Edit: Found them on Hulu!
[Spoiler Alert]
Anyway, I'll very quickly address this episode, which is partially about "Wheels," whose name is Artie. The Glee club wants to go to Sectionals, but Artie, due to being in a wheelchair, can't ride the bus unless they pay for a special, accessible bus. Mr. Schuester, our noble hero and main protagonist, insists that the students have a bake sale to come up with the money, and makes the young adults ride around in wheelchairs to "know what it feels like." To be even more generous, Mr. Schuester choreographs a number to be performed (everyone) using wheelchairs.
[End Spoiler]
Now, aside from troubling portrayals of people who use wheelchairs through Artie (the actor who plays Artie does not use a wheelchair when not acting), I found this to be problematic.
But don't hear it from just me! Here's something that was linked through Feminists With Disabilities, which is a great blog and I encourage everyone to check it out! One poigniant quote is this:
It seemed to me that this former message is the message I got from Glee. According to this site, they are misconceptions, and all they seem to do are reinforce negative stereotypes. And I agree pretty strongly with that. So, it would seem to me that these negative representation only serve to further reinforce pre-existing notions of oppression.No doubt about it, life with a disability is a tragedy! Why these poor gimps, blinks, and others would be better off dead! They are so courageous and yet pitiful as they go about their daily routines. Yep, I'm so glad it is their fate and not mine . . .
Sadly, these are the misconceptions that the public holds about those of us who live with disabilities. Disability simulations do nothing but reinforce these negative stereotypes about persons with disabilities.
I like this post. I don't really watch Glee... I've only caught a little of it while watching with my sister, but seriously... I don't walk around with my skin painted a different color to "know what it feels like" to be a different race, so I don't get the idea of people doing this with disAbilities.
ReplyDeleteHey laura, I really enjoyed this post and I found myself agreeing with a lot of the things mentioned, but I had a few questions too. I might be reading this wrong, but it seems that you have a problem with Artie being played by an actor who is not in fact confined to a wheel chair? Do you mind me asking why that is?
ReplyDeleteHey Alex,
ReplyDeleteFirst off, thanks for the question! Secondly, I think, keeping with how I see the spirit of this blog, I'll link to an article that explains why I feel the way I do. This article, I feel, gets things really wrong about Glee itself, but does a decent job of sharing the concerns within the community of people with disabilities and their allies.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/10/ap/entertainment/main5601959.shtml
To summarize, the casting of a non-disabled actor to play Artie is another blown chance to hire a performer who truly fits the role. By doing this it marginalizes and de-centers an already oppressed group, making it invisible.
Make no mistake, though, I disagree with much of the language used in this article and feel that television has done little to honestly include oppressed groups. Besides tokenizing or further reinforcing stereotypes, efforts are also taken to assimilate these roles, make them "straight" or "white" friendly. Perhaps I will devote a post to this at a later date.
One last point: the phrase "confined to a wheelchair" can be offensive. People who use wheelchairs can leave them. They are not like chains.
I guess I can see their point, but I feel that having someone who does not use a wheelchair play someone who makes use of a wheelchair does not serve to further marginalize or de-center those who are disabled. I feel like a vast majority of those with disabilities would rather have a character that they see as being like them (to use words used in the CBS article) than to have no one on TV that they can relate to (the article mentioned how less than 2% of tv characters are disabled as compared to 20% of Americans).
ReplyDeleteI guess I also have a problem with saying that an actor who is disabled would be better able to represent the character that Artie represents( I feel like its akin to saying Heath Ledger's character in Brokeback Mountain should have been played by Neil Patrick Harris because he would be better able to identify with the character (slight exaggeration). With that being said clearly more work needs to be done by Hollywood to depict a more diverse cast in their films and television.
And I guess the last thing I want to mention is the stereotyped characters in glee. When I saw the first couple of episodes I too felt incredibly offended. I thought Kurt's character was just a terrible stereotype and I did not like the way he was portrayed, but I saw some of the interviews with the actor and read some blogs on the show and it seems that the character was shaped after the actor who plays him. The episode where he tries out for a song that his teacher does not want him to sing is based on the actors experience in which his teacher did not want him to try out for a song that had been reserved for a girl. He feels like the most fleshed out of the minority characters, though and I feel like others seem a little one dimensional. And in all honestly the entire show has very one dimensional characters, the head cheerleader is awful, and the lead jock is shown as an idiot, and the other jock is a terrible human being (all things we have seen before). In all honestly I think the portrayal of the female characters is far more offensive than the negative stereotypes one sees in the male characters (none of the female characters are shown as strong in any way while each of the male characters has had one moment where they have persevered over something.)
Oh and lastly I apologize for using confined to a wheelchair, I meant no offense.
Look, as to whether people with disabilities deserve to play their own roles, I can't convince you of anything. But I think it's a really privileged for you to say what they would want (unless you identify as having a disability). It's a really privileged thing to say that you think it doesn't marginalize or de-center them. Because frankly? You do not have (unless you identify as having a disability) an invested personal interest in the subject. I feel that it might be very difficult for someone with a disability/disabilities to relate to Artie because he, frankly, doesn't really speak to any of their issues.
ReplyDeleteNow, I speak from rocky territory on this, as I do not identify as having a disability/disabilities, but I'm sure you can go to Feminists With Disabilities and see what they want for themselves. That's what I do.
Also, on stereotyping: real people can be stereotypes or stereotypical. But stereotypes don't tell us anything we haven't seen before: effeminate man who identifies as "gay," is who everyone goes to for makeover and fashion advice, sings "like a girl," and has an unattainable crush on the big, white, straight jock. He has no real love interest or apparent sexual drive but is a great friend.
Again, if Glee wants to really portray the honest situation of queer people, they might have done better to make a character like Puck queer. That way they might have actually opened up space for queer, "traditionally" masculine men to feel comfortable with themselves and their sexual orientation(s).
I agree though, that the entire show has one dimensional characters and that the female characters are not portrayed as "strong" (with the exception of Sue Sylvester), fitting with a stereotype of femininity being weak.
But I think that focusing on "strength" may lead to a misogynist hypothesis because "strength" is a trait typically assigned to masculinity. So, while I think female characters should be portrayed as "strong," I furthermore feel male characters should be portrayed as "weak." And I think Glee actually does this sometimes, so good for them. Still, though, your point stands that no female lead has, as far as I know, "persevered over something."
And as to the language use, it's totally chill. People do the best they can with what they know :) Personally, with ableism and disability topics, I'm still working out my vocabulary to be in line with the needs and concerns of that community.
Sorry, when I said that I felt a vast majority of people with disabilities would rather have someone like Artie than nobody at all, I was pulling from the CBS article. They mentioned a parent whose child was happy that a Lion King character had forearm crutches, and I made the assumption that the parent wanted to see more of that on tv (maybe I read too much into it).
ReplyDeleteAnd I agree that the feminine gay character has been done to death, I was pointing to some episodes that stemmed from the actors like and others that showed the potential for growth (the one where he comes out to his father and joins the football team for one). Clearly Kurt's character has issues they need to work on, but I think they are making an effort to make his character more complex.
And you are right, it isn't my place to say that disabled people would rather have a character who is disabled that is played by an actor that is not disabled rather than no character at all(that is quite the mouthful), but I do have to wonder if this group stands for the majority of disabled people, or if they are simply the loudest.
Clearly I need to do some more thinking though, because I agree that this episode is offensive and poses more problems than anything else, but I guess I never really saw the character of Artie as offensive until you linked me to that article. Discussion will be needed (after finals)
I'm glad you want to think about this and I'll think more about what you've said, too, in terms of Glee's characters.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that struck me though, was when you said "I do have to wonder if this group stands for the majority of disabled people, or if they are simply the loudest." I've written something like this before, but I want to reiterate it here. When referring to a "majority," I've learned over the years that this term doesn't really refer to anything. It's so ambiguous that I feel it doesn't refer to a number of people, but to a social norm, and is a way to uphold that pre-existing norm. What I want to stress is that I feel it should not take any "majority" of people for people to get the representation, rights and respect they deserve. If there is one person with disabilities saying these things, that's important and should be considered. But I think you will find that more than one person thinks this to be true.
PS Good luck with finals!
ReplyDeleteI think we might be working with different definitions of majority here. I meant that I wonder if most disabled people feel this way. And you are right, people should not be in the majority to get rights or representation. However in this case we really aren't talking about rights, but how a characters portrayal makes people feel. I guess I should rephrase my question then. Do most people who are disabled feel Artie is a good portrayal, or do most find him to be a problem(because he is not played by a disabled actor)? If most find him to be good then I find it problematic that a small amount of the group could dictate how disabled people are shown on television. It is difficult to tell because after all positive things hardly make the news, so we are unlikely to see a movement of people commending glee for having the inclusion of Artie. Now when I saw this majority I want to be clear that I don't mean a vast amount of people, I mean a vast amount of people within that community. I'll give another example which might help to illustrate my point.
ReplyDeleteAbout six or seven years ago Speedy Gonzalez was removed from cartoon network. A group of people voiced their complaints because they thought he was offensive. When he was finally removed there was an uproar from the Latino community because they liked Speedy Gonzalez(he is probably more popular in Latin America than he is here). They had no reason to complain before, but once he had been removed a large portion of the Latino community (the ones that had been silent) become more vocal. Of course he was added back into cartoon network. What I'm trying to say is that when I was discussing majority I meant within communities( so Latinos for Speedy and those who found him offensive) rather than majority in the sense of privileged white men and everyone else.
One very obvious counter-argument to my example is that by casting Artie as someone who does in fact use a wheelchair everyone would have been satisfied, but my point was more that I don't think his character makes a vast amount of people with disabilities feel uncomfortable.
(ahh that post was far too long)
My previous comment stands. I understood what you meant the first time. And I still feel that, in this situation, if one person has a problem with it, there is a problem with it.
ReplyDeleteNow, as to that situation, all I will say is: people of color can commit racist acts, just like queer people can say homophobic things.
I honestly don't care about Glee at all but I had to jump in after that last comment with a link to Livejournal's Racism 101 community. This particular link has some great insights on whether or not PoC can be racist. ("Racism" defined as prejudice and power.)
ReplyDeletehttp://community.livejournal.com/racism_101/6603.html
- It's all in
Response:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.illdoctrine.com/2008/07/how_to_tell_people_they_sound.html
It's not about someone being racist. It's about actions and words.
I'm confused by the people of color can commit racist acts comment, are you implying that a large group of Latin Americans are racist because they want Speedy Gonzalez on television? I'm don't think that was your point, but I feel some clarification is needed. And in response to your other comment I have to ask what your response would have been to this situation? Some Latinos found problems with Speedy Gonzalez, but a larger group of Latinos (including The League of United Latin American Citizens)wanted him to remain on air. Your point that if someone has a problem with it then there must be a problem with it seems to indicate you would have also been on the side asking for his removal (if I am wrong I apologize), but is it really fair when many more people of the community want him to stay?
ReplyDeleteThis is rather off topic from your original post, so I apologize that I led it this way.
Also great video, I enjoyed watching it.
ReplyDeleteI've only seen an episode and a half of Glee and read a couple plot summaries, so I can't say much about it. In the pilot, though, I remember being struck by two things that don't seem to be getting much attention in the conversations I've heard and read: 1) the stereotypical portrayal of the one black female character, and 2) the way Artie himself, not just his wheelchair, is treated as a prop.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the topic of this thread, I found a review ... quoted in Wikipedia (ahem) ... from the LA Times with the line: "Until now, the wheelchair-bound character has served mostly as a punchline. Last night [in the episode 'Vitamin D'], he got a much-deserved moment in the spotlight, and he rolled with it." Again, I've seen little of the show, but that "punchline" bit seems pretty accurate. To treat any character, especially a character defined by their disability (or other lack of privilege), as a punchline is disgusting. As is the following pun in that review.
One thread I wanted to respond to in this discussion pertains to the Kurt character. Usually, Laura, I have a similar reaction to you when it comes to stereotypical gay male characters -- and their fashion sense, etc. At first, I think, really, do characters like this do anything more than reinforce stereotypes? Wouldn't it be better to diversify the portrayals of gay/queer male characters a bit in entertainment? While my answer to the second question is still yes, I've shifted a bit with respect to the first one. I mean, we can talk about how much the Kurt character is based in realistic representation and how much it merely reproduces media images (how many 3-year-olds request a pair of "sensible heels" for their birthday, regardless of gender?). But there's something that feels more important, and I think the best way I can address it is by drawing a parallel to another media figure -- this one a (only slightly exaggerated? hard to say) reality TV judge.
I remember reading a post on some blog about Judge David Young (the TV judge who served "Justice with a Snap" for two seasons). A lot of commenters found this an offensive stereotype that portayed gay men as self-obsessed but also feminized, i.e. powerless, i.e. all things bad. (I have the same complaint about the male strength/female weakness binary that you mention above, btw.) However, there were a few people who critized the earlier commenters for being too concerned with their own masculinity, and who actually took comfort in seeing someone like David Young on TV. To them, it sure as hell doesn't *hurt* to have an "effeminate" or "femmie" or whatever-modifier-we-want-to-use gay media figure, especially when it comes from somewhere real -- like in David Young, or in Glee actor Chris Colfer. To them, it's empowering, in both a society and a subculture that marginalize feminine men.
I read that post about David Young's now-discontinued show two or three years ago, but I still think about it every now and then whenever I consider about my own position re:perceptions/impressions/projections of masculinity. I've never considered myself a particular "effeminate" queer man, but I know that at least early on, that was out of conscious rejection of stereotypes and anything that might characterize me as effeminate, effete. At least now I'm more receptive to these things and to my own fluidity in gender expression -- and, along with that, to characters like Kurt.
One thing I forgot to mention explicitly: I think what I posted above is a good reason to be cautious about claiming something as the "honest situation of queer people," since that's a varied and nebulous thing. Granted, it's probably one that only infrequently involves "sensible heels" for toddlers -- but it might sometimes (perhaps for Chris Colfer), and that's what counts. Kurt is honest for some. He's not an adolescent gay male archetype. But in some ways, he may be one of the more sincere characters in the show.
ReplyDeleteI will respond briefly by saying that I want to challenge myths. The character of Kurt, which I feel is a one-dimensional stereotype, does not challenge the myth that all gay men are effeminate. The character does not challenge the myth that gay men crush on masculine (straight) characters they can't actually date. The character does not challenge the myth that gay men like musicals and singing and not sports. The character does not challenge the "innate knowledge" of gayness, which is not to say that some people do not just know, but to say that all people do not just know. This character does not challenge the myth that gay men need to express their sexual orientation through their gender expression, and I personally am appalled by that because I feel those things to be very separate for me. Hell! The character doesn't even challenge the myth that only white people are gay/queer.
ReplyDeleteSo he is an adolescent gay male archetype, sincere or not. Furthermore, he is not really given his own plot but frequently used as a tool to further the overall plot. And that is as offensive as it is dehumanizing (Artie is used this way as well). And that, to me, is not honest.
Apologies for the late response: I'd stepped away from this until I saw your recent post.
ReplyDeleteI neglected to mention anything about Kurt's crushing on/the glorification of an unattainable, masculine straight man. I'm certainly aware of the the harm caused by messages about this kind of self-defeating, soul-crushing, hierarchical adulation. (And how many straight guys have I had crushes on? Maybe two, both years ago. This stereotype doesn't represent me, and I don't have the impression it represents -- or benefits? -- many queer men I know.)
But back to my point: These are just the kind of messages that lead to insecure performances of masculinity on the one hand and self-loathing regarding one's perceived lack of masculinity on the other among queer men. Like I said, sure, it would be better to diversify the representation of GBQ_ men in the media. (And yes, the fact all the less-privileged characters in this show are really just plot devices is really offensive -- see what I said about Artie above.) But there's a reason at least some GBQ_ men are not offended by the Kurt character, but may even find some things about him validating. Others might find a queer Puck character validating, sure, but the fact that a more "masculine" would *have* to be queer instead of Kurt (not to say there should only be one, pigeonholed queer character by any means) is probably a suggestion that would offend some queer men and further their own marginalization within a subculture that often serves to glorify traditional masculine representations and marginalizes more "queeny" men.