Beyond Badinger Z: Heteronormativity in Philippine Media
Arla Jemimah G. Dela Pena
Advanced Communication Theories and Models
Instructor: Kriztine R. Viray
Submitted to the
Department of Communication Research
College of Communication
Polytechnic University of the Philippines
April 8, 2015
Abstract
This paper seeks to explore the concept of heteronormativity, which has been defined as the daily
and systematic rearticulations and affirmations of heterosexism and the privileging of
heterosexual practices and identifications (Mulkey, 2010) and how it may or may not affect how
Philippine television shows and film portray Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transexuals (LGBT)
characters. The theory utilized is George Gerbner’s Cultivation Theory is used in an underlying
claim that media has an impact over the attitudes of individuals that is cumulative and
significant. Consequently, portrayals made in popular culture influence people’s mindset over a
particular agenda, and the lack of or inaccurate representations made affect not only the mass
media consumer’s perception, but also their acceptance of particular identities, in this case, the
LGBT.
A brief exploration is made of relevant conceptual terms and a rhetorical analysis is made over
particular popular television shows and movies made in the Philippines. To further discuss this
issue, documents and sources are used.
Keywords: Heteronormativity, LGBT, Sexual Orientation, Media
Abstrak
Ang sanaysay na ito ay naglalayong siyasatin ang konsepto ng heteronormativity na binigyang
depinisyon bilang isang pang-araw-araw at sistematikong pag-uulit-ulit at paninindigan sa
heterosexism at ang pribilehiyo ng kasanayan sa heterosexual at identipikasyon, at kung maari o
di maaring makakaapekto ang mga palabas sa telebisyong Pilipino at mga pelikula sa kung paano
ilarawan ang mga Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, at Transexual (LGBT) na karakter.
Ang teorya na ginamit ay ang Cultivation Theory ni George Gerbner na tumutukoy na ang media
ay may impluwensya sa mga kilos ng isang indibidwal na naiipon atmakahulugan.
Dahil diyan, ang mga paglalarawang mayroon sa popular na kultura ay umiimpluwensya sa
pagiisip ng tao tungkol sa isang partikular na agenda, at ang kulang o hindi tamang
representasyon ay umaapekto hindi laamang ang pag-unawa ng mga konsumer , ngunit pati ang
kanilang pagtanggap sa mga partikular na pakakakilanlan, sa sitwasyong ito, ang LGBT.
Isang maiksing pagsasaliksik ang ginawa mula sa mahahalagang konseptuwal na pagpapahayahg
at retorikal na pagsusuri naman sa isang partikular na popular na telebisyon at mga pelikula na
gawa sa Pilipinas. Upang patuloy na talaakayin ang isyung ito, mga dokumento at iba pang
sources ay ginamit.
Introduction
“One look and then I knew iba na” is the opening lyric of the ubiquitous pop song This
Guy’s In Love With You, Pare by Parokya ni Edgar, released in 1999. The “iba na” to which it
refers is ominous, albeit titillating to a listener. Further into the song, it is revealed that, yes, with
one look, the narrator knew that the object of his gaze is in fact, a homosexual, who is expressing
amorous feelings towards him. This song by Parokya ni Edgar is not the first, nor will be the last
piece of pop culture to inject a humorous narrative to a homosexual encounter. Nevertheless,
This Guy’s In Love With You, Pare has so inserted itself into Filipino colloquialisms in a way
that it remains unquestioned that brows are barely lifted upon its utterance, which presents
several problems: first, there is an assumption that there is a physical indicator to which majority,
if not all homosexuals subscribe to; secondly, the entrenchment of these lyrics, which foretells of
an affectionate homosexual aiming to win the affection of his friend, oft-sung and replayed,
create a narrative, a consensus which goes to the collective perception of how homosexuals
behave, and what to expect when befriended by gays. Of course, a song may very well be just a
song, but it is irrefutable that to say “this guy’s in love with you, pare” invokes a warning to be
weary of the homosexual experience. Inaccuracy breeds confusion and further inaccuracies.
Although sexual orientation has been defined as sexual orientation as including one or
more aspects of sexuality such as attraction, behavior, desire, and identity that extend beyond
physiological and biological processes it is generally a facet identified through individual selfperception and introspection. It would be dangerous, however, to neglect environmental factors
which affect this perception. For instance, despite the existence and the prominent struggle of the
LGBT community since the 1960s, undeniably, majority of popular culture reinforces and
supports the normative nature of heterosexuality. This is one of the many facets of
heteronormativity, or the daily and systematic rearticulations and affirmations of heterosexism
and the privileging of heterosexual practices and identifications (Mulkey, 2010). Where
members of the LGBT community are referred to as the “third sex” or others, illegitimate and
uncommon, heteronormativity is suspected to exist. According to Peele, in his book
Introduction: Popular Culture, Queer Culture.‖ Queer Popular Culture: Literature, Media, Film,
and Television. Ed., television, movies, the Internet, music, and fashion serves as a norm which
instills and emphasizes the separation of what is acceptable and not. Thus, in Peele’s definition,
while pop culture draws heavily from societal norms, it teaches the same to its consumers
patronizes the male-female binary, or the idea that being a male or a female is the preeminent
gender. Pop culture also highlights particular characteristics and behaviors, which then
normalizes these behaviors, despite them being stereotypical characteristics. Logically, portrayal
in popular culture does not translate to increased acceptance. In fact, Bond noted that LGBT
individuals, if portrayed at all, are often portrayed in a negative light, even in today’s media,
including television, newspapers or magazines, movies, and music (2011). Stereotyping exists:
historically, gay men are seen as extremely effeminate or as sexual predators while lesbian
women are portrayed either as masculine and strong or as lipstick feminists.
The relevance of this interrelation between media portrayal and LGBT representation is
signified by this quote: “When media images of our lives are fair, accurate and inclusive, we find
ourselves increasingly welcomed into a society that respects difference. When those images
perpetuate stereotypes, myths and misinformation about our lives, we become vulnerable to antigay forces working to create a world in which we do not exist.” (Retrieved from http://www.cite
glad.org) Where heteronormativity persists, people’s perception of its self and of others remains
skewed. Therefore, a critical analysis is required of media, especially those in which
representations of marginal identities, particularly the LGBT sector, are made.
This paper aims to provide a brief retrospective of LGBT representation in Philippine
popular media, as shown in mainstream tv shows and movies. It seeks to examine the existence
heteronormativity from this retrospective through a rhetorical analysis. To further discuss this
issue, documents and sources are used. George Gerbner’s Cultivation Theory is used in
explaining how the media influences the way people perceive the said community.
A Study in Sexuality
In existing social science literature, terms ‘gender’ and ‘sex’ has been interchangeably used
(Haig, 2004).
Feminist scholars have further defined that sex refers to the physical and biological
manifestations of sex-linked chromosomes, while gender is the social and psychological
characteristics related with, although not flawlessly correlated with, biological sex categories.
However, feminist scholars have put forth the following delineation: sex refers to the biological
and physical manifestations of sex-linked chromosomes, and gender refers to psychological and
social characteristics associated with, but not necessarily correlating perfectly with, biological
sex categories (Crawford & Unger, 2004). Sexual orientation generally states an individual’s
attraction physically or emotionally to the same or opposite sex which is usually categorized to:
gay and lesbian are people who attracted to the same sex; heterosexual are those who are
attracted to the opposite sex; and bisexual are those who are attracted to both sexes.
The emergence of same-sexual behavior or homosexuals has been cited in Western societies not
earlier than 19 century, even though sexual identity has been recognized through historical and
cultural contexts. (Foucault, 1978) Along with bestiality, adultery, and masturbation, same-sex
contact was criticized by religious groups and was labeled as a forbidden behavior, and not as an
indication to another group of people. Biological, medical, psychological perspectives started
seeing that sexual behavior is an classifying characteristic since late 1800 to 1960s.
‘Homosexual’ is a term that was used to describe people who are involved in behaviors of samesex.
Arguments upon the status quo of homosexuality was raised, but was agreed generally to
be an ‘abormal’ state pathologically The category ‘heterosexual’ has been argued by social
constructionists emerged, after the term ‘homosexuality’ was defined.
In other words, neither 'heterosexual' nor 'homosexual' was employed to categorize
distinct' ways of being' until writers like Ulrichs, Kertbeny, Jager, Westphal, and Krafft-Ebing
introduced and elaborated on the idea of 'the homosexual' (Foucault, 1978).
On the other hand, LGBT is an initialism that stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender. In use since the 1990s, the term is an adaptation of the initialism LGB, which itself
started replacing the term gay when in reference to the LGBT community beginning in the midto-late 1980s, as many felt the term gay community did not accurately represent all those to
whom it referred. It is intended to emphasize a diversity of sexuality and gender identity-based
cultures and is sometimes used to refer to anyone who is non-heterosexual or non-cisgender
instead of exclusively to people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. To recognize this
inclusion, a popular variant adds the letter Q for those who identify as queer or are questioning
their sexual identity as LGBTQ, recorded since 1996. When we refer to LGBTQ, it is significant
to remember that we are not simply referring to it as one’s sex indicating a male or female, or
one’s gender being masculine or feminine, since the term ‘transgender’ and ‘queer’ makes it
difficult to generalize it. People whose gender identity which is mismatched to their sex is
referred to as ‘transgender’ (e.g. A male who identifies as feminine or as a woman, while ‘queer’
which generally refers to all non-heterosexual groups (LGBT). Queer is also used to emphasize
that sexual orientation and gender must not be effortlessly categorized or easily be generalized.
Kitzinger (2005, p. 478) describes heteronormativity as "the myriad ways in which
heterosexuality is produced as a natural, unproblematic, taken-for-granted phenomenon."
Heteronormativity sets up unconscious and automatic assumptions about heterosexuality as the
norm and all other types of sexual experience as abnormal. Such representation from the media,
laws, and policies explicates how and why these individuals may be omitted and rejected. It is
maintained and perpetuated by social institutions such as marriage as well as by everyday actions
taken by individuals. It is an unseen force that dictates the boundaries of presumed normal
sexuality and even normal social interactions. Elia (2003) and Hegarty, Pratto, and Lemiux
(2004) described how social institutions (often implicitly) reproduce assumptions about
heterosexuality as the norm and perpetuate privilege for those who 'fit' into the prescribed mold
of heterosexuality. However, as Jackson (2006) wrote, "normative heterosexuality regulates
those kept within its boundaries as well as marginalizing and sanctioning those outside them" (p.
105). In other words, heteronormativity affects individuals regardless of sexual orientation,
proscribing and requiring different kinds of actions and experiences based on gender, and
creating categories of acceptable and unacceptable groups of people (see Hegarty, Pratto, &
Lemieux, 2004).
Representation or Regression: LGBT portrayal in the media
Gerbner’s Culitvation Theory
George Gebrner’s cultivation theory is an approach which indicates how people exposure
of people to television influence or affect their concepts of social reality. Also, it explains that
the more television people watch, the higher the chances that people’s portrayal of reality is
molded and characterized by it. (Gerbner et al., 1979)
In a system of heteronormative values, for instance, applying the Cultivation Theory would
imply cumulative and long-term effects in societal behavior, values and ideals that would further
cultivate heteronormative norms. It implies that media contributes how the masses view the
concept of sexual identities and of queer members of the community, based on exposures they
have had through different media, like the television and cinema.
Culturally speaking, Mulkey drawing from Foucault explains it as a metaphorical panopticon,
whereby culture encloses and confines its participants to make them visible and invisible. She
said that through repeated utterances, culture represents what is normal and abnormal (or
deviant). One of the primary ways in which culture relays these messages is through images—
participants of a culture learn, participate in, and perpetuate that culture through the images we
see—what‘s visible and what‘s not visible and how they are shown to be visible or invisible. In
other words, culture relays messages through images. In this way, the panopticon becomes a
habit of seeing—a visuality, or scopic regimes, what Rose defines as ―the ways in which both
what is seen and how it is seen are culturally constructed. Visuality is thus a habit that enables
the functioning of the panopticon. It is how the panopticon works to make bodies visible and
invisible: the ways we see tells us what is normal and what is abnormal, Pand therefore, the ways
we see make things visible and invisible—visibility meaning those acceptable performances
within a heteronormative society and invisibility meaning unacceptable performances within the
same parameters. A performance that is considered outside the heteronormative gaze precludes
stereotyping or tokenism; challenging heteronormativity invokes breaking the constraints of
heteronormative labels.
Queer TV and film in the Philippines: A Retrospective
Cenón Obíspo Palomáres, in his paper "Opening the Closet with a Digital Key:
Homosexual Desire and the Birth and Evolution of Philippine Digital Cinema" notes that in its
ninety-year-history, there have been very few locally produced Filipino films that tackle male
homosexuality. And most of these films, if not all, show homosexuals as man-hungry sex fiends,
crooks, idiots, and willing victims of pranks and jokes. Gays were either typecast as “villains,
idiotic sidekicks, willing victims of pranks and jokes and hopeless romantics who pine endlessly
for their object/s of love and/or lust.”
Some of these stereotypes were portrayed by the King of Comedy, Dolphy, in such
movies as Ang Tatay kong Nanay, Facifica Falayfay, and Jack and Jill; or by veteran comedian
Roderick Paulatein Petrang Kabayo, Ako si Kiko, Ako si Kikay and Jack en Poy. Although these
films raked money at the box-officefrom the 1950’s and 1990’s, Palomares said these have “only
made gay stereotyping even worse and their naked corpus as social opprobrium.”
However, several landmark gay films that were critically acclaimed such as awardwinning director Nick de Ocampo’s 1983 documentary, Oliver, which featured the double life of
Reynaldo Villarama as a husband and loving father at home, and a female impersonator at night
who uses the name Oliver in his job at the club; or Raymond Red’s experimental short film Ang
Magpakailanman (1983). But, Palomares said such films are too few to have any cultural and
business muscle to flex and be considered as a movement.
In 2000, when digital filmmaking became popular and gay films significantly flourished,
Palomares said gays began to be portrayed differently and that the new breed of artists, writers,
filmmakers and wannabes made films about their own experiences, fantasies, thoughts, ideas and
ideals that are free from the dictates of macho producers. Nevertheless, this remains to be limited
to independently-made cinema or indie for short, said Palomares. Gay films in the Philippines
are actually produced independently by filmmakers who wanted to create something that is free
from the dictates of so-called “macho” producers. As Palomares explains, most of the fifty to
sixty films made and released every year are digital, independently produced, and gay in nature.
Only a small fraction of it is churned out by the three film outfits that make commercial, genre,
big-budget movies.
In mainstream cinema, there continues to be a proliferation of movies which show
prominent portrayals of gays or homosexuals, but it largely remains to be within the parameters
of the aforementioned of the flamboyant gay stereotype.
For instance, Star Cinema and Viva Film’s This Guy’s In Love With You Pare, a 2012
comedy parody film of the Parokya Ni Edgar song tells the story of a gay man, played by Vice
Ganda who works at a stylist and who seeks to sabotage his former lover’s new relationship after
he finds out that the latter has been cheating on him—a trope in Philippine cinema that has long
reached the point of cliché. In a way, this heavily stereotypical performances become queer
repetitions of heteronormativity, in which visibility of gay, lesbians and queer characters do not
equate to the eradication nor to the minify the heteronormative media. Although the show seeks
to spotlight the life of gay men, the gay lead’s character Lester and his posse of gay stylists are
actually supporters of heterosexuality, representatives of that ideology and power structure by
adhering to acceptable perception of gayness. Viewers are not challenged by uncomfortable
scenes that trouble the expected norm.
Vice Ganda goes on to play the titular role in The Unkabogable Praybeyt Benjamin and
The Amazing Praybeyt Benjamin— two of the highest-grossing Filipino films. The movies’
plots are more sympathetic: Vice Ganda plays a gay man who is forced to enlist in the Philippine
Army after a civil war broke out. Despite similarly following the heteronormative gaze by
characterizing “Benjie” as the same flamboyant, comedic, and amorous gay, Vice Ganda’s
performance, however smart and snappy, remains devoid of critical deviations from the
expectations of members of the queer community.
In Philippine television, much is the same with regard to blatant stereotyping. A common
figure, for instance, in Philippine TV is the ‘butch’ or according to the Merriam Webster
Dictionary, “an overtly/stereotypically masculine-acting woman An example of this is the sodubbed ‘Kute’ –a crude combination of Kuya and Ate, an indication of sexual ambiguity from a
mannish role played by Aiza Seguerra from ‘Please be Careful With My Heart’. Lesbians have
almost never been portrayed in the media outside the common ‘butch’ image. This erratic
portrayal is problematic, at best, not only in its lack of prominence in the story, but also because
it creates a false mentality that lesbianism’s manifestations only occur in masculine behavior and
appearances.
It is also often the case, as with Seguerra and Vice Ganda, that gay or lesbian characters
are played only by similarly queer actors. Someone who is straight would not want to play a gay
character because he or she might be concerned about being seen as gay. This assumption,
therefore, places significant value on being heterosexual and stigmatizes homosexuality.
In 2013, the premiere of My Husband’s Lover in GMA 7 created hubbub among popular
culture consumers and enthusiasts in its portrayal of gay men which deviated from media
stereotype of portraying gay men as effeminate. The novelty of the homosexual theme
skyrocketed the ratings of the pilot episode. On the contrary, this only perpetuates
heteronormativity by emphasizing the patriarchal construct of a masculine-feminine binary;
having emphasized that being gay is something that is not normal, and has impliedly made the
husband’s infidelity more unacceptable.
Conclusion
Applying the Cultivation Theory in this scenario, it is logical to see that heteronormative
perception of LGBT characters in Philppine television and film is a cyclical tragedy which feeds
upon itself. Manifestation of this culture which normalizes heterosexual norms and vilifies queer
identities through repetition and rearticulation of heterosexuality through media and popular
culture only serves to futher imbibe heteronormativity in peopleativity in people media and
popular cultureThis, then turns out to churn out more rearticulations of heteronormativity
through various ways which stereotype lesbians and gay characters. Although the trend is to be
more accommodating of such LGBT characters, in that, now, more than ever, there are more
movies and shows portraying LGBT characters, popular TV and films remain with rigid
structures in their interpretation of the roles, with deviations such as My Husbandhan ever,and
Praybeyt Benjamin not straying much further from traditional gay roles. Gays are still seen as
freakish and abnormal. Although the fact of proliferation of such characters in mass media may
seem to, in itself, challenge heteronormativity, it is still a long way to go or more critical minds
to involve before any media before any mediabe able to challenge heteronormativity in popular
culture with such significant breadth and impact.
References:
Bond, B. J. (2011). Sexuality in the media and emotional well-being among lesbian, gay,&
bisexual adolescents. UMI Dissertation Publishing
Chandler, D.(1995).Cultivation Theory.
(Retrieved from http://visualmemory.co.uk/daniel/Documents/short/cultiv.html)
Crawford, M, & Unger, R. (2004). Women and gender: A feminist psychology (4th ed).
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality. New York: Pantheon Books.Palomares
Habarth J. (2008) Thinking 'Straight': Heteronormativity and Associated Outcomes across
Sexual Orientation
Palomares C. (2010) Opening the Closet with a Digital Key: Homosexual Desire and the Birth
and Evolution of Philippine Digital Cinema
Peele, T. (2007). Queer popular culture: Literature, media, film, and television. New York u.a.:
Palgrave Macmillan