homophobia

Dahmer: Sexuality and Racism

Posted on by Former Student
Content Warning: this blog mentions rape, murder, and generally uncomfortable themes

For the past week, Dahmer—technically titled Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story—has firmly stayed at #1 on Netflix. Dahmer has had one of Netflix’s greatest debuts since the premiere of Stranger Things season four. Dahmer non-linearly follows the life of Jeffrey Dahmer, a notorious serial killer who murdered 17 young men, most of whom were people of color, between 1978 and 1991. While true crime dramas and docuseries have recently risen in popularity, Dahmer reminds audience members that these were real people with lives before their death.

Dahmer also highlights two social issues that greatly contributed to Jeffrey Dahmer’s success as a serial killer: homophobia and racism. Jeffrey Dahmer was a homosexual, an aspect of his identity that made many, especially for the time, uncomfortable. As a result, they often overlooked his suspicious behavior in an effort to avoid him—and his sexuality—altogether. In the drama series, after Dahmer was discharged from the army due to alcohol abuse, his father, Lionel, relocates Jeffrey to live with his grandmother. Lionel did this in an attempt to inspire Jeffrey to clean up his act. This, of course, did not happen.

In episode five, it is revealed that Dahmer killed three men in his grandmother’s home and brought back the body of a fourth to dispose of. With both of them living under the same roof, how is it possible that Dahmer’s grandmother, Catherine, had no clue as to what her grandson was doing? In a situation where she would surely smell decomposing bodies and see/hear the various men Jeffrey brought back, would she not, at the very least, have her suspicions? While she may not have known the extent of Jeffrey’s actions, I do believe that she was choosing to ignore his behavior. While there is no direct evidence that Catherine was homophobic, she did attend a conservative church. I believed that Catherine ignored Jeffrey’s actions because she did not want to first acknowledge his sexuality. In other words, she was so unwilling to recognize his homosexuality that she overlooked his behavior altogether.

Homophobia also extends to the police officers who essentially returned Konerak Sinthasomphone back to Jeffrey Dahmer. In episode two, the audience is introduced to Konerak—Jeffrey Dahmer’s youngest victim who was only 14 years old. In this episode, Konerak escaped Dahmer’s apartment. Three neighbors found him half-naked and barely able to communicate or stand (Dahmer injected diluted acid into his brain while he was unconscious). Concerned, the neighbors called the police, but Dahmer convinced the two officers that Sinthasomphone was just drunk and they had gotten into an argument.

Jeffrey also asserted that Konerak was his 19-year-old boyfriend, despite there being no evidence. Konerak died because the two officers acted out of homophobic and racist impulses. They dismissed the concerns of the neighbors because they were not white. They felt less compassion for Konerak because he was Laotian and seemingly gay. They ignored the clearly, deeply concerning relationship (that was not even a relationship) between Konerack and Jeffrey because they fell into the assumption that gay relationships are bound to be ‘toxic.’ The two officers were so disturbed by the notion of homosexuality that they felt the need to be “de-loused” (a euphemism for “washing the gay away”) over the need to help a boy that was undeniably in danger.

Racism is a consistent theme in Dahmer, and there are quite a few scenes that I found very impactful. In episode five, Ron, a man who was drugged by Dahmer, attempts to have Dahmer arrested. However, Ron is quickly dismissed and told that while Dahmer may be an odd guy, being arrested a few times doesn’t make him guilty of everything. This is followed by the officer commenting that Ron should know this, implying that he had been arrested. Ron responds by stating that he had never been arrested and pointed out that the officer believed the word of a white man who had been arrested over that of a black man who had not.

As stated earlier, the majority of Dahmer’s victims were young men of color. Why is this? It’s because, frankly, Dahmer knew that he likely wouldn’t be caught. Police, especially at the time, did not care to look into missing person’s reports for POC individuals. It was the pervasive, systemic racism that allowed his deplorable actions to continue.

I do believe that Dahmer is a series worth watching, as I feel it identifies social inequalities that were fundamental in Jeffrey Dahmer’s success as a murderer. Of course, this does not mean that the series is completely flawless. There were certainly historical inaccuracies, such as the portrayal of Tony Hughes’ relationship with Dahmer. Additionally, I do not find the business aspect of this series to be entirely ethical. Rita Isbell, the sister of Errol Lindsey, gave an emotionally impactful speech during her courtroom testimony for the trial of Jeffrey Dahmer. This statement was included in the Netflix series. After watching Dahmer, Rita shared that she was never contacted about the series and was definitely not compensated. While Netflix is in no way obligated to compensate the families of the victims, not doing so is certainly tone-deaf—especially considering that the commodification of Dahmer’s murders was a theme.

As this blog post comes to an end, I wish to emphasize that while the series may be created for entertainment purposes, it contains the stories of real people. I encourage you to acknowledge the young men below, and if you have time, learn more about them.

Sister Cindy’s Shaming: Funny or Harmful?

Posted on by Former Student

Cindy Smock, or “Sister Cindy” as she calls herself, is an Evangelical campus preacher turned Tik Tok user. She first gained attention when college students posted clips of her speeches on Tik Tok, inspiring her to make her own account. She currently has over 370,000 followers, and #sistercindy has over 194 million views (Fowler). The main subject of her Tik Tok content is encouraging college students, particularly women, to turn to Christianity and be a “ho no mo.” In many of the videos she uploads, she welcomes viewers to “Sister Cindy’s Slut-Shaming Show.” While many of Sister Cindy’s followers regard her as a comical figure, the shock factor she employs in her preaching through homophobic and misogynistic comments is harmful. 

Through a glance at Sister Cindy’s Tik Tok account, it is evident that her content is misogynistic and demeaning towards women. In nearly every video she uploads, she casually uses the words “slut,” “hoe,” or “thot,” as insults towards women. For example, when visiting college campuses, she often changes the names of the universities to incorporate the word “slut.” At the Louisiana State University campus, she renamed the institution, “Louisiana Slut University.” By insinuating that college students are sluts, Sister Cindy is weaponizing the word to be used against women and normalizing the slut-shaming that is common in society, particularly on college campuses. However, Sister Cindy is proud of her slut-shaming tendencies and makes it a common theme in her posts. In a different post filmed by a college student, she exclaims, “You are princesses made in the image of God. Yet, you’ve traded your crown to be a cock-sucker.” This is quite the opposite of sex positivity and guilts women into practicing abstinence. Sister Cindy, or anyone for that matter, should never use guilt tactics to influence other people’s lives. Furthermore, why is this hateful comment only directed towards “princesses,” or women? Why is it that women should feel guilty for engaging in consensual oral sex and men should not? Last I checked, oral sex is an act requiring at least two people. 

https://www.tiktok.com/@maraudwh4re/video/7067272503181364526?_t=8QEQwcooDyV&_r=1

Another example of sexism in her uploads is found in a Tik Tok filmed by a student at the University of Florida. In this clip, Sister Cindy shouts, “Men, if you buy her one margarita, she will spread her legs.” This statement is incredibly insulting towards women. Not only does it perpetuate the view that women are sexual objects, but it also furthers the entitled belief held by some men that women are sexually indebted to them after buying them a drink. In addition, this comment is heteronormative and leads straight men to assume that all women are attracted to them and want to have sex with them, which is simply not the case. Finally, similar harmful views were expressed in a Tik Tok clip of Sister Cindy telling a college student that she is “an accessory to the rape crime on campus” because she is causing boys to get their “passions stirred up” (Fowler). This belief is so inherently false, that it should not require any explanation. The blatant disregard for holding men accountable in situations of sexual assault is destructive to anyone who views this post. It reminds me of the common argument in society that someone is “asking for it” based on the clothes they are wearing. Placing blame and guilt upon women seems to be a common theme in the media posted by Sister Cindy. Again, why is it that sexual assault victims should feel guilty for something that is out of their control and not their fault? 

@

♬ –
@jfgo444

passion is my middle name #sistercindy #fyp

♬ original sound – jenna gosz

If you thought her content could not get any worse, we have not even analyzed the blatant display of homophobia present in countless Tik Toks. For example, in one clip while preaching to college students, she orders, “Don’t do it. Don’t kiss a girl and like it.” In defiance of her hate speech, two women make their way through the crowd to kiss in front of Sister Cindy’s platform. Apparently, the act of two women kissing is a difficult sight for Sister Cindy, because she has to cover her eyes. In a second Tik Tok, Sister Cindy, with no shame, shouts to a young man walking past her, “Are you a homo? You kinda act a little effeminate there. You need to repent!” There are so many problems with this statement, it is a challenge to decide what to unpack first. To begin, a straight, cisgender person should never use the term “homo” to describe someone of the LGBTQ+ community. Second, Sister Cindy is reinforcing the societal gender expectations that men cannot be feminine and women cannot be masculine. And if that is the case, then that person must be a member of the LGBTQ+ community. Finally, telling someone that they need to repent because of their sexuality, something that is out of their control, is unacceptable. Religion should never be manipulated to discriminate against groups of people. People’s sex lives and sexuality are an intimate part of their lives and should never be a subject of criticism. Therefore, someone who posts homophobic content, like Sister Cindy, should not have a platform to project those hateful beliefs. 

@jfgo444

sister cindy part idek #sistercindy #Coming2America #fyp

♬ original sound – jenna gosz
@boilyourbottoms

Sister Cindy doesn’t like lesbos /: #sistercindy #lgbt #fyp

♬ original sound – aspen🐭🌈

To reflect, one’s values and beliefs should never be used as a weapon or a way of guilting others into adopting those practices. While Sister Cindy’s intention may be to educate college students, her comments are misogynistic, heteronormative, homophobic, and may even be classified as hate speech. Sister Cindy even admits that she expects to be removed from social media for her problematic comments (Fowler). If that is the case, what is Tik Tok waiting for?

Works Cited

Fowler, Kate. “Who is Sister Cindy? Evangelist Christian Preacher Turned Tik Tok Star.” Newsweek, 6 June 2021, https://www.newsweek.com/who-sister-cindy-evangelist-preacher-tiktok-star-1597651. 

I love this post and how it highlights the way that people will oftentimes use comedy to hide rhetoric that is actually very harmful. Although Sister Cindy is oftentimes funny, she’s still promoting a toxic culture that prevents women from embracing their sexuality. This is a super important topic and I’m glad that you’re shedding light on it!

High School Monograph: A Review of Pascoe’s Dude You’re a Fag

Posted on by Former Student

 

High school, while being a time in a adolescents life where the most growth, physically, emotionally, and psychologically, is looked on by many to be a stressful and miserable period full of bullying, angst, and feelings of inadequacy. Why do so many people hate high school? While it is a tendency of the 21st century to assert that we, as citizens of the United States, have made progress regarding how we accept people of different races, ideologies, and sexual identities, the normal high school environment proves otherwise. The four years adolescents spend in high school form the cornerstone in which they build their beliefs and how they come to interact with the world as adults. C.J. Pascoe’s academic monograph Dude You’re a Fag: Masculinity and Sexuality in High School is a case study of a high school in Northern California. In her work, Pascoe interviews numerous students and faculty and observes the daily workings of the institution for over a year. What she finds is an environment where adolescents ages 14 to 18 are bred to join the heteronormative, patriarchal society that we are all too familiar with.

Pascoe asserts that commonly held notions of gender, masculinity, and sexuality are solidified during the years in high school. During these formative years, Pascoe argues, important social events are central to the development of sexual and gender identity. Formal occasions such as prom, Friday night dances, and homecoming solidify heteronormativity by encouraging teenagers to pair up, girl and boy, and interact romantically in a social setting. Also examined by Pascoe is how the male students interact in ways that are misogynistic and homophobic. She uses the example of the “fag” epithet to show that teenage boys are forced to prove their masculinity and sexual orientation to their peers in order to gain their respect. If a boy is seen as effeminate or weak, they are more likely to be regarded as a “fag”, which is associated with not being “man” enough. One student that Pascoe interviewed said of being called this insult, “To call someone gay or a fag is like the lowest thing you can call someone. Because that’s like saying you’re nothing” (55). This student is pointing to a central idea in Pascoe’s book and a glaring problem of homophobia that is still present today. Being labeled as “gay” when you identity as a straight, cis-gender male delegitimizes the careful presentation of masculinity that many try to portray to the world. Pascoe also discusses how race plays a factor in determining masculinity. She found that black teenagers were automatically placed on a higher level of masculinity as their white counterparts, and because of this they were more likely to be seen as stronger, more aggressive and sexually domineering. The distinction between the types of masculinity led to more black boys being disciplined by the administration and their teachers. The intersectionality between race and masculinity is a vital part of Pascoe’s thesis and is also very relevant to today’s political and social climate, where the demonizing of black bodies is all too common. Pascoe’s monograph leads us to the starting point of the many issues we all face and grapple with in today’s world.

The author and researcher behind this monograph is C.J. Pascoe, a professor of Sociology at the University of Oregon. Pascoe graduated with a degree in sociology from Brandeis University and received her Ph.D. in sociology from the University of California, Berkeley. Her research focuses on the masculinity and femininity, youth, and sexuality studies. Her monograph Dude You’re a Fag won the American Educational Research Association’s 2007 Book of the Year Award. Pascoe’s knowledge expands beyond masculinity and into the realms of anorexia and its prevalence in society today and how social media and technology is changing how teenagers communicate and grow up. The expertise Pascoe brings to this subject is a deep understanding of adolescents and the developmental milestones they hit during high school. The knowledge gathered by the researcher from many years in academia and the practical world qualify her to write such a book.

Pascoe’s monograph is considered a case study of a singular high school that she uses to draw conclusions about educational institutions and their effect on students throughout the United States. Over an eighteen-month period, Pascoe interviewed numerous students, faculty, and administrators while also observing classes and conversations among students. Pascoe also attended common high school events where socializing takes places such as sports games, dances, and school sanctioned assemblies. Both by quoting directly and drawing conclusions based on conversations, Pascoe comes to find that at a working class, diverse high school gender norms and heteronormativity are deeply ingrained into the students. She observes school authorized events, such as the high school’s homecoming assembly before the dance, in which male students dress up and dance scandalously (in ways that would be considered unacceptable for girls to do) and attempt to win votes and be crowned the king. Other occurrences analyzed by Pascoe are the school plays, the only occasion where it is acceptable for boys to dance, wear makeup, and act flamboyantly in public, and the meeting of the Gay Straight Alliance club (GSA), a place where the margins of the school come together for support. What her observations found is not surprising. There are a very small number of students that participated in the GSA and sponsored activities, while many students either acted in or attended the school plays. The thin line between when it is acceptable to embody traditionally feminine characteristics and when it is considered taboo is shown through these events. Pascoe’s discovery of how deeply the notions of masculinity and femininity are pushed, even through our education system, asks if any progress has been made.

The paramount strength of Pascoe’s work is how she takes into account and analyzes the importance of intersectionality when looking at masculinity. By bringing race into conversation, Pascoe solidifies her argument even further. As noted earlier, the black students at River High were almost excluded from the “fag” discourse so commonly heard. Protected by what Pascoe calls “hip-hop culture” it is socially acceptable for the black students to pay attention and care to their appearance and dance in public without fear of being referred to as a fag. Pascoe pinpoints this phenomena as an underlying racist attitude that, because black men are seen as meaner, sexually aggressive, and domineering, they are hypermasculinized. Another succinct intersection is that of masculinity and queer identity in America’s high schools. One student at River High, Ricky, an openly gay student, is discussed about in length as an example of how queer students are treated in high school. Ricky describes his experience as violent and unpredictable at the hands of the male students attempting to assert their masculinity. If Pascoe were to leave out these very important intersections of masculinity, her book would not have had the weight and argument that it has.

The way Pascoe chooses to draw conclusions based on the observed actions of the students can be problematic at times. While Pascoe has and listens to numerous conversations with and among boys about their various sexual conquests with girls, she rarely receives female viewpoints. She instead analyzes the interactions of the students, which sometimes border on sexual harassment, and reports on them. In many of these scenarios, Pascoe reports that the girls are most often willingly submissive to the physical dominance of the males without giving a reason why from the girls’ perspectives. The lack of primary information the readers get calls into question Pascoe’s diligence in her research.

This particular monograph examines a subject that is relatable to anyone who graduated from an American high school. Though this may not have been the experience for everyone, River High is a portrait of the American, public, educational institution that casts its influence over the rest of society. Its explicit and easy to read format makes it accessible to readers that are not academics, while its well-researched and deep arguments make it attractive to those who are. I think that this book is analyzed deeply and has an argumentative and interesting take on an experience that is so common to so many people, even today.

 

Works Cited

“CJ Pascoe.” Department of Sociology. University of Oregon, 2016. Web. 24 Oct. 2016.

Pascoe, CJ. Dude You’re a Fag: Sexuality and Masculinity in High School. Berkeley: U of California, 2007. Print.

Pledged: Teagan Monaco