Pedro Zamora: Remembering a Hero

Last Wednesday, MTV premiered a movie it had produced on the life of Pedro Zamora, who was once a cast member on the third season The Real World. The movie was introduced by President Bill Clinton, who said the following:

The mission of Pedro Zamora's all too brief life was to raise awareness about HIV and
Aids. Pedro changed the face of HIV and AIDS in America forever when, for the first time on national TV, Pedro appeared on The Real World and young America saw a peer living with HIV. Pedro shattered myths. He jolted our country awake from ignorance and inaction. His message now is as urgent as ever.

President Clinton's words indicate that in 1994, Pedro Zamora appearing on national television was a moment of progression in the movement for fair representation of AIDS victims in the media. Since AIDS was discovered in 1981, there was a continual struggle for informed and fair representation of AIDS victims in the media. One facet of the struggle, mere visibility, was conquered with Pedro being the first, openly gay, HIV positive main character on television. Since his story is so significant in HIV/AIDS media evolution, I felt compelled this week to fond posts that dealt with the biographical movie on his life. My first response is to a post on an Entertainment Weekly blog that asks if the movie is a worthy tribute to his life. My second comment is to a negative review of the movie from Newsweek. Both deal with looking at how Zamora (see right) was portrayed as a young, gay, racial minority living with AIDS and can be found below and at the respective sites.

'Pedro': Is MTV's Pedro Zamora biopic a worthy tribute?
Comment

Before I answer the questions that you pose in the last paragraph, I have to say that I enjoyed reading your musings on the "meta reenactments" in the movie. What kind of world do we live in that Heidi: The Price of the American Dream seems like a possibility? I too found the reenactments bizarre and hard to watch. Another aspect of your blog that I am glad you included was the brief biography at the beginning. It provided a good base of information to those may not be in the know or who have not seen the movie. However, to answer your question on whether the movie lived up to Zamora's legacy, I have to say yes. As someone who was not old enough in 1994 to be interested in watching The Real World, I was able to get a sense of the impact his appearance on the show had on the young adult viewers of the time. I got the impression that young gays and HIV/AIDS victims were hungry for representation in the media, something that the third season of The Real World was able to provide. While some of the production and casting could have been done differently, I think the fact that MTV decided to air the movie provides the statement that Pedro was and important cultural icon. He gave a face to and humanized AIDS while educating his housemates and viewers. Today, no one else exists that has his kind of visibility. Don't you think MTV deserves some credit for trying to bring someone back to honor his work in AIDS activism?

A Made-for-TV Mistake: MTV's Pedro Zamora movie needs to get real
Comment

I was a bit taken aback after reading your scathing review of the movie. Yes, the movie could have done with a bigger budget, better casting, and less reenacting, but I think the message of the movie still resonates in a powerful way. I agree that the series, being that it was a reality show, was a bit more accessible to viewers. However, don't you think the movie was a valid celebration of his portrayal on the show? The producers were brave enough, in 1994, to air his faux wedding ceremony to another man. They were also able to restrain from making his HIV status too big of a point of conflict. Instead, Pedro was able to open the eyes of those he lived with and those who were watching. In 1994, this was a milestone. Never before had there been someone with his type of visibility. You mention at the very end of the article that we are still wondering who will pick up Zamora's torch. My question to you is: Do we need another Pedro? AIDS diagnoses and deaths are on the decline in the US (see left). AIDS prevention and empowerment is part of President Obama's civil rights platform. Zamora was the first of his kind of TV. There, of course, have been more. With HIV and AIDS being discussed in school and becoming a part of the national discourse, I highly doubt that another Pedro will come around. Honestly, I don't think we need one.

Bromances: Radical Idea or Reality?

Two weeks ago, Hollywood released I Love You, Man, (right) which was generally well received by critics and audiences. The movie follows two straight men who forge a close friendship, a theme that is not new and has been documented countless times in movies such as Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle, and Men in Black. However, this movie stands apart from the rest because it establishes male friendship as an offbeat development, making the movie a high-concept comedy. A reality show that fits into this same vein is Bromance, which aired six episodes on the MTV network between December 2008 and February 2009. The series consisted of competitions in which the male contestants would express their devotion for Brody Jenner, who previously appeared on The Hills, which also airs on MTV. While it is not a typical dating show, where participants vie for a romantic relationship with the protagonist, the production is still heavily steeped in sexuality. Certain behaviors and practices are deemed appropriate for males by Jenner, and consequences happen to those who deviate from what is constructed as suitable. Even in its the promotion, Bromance was pushed as being representative of the "changing times" surrounding masculinity and male relationships. The program did not enjoy much popularity with audiences, probably because the drama that typically accompanies female-centered programs is replaced with subtleties of male communication and sporadic expressions of aggression. However, it is still valuable to examine how Bromance serves as a litmus test of what existing as a "man" entails and follows in this new tradition of showcasing male friendship as new and original.

In the press surrounding the premiere of Bromance, one interview seems to embody the attitude of the coverage that existed on other media entities. Brody Jenner told Kelley L. Carter of USA Today that "the trend in movies is like these awkward guy moments. So I thought it was a great time for this." He also claimed to be "totally comfortable with my sexuality and showing my affections with my guy friends" when asked about the changes in how male, heterosexual relationships are becoming common conversational fodder. His quotes are representative of the idea that the show was produced to conform to the changing media representations of heterosexual male relationships. I admire the attempt the show makes to challenge the outgoing male ideal. Nonetheless, the show fails to deliver on this claim. In another interview with Marc Malkin of E! Television, Jenner recognized the homoeroticism in the show when he said, "It's kind of homoerotic and I love people saying that." He recognizes the difficulty of gathering a group of men, gay or straight, and avoiding any homoerotic references. This is quickly countered, however, with the statement "I'm cool with my sexuality and the gender that I like and I have a beautiful girlfriend," establishing the show and himself as heteronormative. A piece that ran in The New York Times took issue with this blatant coding of heterosexuality behavior, saying the show branded straight men as superficial. Ginia Bellafante wrote, "what do you have to do to become his consigliere, his sidekick, his mandate? You have to find as many good-looking women as you can and show up at a party with them."

Bellafante was not unfounded in her disdain of the show. The incident that she refers to, in which the contestants (left) are challenged to find two girls to bring to a lingerie party in a limited time period, occurred in the first episode. The heteronormativity in this activity is blatant, obvious, and followed by many more like activities. A "bro-athalon," where the contestants complete a variety of physical strength tests, suggests that a man, thus anyone eligible to have a "bromance" with Jenner, must be physically apt. These physical tests are followed by others in future episodes, including challenges such as wrestling, biking, camping, and dancing. If these activities and portrayals say that able men must be active and strong, what do they say about women? One does not have to think too hard for the solution to this question because Jenner is able to provide the answer in the prizes he provides his potential "bros." For one challenge, the winning boy is rewarded with five bikini-clad girls waiting in a bathtub waiting to wash him off. For another competition, the winner is awarded time to spend in a hot tub with two Playboy playmates. Women are rendered to be the prize of hard work and physical strength, obviously fueling the masculine ideal that the show is depicting.

In the more downplayed segments of the show, the contestants are seen bonding with each other and Jenner. They speak candidly about their life experiences, which lead some to tears. Jenner appears comfortable with the emotions, even going so far as to hug his "bros," and the others follow suit. The show did promote male bonding, and it delivers. The problem, however, lies in how these relationships are framed. The males all display a dislike of wearing what they consider to be "women's" clothing, praise womanizing, and place value on physical strength. By encouraging a separation and differences between men and women, the contestants are encouraging a double standard for the sexes. These sentiments are misogynist, idealistic, and fall into the binary model of gender which establishes innate differences between the male and female genders. This model supports the idea that the innate differences encourage a gender hierarchy, that somehow behaviors deemed appropriate for women are somehow belittling and below men.

Despite the male chauvinism promoted in the series, the show does reflect the shift in media in the portrayal of the males. The show promotes open communication between men, widening the sphere in which men are allowed to feel comfortable and doing away with the narrow macho ideal that has been so commonly portrayed. Bromance and I Love You, Man may not be perfect in their portrayal gender roles, but at least they question those roles. In the constant struggle to portray something other than the male archetype and demonstrate fair/accurate images of non-binary gender, Bromance at least made a small impact by showcasing male friendship and communication as acceptable and desirable. Hopefully, one day a television show or movie will not need to market this idea as novel.

Masculine Identity: How does it manifest itself in traditionally masculine beings?

As a student currently enrolled in two classes regarding gender, sexuality, and media, I have heard a lot about the idea of how society constructs categories such as gender, and how media helps assign rules to such categories. Students of gender and media learn that the narratives assigned to gender and sexuality are familiar and powerful, and how easy it is to take them for granted. However, as I have attempted to demonstrate in my past three posts, neither sex nor gender are pure categories, and any narrative regarding them perpetuated from the media can, and should be, be disputed. In my pursuit of such narratives, I found two posts that covered popular reality shows with very strong and conventional narratives that perpetuate what it means to exist as a masculine being. The first post I respond to this week is an article on Celebuzz that covers the aftermath of how Jason Mesnick behaved in the finale of The Bachelor. My second response is to a post on the Idol Tracker blog on the Los Angeles Times website that covers the speculation around the sexuality of a current contestant on American Idol. Both shows are widely watched and are broadcast on network television. They have also been airing for multiple seasons, proof that audiences find both shows enjoyable and relatable. My responses to both of these items can be found below.

Kimmel to Bachelor: "You've Been a Very Bad Boy"
Comment

I am troubled by the question you ask in your last sentence. When Mesnick (left) made the announcement in the first "After the Rose" special that he would be leaving Melissa for Molly, he expressed his genuine regret in toying with the emotions of both women. He also tried to appease them, the rest of the female contestants, and the audience by stating that he fell in love with two girls. By confessing his mistake and admitting to his inability to make a decision, he pulled the veil off the ideology that The Bachelor is a gentleman. Throughout the seasons, the bachelors on the shows have played to the softer side of the cultural ideology of masculinity. They have given out roses, proposed marriage and expressed "genuine" love in a plethora of grand romantic gestures. I believe that when you asked the question "Do you accept Mesnick's explanation, or is he a bad boy?," you are asking viewers to categorize Mesnick into either the "gentleman" category or the "bad boy" category. Both categories are encouraged in masculinity, and although they may hold conflicting instructions on behavior, don't you think Mesnick is simply behaving to social instruction? Also, as the bachelor, is Mesnick really either a "gentleman" or a "bad boy"? And by asking the question that you did, are you not encouraging the masculine cultural ideologies of "the gentleman" and "the bad boy"?

The narrative that has persisted on the show over the years has followed a man who seems to have everything except the perfect woman to love. This heteronormative narrative seems to continually resonate within viewers, a testament to the longevity of the show. I am glad you wrote this post on your views regarding Mesnick's decision because it so clearly demonstrates how men are socially molded to adapt two different and contradictory, ideologies of masculinity. The Bachelor, with its powerful narrative, encourages one ideology. If and when will the show expand on its definition of a masculine being?

'American Idol' needs to open the closet door
Comment

I am glad to read that someone else in the blogosphere is concerned with the hidden sexualities on American Idol. Although the show is presented as a family show, I have to agree with you that there is room to diversity the "unified mainstream" that the American Idol producers strive to portray. While past contestants of the show who did not fit into the mainstream were either voted off early or kept quiet about their identities, I think the producers have a unique opportunity to educate the American audience on diversity in gender identities. With so many seasons under their belt, the producers need to relinquish their identity of a fiction mainstream and embrace the "bothersome backstories" that can allow the show fairer representations of gender and sexuality.

I think that by hindering Adam Lambert (right)in being outspoken about his sexual orientation, the hegemonic power of the producers is normalizing heterosexuality. There is something fundamentally wrong with oppressing a man who does not fit the heterosexual ideology of masculinity. I understand the point you made that American Idol represents "America's troubling history of racial divides and assimilation," but do you think that with Idol's decreasing ratings, the producers will allow him to be honest about himself? What impact might this make on America's ideologies of division? Also, what do you think that the fact that we are discussing and speculating on a person's sexuality has to say about our ideas on masculinity?

MTV’s Leading Ladies: Feminist Luminaries for the New Generation?

With the fourth season finale bringing in 2.6 million viewers in December, two spin-off shows, and the constant tabloid coverage, The Hills has proven to be the venerable reality show for the MTV target audience. Last week, People Magazine reported that the upcoming season would be the last, passing the reality/drama/fashion format to The City, a spinoff starring Whitney Port. While both shows have been criticized for walking dangerously close to the line that separates the scripted and reality genres, the fact that they are presented as reality is satisfactory for the purposes of this post. Both The Hills and The City center on a young, beautiful blonde attempting to find a balance between career and personal life. Despite the possible good intentions of the cast and producers for portraying characters that are smart and career-minded, both shows are damaging in their portrayal of women. They seem to place high focus on the aggression between the female characters, glamorizing petty and trivial tiffs. While this type of drama and conniving behavior is commonly portrayed on reality television, the fact that they have become firmly associated with Port and the protagonist of The Hills, Lauren Conrad, is troublesome. The men on the show, for the most part, seem to get by as rational observers of the histrionics, while the women are defined as irrational, emotional beings.

On The Hills, Lauren Conrad (see right) is the narrator and center of most conflicts. Throughout the four seasons that have aired, she has managed to “break up” with several of her girlfriends, including Heidi Montag, Audrina Patridge, and Jen Bunney. The narrative of the earlier seasons focused on Conrad and Montag’s rocky relationship, one that seemed to run into continuing issues surrounding boyfriends. Later seasons saw Conrad getting into he said/ she said spats with her roommates. Gossip and betrayal seem to be major themes in Conrad’s reality life, penetrating into the relationships she has with all of the female characters on the show. Seemingly unaware of what audiences were seeing on her show, she said “It's about empowering girls. You're gonna have bad boyfriends and best friends-turned-enemies. You need to be yourself, you need to work hard, and you'll get there. And if you can get someone to give you a reality show along the way, it can't hurt.” when asked about how she viewed herself as a brand in an article with Entertainment Weekly. Unfortunately, Conrad is delusional as to what the show seems to promote. Producers of the show have steered away from focusing on the career aspect of the show, deciding instead that concentrating on drama would be more fitting. As to the comment regarding how her show “can’t hurt,” I have to interject that viewers are ultimately the ones that are hurt. The show, in selling itself as reality, is coding Conrad’s irrationality and pettiness as legitimate behavior for women.

Montag is another character on The Hills who is just as irrational and does nothing positive for the portrayal of women. Ginia Bellafante of The New York Times, however, does not agree with me and felt it necessary to call Heidi Montag a “feminist hero” last year. She supports this statement by citing a few examples of Montag standing up to her boyfriend and putting her career first. While this did happen, the occasion was drawn out for dramatic purposes and portrayed Montag as a victim. In the next season, Montag eloped with said boyfriend, and continued to gossip with the other female characters about Conrad. These actions completely diminish any credibility she may have had as a feminist, and exemplifies the conduct that is characterized on the show. An additional character on The Hills, Whitney Port (see left), did not have any of her personal life filmed. She was always shown at work with Conrad, dishing about whatever circumstances she got into the night before. Port was reliably professional and visibly career-driven, but everything changed when she was placed front and center as the narrator and main character of The City. The show, currently airing its first season, documents Port’s life as she adjusts moving from The Hills’ Los Angeles to New York City. Based around the premise that she moved to pursue bigger professional opportunities in the fashion industry, the producers seem hell-bent on creating another Conrad-type character around Port. In the sixth episode of The City, the story revolves around one of Port’s friends, Allie, and her obsession over whether her boyfriend kissed another girl or not. The speculation, over-dramatization, and gossip paints Allie and Port as desperate and emotionally indigent. A confrontation between Allie and her boyfriend provide the climax of the episode, and at some point in their argument, her boyfriend asks, “Why are you gonna cry about this?” Of course, the boyfriend remains the rational one, while his female counterpart is senseless.

With the New York Times critiquing Montag and Us Weekly placing Conrad on its cover, it is clear that MTV has has in its hands a cultural phenomenon that comes with the unique opportunity to reach out to its large, young audience who is faithful to shows such as The Hills and The City. Both shows reinforce the dominance of aggression in relationships among young women. While these shows glamorize tensions in relationships to attract viewers, it is important to note that since they are being promoted as “reality,” they are reinforcing the cultural messages that are coded in the shows themselves. Eventually, these negative cultural messages can possibly become the norm and become accepted as mainstream. I hope MTV will realize that the messages communicated through its shows expose audiences to stereotypical images, which can reinforce gender expectations. I understand that viewer pleasure and ratings have priority in the business of television, but the network is missing opportunities to make small yet consequential changes in the production that can go a long way in breaking down portrayal barriers for all underrepresented genders.

The “Real” Woman: Ideas on Exploitation

In my previous post, I attempted to support my claim that elevating masculinity in gay men is fundamentally sexist and homophobic. By lambasting whatever is not masculine in men, one is verbalizing sexist ideas. Emmy-nominated shows such as Survivior, or any reality show of that matter, will never be capable of portraying gender and sexuality in a completely fair and accurate manner. However, viewing media content with a critical eye and crying fowl at the more blatant sexist/homophobic representations will help steer the movement for better depictions. Last week, I expressed my disagreement with the idea of criticizing different gender representations in the male gender. This week, I was compelled to find posts that dealt with media representations of femininity in heterosexual women. Despite the paucity of educated and academic writing on reality television, I managed to scrounge up two brief posts on the careers of the post-show careers of two reality television personalities. My first response is to a blog post on Hip Hop Crunch covering Tiffany Pollard’s decision to act in a production of “The Vagina Monologues.” My second response is to a brief article on the TV Guide website on an American Idol contestant’s decision to decline an offer to pose for Playboy Magazine. Both fit in with my theme of analyzing gender in reality television and can be found below and at the respective sites.

Tiffany Pollard ‘New York’ ‘Vagina Monologues’ Performance
Comment

I am glad to read that Tiffany Pollard (right) will be acting in The Vagina Monologues, a play that is about female empowerment. Ms. Pollard, or “New York” as her nickname goes, has made a name for herself though the bevy shows she has starred in on the VH1 cable channel. Although she started out as a plaything Flavor Flav on the dating show Flavor of Love, she managed to portray herself as an unruly woman on all five reality shows she starred in. By enabling her disruptive power, she managed to highlight how people are constructed into gendered subjects. In her shows I Love New York and I Love New York 2, both in which a group of men compete against each other for Pollard’s heart, she triggered an unease about her that the men were very much aware of. By carrying this air of unease and being at ease with this, Pollard expressed a sort of indifference to objectifying gaze of the men and the audience. This indifference can be translated into power, one that breaks the social norm of women being the objects of mens’ satisfactions. She expanded the repertoire of how women can act, giving power to female watchers at home. In being the unruly woman on her show, Pollard is defying what it means to be the “perfect” woman, and shattering the idea of a “perfect” woman altogether.

Pollard’s role in “The Vagina Monologues” fits in perfectly with the work she has done in her reality shows. I think it is emblematic of her belief in female empowerment. As she said, the show is a “celebration for women and we need to be liberated every day.” She has done a good job so far with ensuring that she portrays a woman who is liberated and strong. Acting in the show just seems like a natural progression. However, despite all that she has done, I cannot speak for her acting skills. Judging from what I saw on New York Goes To Hollywood, she might not have the chops.

Will Idol's "Bikini Girl" Bare Even More for Playboy?
Comment

“Bikini Girl,” otherwise known as Katrina Darrell (left), embarrassed herself the minute she stepped in front of the judges, and the camera, to audition for American Idol. She decided, whether it was in her best judgment or not, it would be best to wear nothing but a bikini in an attempt to advance on the show. Unfortunately, the tactic worked. Simon Fuller and Randy Jackson immediately took a liking to her and gave her the pass to go to Hollywood. The story was different, however, with the female judges. Paula Abdul and Kara DioGuardi took issue with the fact that Darrell was in a bikini and feigned a catfight with the contestant. While maybe the entire debacle was constructed by the producers to make for compelling television, it regrettably puts into discourse that women just have to put on a bikini to appeal to men. Nobody knows if she would have been given the same attention had she entered the room fully clothed and had nothing to rely on except her talent. It is evident in the way the audition was edited that the producers have little respect for women, apparent in the fact that a contestant such as Darrell was not taken seriously, present as nothing more than eye candy.

I also take issue with the fact that Playboy offered her the chance to pose for the magazine. While Playboy in itself is an issue that can warrant its own essay, the problem lies in the media exploiting women for their sexuality instead of their talents. I am reminded of the Maxim Magazine photo spreads of female Olympic athletes, which consist of pictures of talented athletes hyper-sexualized and wearing almost nothing. I hope Darrell does not take the offer like she claimed to in the article, because it would do nothing for her dignity or for the representation of women in television and media in general.

Masculine Gays: Better for Survivor?

Survivor is one of the few reality shows, or any kind of television show for that matter, to make it to eighteen seasons. Therefore, it is no surprise that last week's season premiere was watched by 13.63 million viewers. With all of its seasons consistently ranking in the top 15 most viewed shows, I think I can safely say that Survivor has adapted a successful reality formula that keeps audiences captivated, and more importantly, watching. Spencer Duhm (see right) has emerged this season as the token gay contestant, a ratings tactic that regular Survivor watchers have become familiar with. Over the seasons, gay contestants have come and gone, with Richard Hatch and Todd Herzog being the only out gay men to actually win. Duhm, with his encyclopedic knowledge of the show, seems to take a disliking to the more flamboyant cast members of past seasons. With the million-dollar prize at stake, he has been quoted as saying that he is thankful he doesn't "sound gay" because it could hurt his chances at winning. This mentality is potentially homophobic and is definitely unfair to the other gay contestants. However, Duhm could be on to something.

In the following excerpt from an interview with Reality Blurred that was released a day before the show premiered on February 12, Spencer Duhm spoke about how he sees himself as a gay contestant on Survivor.

"I don't like come across like most of the gay guys but I am, so I'll probably be like-but then again, JP was gay and nobody knew that on the show; he was about the straightest I've ever seen. ... But I won't be Todd, I surely won't be Coby. I won't be Charlie. Holy shit. I talked to my parents and I was like, 'Mom, do I sound like that?' she was like, 'Sweetheart, no, I would never let you go out in public if you sounded like that.' Thank God."
Spencer insisted that his sexual orientation is "not going to be the character I am," and said that he hasn't decided whether to share that with his tribemates. "It'll probably be based on the people around me, if they're homophobes, if they're one of those people, if I tell them, they're going to want to vote me out. Then again, girls feel non-threatened" by gay men, he said. If he does encounter a tribe of people are homophobic, he joked, "I might be bashing some homos myself."

In berating the more feminine gay contestants while praising the masculine gay contestants, Duhm is promoting heteronormatism. While there is nothing inherently wrong with this, the fact that he is encouraging the conformity to such social constructs is homophobic. He is normalizing "heterosexual behavior." Also, he is attempting to avoid being labeled as a gay person, thus avoiding whatever treatment he foresees might happen to him as a gay contestant. In creating distance between himself and the number of feminine gay men who appeared on the show, he is insinuating that he is more valuable as a contestant, and as a man. I hope that Duhm's misguided statements were spoken out of ignorance, and not as a reflection of the internalized homophobia he might have.

Duhm mentioned how he could never be portrayed like Coby Archa from Season 10 and Charlie Herschel from Season 17 because of his masculinity. He failed to acknowledge, however, Richard Hatch (see left), the first season winner, and Todd Herzog, the fifteenth season winner. Both were able to win despite, or because of (?), their sexuality. Herzog has said in an interview that he used the fact that he is gay as a strategic move, luring girls into trusting him. Hatch, on the other hand, was not concerned about how his sexuality played a part in his attempt to win. It is important to note that only one gay winner, Hatch, did not fit the "most of the gay guys" stereotype that Duhm seems so concerned with. In fact, Survivor has a good track record of portraying gay characters in a fair and accurate manner, including the other gay contestants who did not make it as far as Hatch and Herzog. Such cast members include Brandon Quinton(Season 3), John Carroll (Season 4), Coby Archa (Season 10), J.P. Calderon (Season 13), Brad Virata (Season 13), Chet Welch (Season 16) and Charlie Herschel (Season 17). Mark Burnett, the producer of Survivor, was even honored by GLAD, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, for his positive work. With a variety of gays finding a variety of successes on the show, what is Duhm, the 19-year-old contestant, so worried about?

Spencer Duhm is simply falling prey to the social and media constructions that equate masculinity with strength and femininity with weakness. He, by virtue of the interview he was quoted from above, is participating in the ideology of gender rules, which state that men must be masculine and women must be feminine. Duhm thinks that by being more masculine, he has a better chance at winning. This fits in perfectly with what the media and society have constructed, but I find it unfortunate that Duhm has not yet figured out that as a gay man, gender can not be described as a pure category, because categories come with assumptions.

Duhm's "strategy" of showcasing his more masculine traits does not guarantee him advancing further in the contest, as is evident in past season winners. Also, his tirade against effeminate gays is dangerous. Not only do statements like his create unnecessary rifts in the gay community, but they are also patronizing toward any feminine behaviors. It will be interesting to see if Duhm decides to come out to his fellow contestants this season, and if so, how so. I am committed to watching the rest of the season, especially if Duhm is still on the show. Although I do not know enough about any of the contestants to have any favorites or predictions, I hope that Duhm's actions and the editing of the show portray him and his sexuality in a manner that is fair, accurate, and inclusive, masculine or not.

Writing Critically About Reality Television: An Introduction

As a budding writer seeking to enter the blogosphere as a relevant voice, I have decided to first build the foundation of my blog around a catalog of websites that are of the upmost quality. This list is organized into the linkroll, which consists of organizational websites, personal/ professional blogs, and media databases.

To find these, I first compiled a list of sites that I regularly visited that offered commentary on television shows. I then started searching using the vast amount of search tools available, starting from powerful search engines such as Cuil and Google and ending with more discerning searches on sites such as Technorati and the Open Directory Project. I was able to build a long list of websites that were concerned with gender representations in media, LGBT representations in media, reality television, or any combination of the three.

Since I wanted the linkroll to contain links to sites of only the best quality, I decided to implement the Webby standards of content, structure and navigation, visual design, functionality, interactivity, and overall experience combined with the IMSA blog standards of depth, timing, usefulness, activity and bias to narrow down and govern what would be included.

Among some of the qualified sites that made it onto my final linkroll are After Elton (a trusted site that provides news, reviews and commentary on gay and bisexual men portrayed in entertainment and the media), TV Gay Guide (a frequently updated database that logs all shows with LGBT characters, and Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (an organizational website that represents the biggest LGBT media watchdog). To the right, you can see the strong visual aesthetics of the GLAAD website juxtaposed with the simplicity of the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media site.

I hope this blog matures into one that offers educated commentary on reality television and incites participation and discussion in my readers. I plan to produce work that is on par with the quality of my linkroll, which will constantly evolve to serve as a resourceful contribution to my musings.