The discussion of reading through a gender lens in today's class, and particularly the video we watched made me think of this advertisement. It's worth a look, and only takes 60 seconds.
The ad was made in 1995, and it was never aired. It was considered, at the time, to be too shocking.
I thought about this ad as I was reading Appleman's chapter on the feminist theory, or as she often calls it, gender theory. For a chapter based around the social construction of gender and the dominance of patriarchal discourse, there is a puzzling absence of any mention of homosexuality. Appleman mentions issues of homosexuality in her chapter on reader response, but the words "gay", "lesbian", "queer" or "homosexual" are absent from the chapter on reading through a gender lens.
This leaves the gender lens as a bifocal, and misses an opportunity to expand the scope of the discourse to deconstruct binary notions of gender. The chapter from Deeper Reading this week outlined the benefits of second draft reading for deeper comprehension. I have done precisely this with the Harry Potter series after author J.K. Rowling revealed in 2007 that Dumbledore was gay. Rereading the book and seeing the character through this lens gives new, deeper meaning to portions of the story. An (small) exercise like this would be interesting to bring to a classroom, but Appleman doesn't seem to consider such productive pedagogy within the context of gender construction. This might mean that the lens we use to be more inclusive and to deconstruct oppressive patriarchy might actually serve to deepen gay and lesbian students' feelings of oppression and isolation.
Thanks for the video post. It's strange how my reaction to this one is completely different than my reaction to the pantene commercial. I was angered that they used the story of a minority with a disability to sell shampoo. But in this instance, I chuckled when the pint of Guinness appeared at the end of the commercial. And I am upset that they didn't air that one. It would have certainly made waves in the beer pool!
ReplyDeleteAs to your comments regarding the exclusion of GLBT in the gender lens chapter, I totally didn't see it. I was focussed on the feminism aspect. I even skimmed through the next chapter heading expecting it to appear but, you're right, it doesn't. How odd! I can think of a number of texts, "The Picture of Dorian Gray" or "The Song of Achilles" for example that would benefit a closer reading with the gender lens, especially in regards to homosexuality. Thank you for pointing this omission out to us.