citizens alike need to see the humanity in these jobs and at the very least, follow COVID-19 guidelines. Just by social distancing and wearing a mask, you are emphasizing the importance of protecting yourself while protecting others. So while the pandemic has felt like it has been going on forever, it is important to understand just how much is at stake and just how much power you have to protect others.
Hope Moses is a first-year student studying journalism. She can be reached at hope.moses@marquette.edu
Statement of Opinion Policy
The opinions expressed on the Opinions page reflect the opinions of the Opinions staff. The editorials do not represent the opinions of Marquette University nor its administrators, but those of the editorial board. The Marquette Tribune prints guest submissions at its discretion. The Tribune strives to give all sides of an issue an equal voice over the course of a reasonable time period. An author’s contribution will not be published more than once in a four-week period. Submissions with obvious relevance to the Marquette community will be given priority consideration. Full Opinions submissions should be limited to 500 words. Letters to the editor should be between 150 to 250 words. The Tribune reserves the right to edit submissions for length and content. Please e-mail submissions to: alexandra.garner@marquette.edu. If you are a current student, include the college in which you are enrolled and your year in school. If not, please note any affliations to Marquette or your current city of residence.