The social conditions for a man cannot always satisfy his desires or way of living. The standards of morality and consciousness within the society condemn the facts of non-traditional viewpoints on manners, love, style, behavior on the whole. The paper is dedicated to two articles of different authors, so that to analyze them in terms of their convincing character. One of them is “Gays and film” by Richard Dyer, another one “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence” by Adrienne Rich.
The article by R. Dyer puts a reader into the picture of social obstacles when depicting gay culture in the movies. The author tends to display that “you appear to choose your social type in some measure, whereas you are condemned to a stereotype.” (Dyer 29) The author strives to stress on the fact that gays appear only in a limited assortment of genres which media provide: horrors and comedy. The extent of stereotypes is raised in the work in order to demonstrate narrow-mindedness of the current trends in the society. Also in the article the aspect of laughing at gays in movies is discussed as an element of discrimination.
The main point of the author is that in the multi-cultural society with tints of different standpoints of people from all over the world the equality and clearing of gays as adequate members of the society should be reconsidered in the film-making industry. The two opposing concepts are depicted in the article, so that to illuminate some differences of them, i.e. heterosexuality and homosexuality.
The situation in the United States provides people with perpetual blame and mockery over those who chose to be somewhat “another”. The author fairly notes such social oppression due to mass media: “In terms of the structure of the lesbian relationships as the films show them, it seems that the films always feel a need to recreate the social inequality of heterosexuality within homosexuality.” (Dyer 33)
The author is greatly argues the ubiquitous moments in movies which demonstrate unfair descriptions of gays as such a social “outcasts” or “clowns”. He in an expert manner provides a reader with logically right statements on the issue using some stylistic techniques in order to point out the paradox of the society in its connection with gay culture. The weak points of the article concern the fact that the author usually blames the society and those within it who can be possibly involved in the process of obtaining equality in films by homosexual minorities.
The theme and ideas of Richard Dyer interweave with the article by Adrienne Rich. Her work also comments different approaches on the fact of women’s homosexuality as a prior intention of every woman. She relates her discussion towards psychological as well as logical making out of the issue. Thus, in her research Adrienne states: “The assumption that ‘most women are innately heterosexual’ stands as a theoretical and political stumbling block for many women.” (Rich 322)
The concept of male homosexuality and its reproof in the society she considers as the main motive for lesbian oppression. That is why her arguments urge to make readers realize the cruelty and unfair attitude of people towards lesbians without any fixed negative objective, except that it does not suit the social framework on ‘alternative lifestyle’. (Rich 320)
Thus, two articles criticize the unfair consideration of homosexuality as a society’s drawback. In fact, every bean has its black, and the approaches of both authors tend to illustrate and get to the point of some public misunderstanding of lesbian/gay cultures.
Dyer, Richard. “Gays and Film”. New York Zoetrope. 1984.
Rich, Adrienne. “Compulsoy Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence”. Oxford Press. 1997.