Joe Dulaney

Speech One Outline

 

Attention Getter:

 

A.) “If you believe you are safe, you are at risk. If you do not see this killer stalking your children, look again. There is no family or community, no race or religion, no place left in America that is safe. Until we genuinely embrace this message, we are a nation at risk.”- Mary Fisher

 

Credibility:

 

A.)These unsettling and harsh words, in addition to producing a staggered tremble that awoke a serene and tranquil nation, chillingly hushed the Astrodome in Houston Texas during the 1992 republican national convention and left me so fervently kindled for a further pursuit of this speakers disturbing omen that I have thoroughly researched her message and motives which lead to its delivery.

 

Introduction and Thesis:

 

A.)These words which were valiantly delivered to the convention and to the nation were uttered by Mary Fisher; a mother, a daughter, a wife, a sister, but above all other significances, a messenger with a proclamation of need, of a time to prepare, and of a present day hidden holocaust. Mary Fisher came before the nation to warn them that the HIV virus had already ravaged her life and that her fellow Americans, in addition to the global citizens across the nations, in their every seemingly secure and infallible manners of existence, were too at risk.

 

Transition: A slight pause to allow time for audience absorbance of thesis in addition to a resolute indicator that the speaker is moving into the body of the speech.

 

Audience:

 

A.)This prophecy, as Fisher herself indicates, was directed toward “all within the presence of my her voice.” However, she did have several specifically intended audience members to whom she extended a more vital plea.

 

1.) “We must be consistent if we are to be believed. We cannot love justice and ignore prejudice, love our children and fear to teach them. Whatever our role as parent or policymaker, we must act as eloquently as we speak -- else we have no integrity.”

 

2.) It is with these words that Fisher specifically reaches out to her own party as well as all those whose authority has the influence to inform and recognize the need for a reformed social system free of the “tolerated ignorance and practiced prejudice” which has kept the word AIDS to be murmured only hesitantly among the socially damned and culturally abandoned.

 

A.) However, Fisher’s fervent petition for a reformed administration not only of American politics, but as well to the American lineage of thought, extends further in the form of a warm consolation to those whom suffer an anguished terror and whose lives have been fiercely and brutally rapped by the HIV virus as heard within the following excerpt.

 

1.) “You are HIV positive, but dare not say it. You have lost loved ones, but you dare not whisper the word AIDS. You weep silently. You grieve alone... We the American people must lift our shroud of silence, making it safe for you to reach out for compassion.”

 

Transition: It is from this expulsion and marginalization of society’s lowest common denominator that Fisher discusses that the a close parallel between the irrationally credulous beliefs of medieval London during the bubonic plague outburst and many American’s assured confidence that the HIV virus is be a condition strictly limited to a select few populaces.

 

Exigence:

A.) Fisher sought, through her own personal experience of infection, to defy such erroneous ideas of ignorance and to conclude the delusion of immortality that was so well developed within the minds of the American multitudes.

1.) “My call to the nation is a plea for awareness. If you believe you are safe, you are in danger. Because I was not hemophiliac, I was not at risk. Because I was not gay, I was not at risk. Because I did not inject drugs, I was not at risk…It does not care whether you are Democrat or Republican; it does not ask whether you are black or white, male or female, gay or straight, young or old…because HIV asks only one thing of those it attacks. Are you human?”

B.) Fisher goes on to discuss the necessity of a superior political and social forum for those infected by the HIV virus.

1.) Two years ago Reagan openly admitted and apologized for his neglect of the growing epidemic during his presidency. (Timeline of HIV/AIDS in the United States)

2.) As well the story of Ryan White, a 14 year old boy who had acquired the HIV virus through an infected blood sample for his hemophilia and was denied the right to attend school at the request of the school board and the parents of children at Ryan’s high school, was still fresh in the minds of the AIDS community. (Timeline of HIV/AIDS in the United States)

3.) While within the few years preceding the speech president Bush Sr. had approved the American with Disabilities Act which prohibited employers and landlords alike from the unlawful and in just discrimination of US citizens whom were either themselves HIV+ or were in any way associated with someone whom was infected by this virus. (QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:) However, even with this law in action, many still embraced the idea that AIDS was the result of a moral fault of the infected individual and was often associated with such degenerate behavior as drug abuse. (HIV & AIDS Discrimination and Stigma)

 

 

 

Transition: It is from this erroneous lineage of thought that HIV is the product of an equation whose reactants involve immortality and corrupt behavior that Fisher was restricted from delivering a message free of any censorship.

 

Constraints:

A.) Fisher’s speech was given delivered August 19th, 1992 at the Republican National convention. Therefore, in the address to her audience her words were to be methodically assembled so as still preserve a conservative image and yet, simultaneously, urge for societal expansion from a party which would readily reject a message defined by a liberal undertone.

1.) Only two days earlier on August 17th, 1992 Pat Buchanan delivered his infamous “culture war” speech which was omnipresently littered with impressions of racism, sexism, and homophobia. (Articles, Letters, and Speeches)

 

2.) Although Fisher even states within her speech that “I am SHE IS one with the lonely gay man sheltering a flickering candle from the cold wind of his family’s rejection” in addition to asking the multitudes of both the republican and democratic “to set aside prejudices and their own political beliefs to serve compassion and greater policy to those who are in need”, further development of such a progressive and tolerant ideas would likely clash with or further, seem to contradict the Republican party’s policy leading to a seemingly destabilized self-image and an overall weakened platform.

 

3.) Fisher returned during the 1996 convention delivering a similar speech and further pursuing the ever-needed advancements in HIV research and social conduct. Although Fisher’s plea received overwhelming support from her party, during the 2000 convention a more conservative speaker whom favored the more conservative message of abstinence to Fisher’s “lives over virginity” campaign was chosen to deliver a message relevant to AIDS . (Kuczynski)

 

Transition: Although Fisher’s revolutionary forewarning inevitably lead to her replacement as a speaker at the Republican convention her message yet maintains its integrity and forewarning echoes into today’s generation.

 

Summary and Conclusion:

A.) Fisher was a sister, a wife, a daughter, and a mother and yet Mary Fisher too was a “black infant struggling with tubes in a Philadelphia hospital”. Mary Fisher was a white heterosexual women whom had contracted what had been called by many at the time “gay cancer” in marriage and in so doing raised the shroud of invulnerability that many rested upon and ferociously and in so doing, awakened a calm and comforted country by four words which in their simple presentation held the immense power to amend and enlighten a nation: “You are at Risk.”

 

 

comments:

 

Carolyn Graham: As everyone else said, you had a really good opening- it gave me goose-bumps! You had a nice volume and a good, confident pace throughout your speech. You could have more eye contact. I really liked how you showed the contrast between the stereotype and the truth with your visual aids - very effective. Overall, wonderful job!

 

Caitlin Leahy: Great opening! I liked how you really incorporated the actual speech into your own writing. Work on eye contact and watch our for verbal fillers. Everything was well researched and you made some great points. Watch your speed because you got a little fast at times. You had a really great closing as well. Great job!

 

Whitney Trompeter: You had a great attention getter. I really like the style of writing! It set a tone, which is always good. You sometimes looked above the audience instead of making eye contact, but only a couple of times. Also watch out for the fillers (they weren't obvious either, but just something to watch for). Definately a well written and entertaining speech. Good job.

 

Michael McKenna: The introduction was great! Your voice inflection was excellent. You are very well-educated on the topic. You spoke quickly at times, which provided emphasis on key points, however it seemed to take you a little while to get back to your regular pace, which is something I would work on, but I think you can fix this-no problem. Overall, good job, and you kept my attention!

 

Jess Mannion: Your attention getter had great impact! By emphasizing words that demanded attention, you increased the impact of your speech.It was evident that you were very passionate about your subject and you did your research. At times you did seem a little nervous, losing some eye-contact and talking rapidly. Overall, great speech, well written, and well addressed!

 

David Oh: Great introduction! At first, your speech sounded a little bit gloomy but then you turned it into a very interesting subject. You had great word selections which enhanced the speech. You were very confident. Overall, great job!

 

Laura O'Neal: Your attention getter worked- you definitely got my attention. Also, your use of vocabulary kept me listening and set you apart from other presenters. You seemed approachable, credible, and had an excellent closing. I'm excited to hear your next speech, you had some really interesting observations. The only advice I have is to watch your stance a little- you were sort of hunched over there for a while. That's it though- good job today!

 

John Galvin: Hey your speech had a great attention getting intro with the quotation and a nice conclusion. Also you built your points up very nicely. You also had very interesting quotations which really fitted your speech. However, sometimes your speed seemed to fluctuate a lot during a sentence a sentence which hurt the flow of the speech. Overall it was a very interesting and good speech.

 

Siama Manzoor: Joey, nice speech. Your attention getter was solid and you seemed very confident and aggressive. You tended to look up at the ceiling a couple times and you also read from your paper a little bit. Your structure was good and you had a solid conclusion. Nice work.

 

Enrique Ortiz: The passion of your speech was an unquestionable asset to its overall delivery, and was accompanied by a well prepared outline. All of us in the audience were truly motivated by your speech, and were able to see that you know the topic quite thoroughly. I liked the fact that it was easy to hear you, and your tone-changes reflected the content of the speech. Again, great job, and just keep up the good work for next time. Perhaps you can use a little less emotion for the second speech, but definitely keep it in there to make the speech as good as the first one.

 

Scot Brown: As people have said, your rhetoric was very well polished. Though it obvious you were not giving this speech simply off the cuff, it was not stiff or constrained at all in the way that some carefully pre-worded speeches are. You seemed nervous though, and had some fillers that stuck out pretty badly because the rest of the speech was so well worded.

 

Commnets for 2nd speech:

 

Nicole Ritschel: I felt like I had to comment on your speech. First off, great topic choice, you have an uncanny ability to choose quality topics. Second, you rock! and you are a tough act to follow =)

 

Whitney Trompeter: I really liked your intro. Like last time, I really liked the writing style. You used good repitition ("young") and good parallels in the structure of your speech. I liked the pauses you used for effect and you spoke very passionately, which made the speech interesting to listen to. I might have warned people about the picture with the drug addict at the beginning of the speech, even though it was really funny that it wasn't Mary. Great speech and good job!

 

Maria Martin: First off, great intro - that's really important for a good speech and with yours, you grabbed my attention and made me want to listen. Your visuals were interesting as were your explanations for them. You had great volume and intonation, and your main points were really easy to follow. The only little thing I could suggest improvement on is eye contact, but even with that you did pretty well. You definitely showed improvement from your first speech, great job!

 

Enrique: The opening of your speech was very emotional, and you used terrific hand gestures to stress certain points. Also, your tone changes enhanced the quality of the speech, and were very effective at maintaining the attention of the audience. I liked the Huckabee comparison, and felt it was very relevant to the speech. Just remember to keep eye contact, and continue to do what you have been doing! Great Job!

 

 

Joe Dulaney

 

“Whisper of AIDS” Content/Message Analysis Outline

 

Attention Getter:

 

A.) “Tonight, HIV marches resolutely towards AIDS in more than a million American homes, littering its pathway with the bodies of the young -- young men, young women, young parents, and young children. One of the families is mine. If it is true that HIV inevitably turns to AIDS, then my children will inevitably turn to orphans (3).”

 

Introduction and Thesis:

 

A.) Introduced within my previous speech, Mary Fisher’s message of the a imminent and stalking danger that is the HIV virus exists now, as it was during the 1992 republican national convention, a horrifying realization of vulnerability to the common man and to our world as a whole.

 

1.) It is this message, whose precise construction was made so that with every demand for a reformed social system Fisher’s audience is impelled to obey her petitions.

 

2.) With any given distressing tale of an abandoned soul or an expiring child, the audience is manipulated in such a way as to feel Fisher’s enduring pain.

 

3.) Thus, as was Fisher’s intended goal, through the 1992 delivery of “A Whisper of AIDS” the nation was effectively motivated in such a way as to genuinely accept its fallibility and to recognize and begin the repair of its own injustices and prejudices pertaining to those infected with HIV and who suffer from AIDS.

 

 

Credibility and Transition:

 

A.) Through the careful analysis and interpretation of Fisher’s speech, I have separated her message’s organization into several individual groupings. Each of which containing its own individual structure and message separate of the other categories.

 

B.) To begin the analysis of Fisher’s message, let’s turn to the most genuine and earnest portion of Fisher’s speech: her discussion of the ones she loves most.

 

 

 

 

Family Discussion:

 

A.) (Image of the stereotypical HIV positive infected person paralleled to Fisher (1).) This is not Mary Fisher. However, in accordance with the common day mindset of 1992 this was the stereotypical form of degeneracy that left individuals to be at risk of one day battling the HIV virus. To be avoidant of such behavior was to be invincible.

 

B.) Again THIS is not Mary Fisher. But this is… (Image of Mary Fisher with her two sons (2)). This is a picture of a mother, not a user. A heterosexual woman, not a gay male. A respectable and contributing member of our society, not a degenerate…you and me.

 

C.) As Michael Kelly of the New York Times stated “Mary Fisher is rich, white, heterosexual and high-caste Republican. Hers is not the common face of AIDS (4).”

 

1.) And this was the very image that Fisher wanted her audience to be sold to; if her message of nation-wide vulnerability was to be grasped she would have to show that she herself lived the “conservative white-picket fence, two children, typical all-American” lifestyle.

 

2.) With the goal in mind of displaying her customary lifestyle and in satisfying the conservative ideals of the party to which her speech was delivered, Fisher discusses one of our most simple known pleasures; she discusses her family’s love.

 

3.) “My 84-year-old father, who has pursued the healing of the nations, will not accept the premise that he cannot heal his daughter. My mother refuses to be broken. She still calls at midnight to tell wonderful jokes that make me laugh. I am blessed, richly and deeply blessed, to have such a family (3).”

 

4.) In addition to several references to God, Fisher also mentions her two sons Zachary and Max stating that their silly giggle gives her hope, their soft prayers give her strength and that she draws her courage from them (3).

 

5.) From this firm display of ethos Fisher effectively distances herself from the stereotypical HIV infected individual; not out of shame or humility but so that her audience may see her as more than simply a host to a fatal virus, but as a person susceptible to pain and in need of her family’s affection. In so doing her integrity and sincerity to her audience is unquestionable; she is “one of them, she’s human.

 

6.) Transition:

 

A.) With the approachable sentiment that is felt between the audience and Fisher, and as she stands at the same podium where the now Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee advocated the isolation of HIV positive people and those who suffer from AIDS, she now unleashes a reprimanding message of reform as is described in the following New York Times excerpt: (5)

 

Discussion of Social Faults:

 

A.) ‘In a speech exceptional for its deep emotion and sharp message, Ms. Fisher implicitly rebuked those in her party who have regarded the sickness as a self-inflicted plague earned by immoral behavior -- homosexual sex or intravenous drug abuse “The rate of infection is increasing fastest among women and children. Largely unknown a decade ago, AIDS is the third leading killer of young adult Americans today. Adolescents don’t give each other cancer or heart disease because they believe they are in love, but HIV is different; and we have helped it along. We have killed each other with our ignorance, our prejudice and our silence," she said, while dressed in a country-club style black and white evening dress (4) .’

 

1.) With this previous statement in mind it is clear to see why Fisher structured her speech in such a way as to acquaint herself to the audience firstly then to inform them of their sin of indifference and lack of mercy.

 

2.) If Fisher had chosen to rely on her reputation as the daughter of a privileged and prominent member of the republican party and had simply ignored the sentimental contribution which the discussion of her family life brings, her message, even in its stimulating and tender delivery, would most likely been rejected and viewed only as an attack by her own party.

 

3.) However with this effective structure, the conservative audiences members whom are first noted on camera during the speeches opening anxiously squirming and displaying clear signs of indifference toward a discussion of the HIV virus are later seen towards the speech’s main body and conclusion as clearly inspired and openly moved. As well, several passing shots catches audience members wiping away sober tears as Fisher discusses the statistics of the wreckage already caused by the HIV virus and of world-wide death count estimates of the coming years.

 

 

 

 

Transition:

 

A.) Finally, Fisher’s last organized objective, after haven stimulating this audience’s emotional appeal in addition to giving light to an overlooked epidemic, is to challenge her audience to change.

 

What Needs to be Done:

 

A.) “It is we -- we who tolerate ignorance and practice prejudice, we who have taught you who are HIV positive to fear. We must lift our shroud of silence, making it safe for you to reach out for compassion. It is our task to seek safety for our children, not in quiet denial, but in effective action.”

 

1.) Delivered towards the concluding minutes of Fisher’s speech, her petitions for change were flawlessly timed so as to strike her audience with her demands during a climax of emotion.

 

2.) The effectiveness of these tactics are clearly viewed as Fisher’s audience members are seen obediently nodding during the last few moments of her speech as she asks for intolerances to be set aside to allow mercy and sound policy in its place.

 

3.) As the New York Times would state within the days after Fisher’s speech “At a convention where ill will abounded, she offered a brave and uplifting call for understanding (6).”

 

Transition:

 

A.) Thus, as was evidently displayed by the hushed and awed crowd of the 1992 republican convention, Fisher’s progressive message of vulnerability and demands for change were welcomed, due to her skillful usage of ethos to her audience and a well maintained structural appeal.

 

 

Conclusion:

 

A.) In conclusion, and as my final demonstration of Fisher’s ethos to her audience I will leave you with the same words that Fisher left her audience, of an ever-present petition of AIDS adjoined to a final reference of the conservative ideal and hope that comes with children.

 

1.) To all within the sound of my voice, I appeal: Learn with me the lessons of history and of grace, so my children will not be afraid to say the word "AIDS" when I am gone. Then, their children and yours may not need to whisper it at all.

God bless the children, and God bless us all.

Bibliography

 

1.) 4 Mar 2008 <http://www.cripo.com.ua/back/narkomany_prt3_01.jpg >.

 

2.) 4 Mar 2008 .

 

3.) Fisher, Mary. ""A Whisper of AIDS"." American Rhetoric. 4 Mar 2008 <http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/maryfisher1992rnc.html>.

 

4.) Kelly, Michael. A DELICATE BALANCE: Issues -- AIDS; AIDS Speech Brings Hush to Crowd ." New York Times 20 Aug 1992

 

5.) "Mary Fisher: A Whisper of AIDS." MileHighGayGuy. 4 Mar 2008 <http://milehighgayguy.blogspot.com/2007/12/mary-fisher-whisper-of-aids.html>.

 

6.) Teaching Mercy to Republicans." New York Times 8-22-1992

 

 

 

 

 

PAPER #2

Analyzing gender roles and sexual orientation of __The Simpsons__

 

Joe Dulaney

CAS100C

4/28/08

Joe Dulaney

CAS100C

4/28/08

“You know me Marge, I like my beer cold, my T.V. loud, and my homosexuals flaming”. This statement, spoken by Homer within a The Simpsons episode in which homosexuality and sexual orientation are the main topics of discussion, is made in reference to John; a middle aged gay male and a newly introduced character within the series who initially befriends Homer. However, upon Homer’s enlightenment that John is different than himself, that he, unlike Homer, does not maintain the habitually conservative and society-appeasing image which men are naturally characterized by, soon rejects John on the contemptuous grounds that he does not openly and blatantly display his orientation for all to take note of.

Thus, in choosing to follow and interpret this episode where the functionality of gender and sexual orientation within a contemporary American society are so well exhibited, I intend to look specifically at several selected segments of the class scripts which will allow for an advancement of annotation.

Firstly, I will call attention to the construction of sexual orientation and gender which is so well embedded within the text: according to this episode, what does it mean to be male and how is this classification sub organized into homosexual versus heterosexual men? Furthermore, the concept of conventional behavior according to a societal standard will be examined as several characters within this episode either fully embrace or completely defy the normal and stereotyped roles usually viewed within our culture. Finally, in furthering the advancement of the gender and sexual orientation identity, the relationships that are exhibited within the episode between heterosexuals with other heterosexuals, heterosexuals with homosexuals, and homosexuals with other homosexuals will be evaluated so that the cultural construction of these orientations may be further understood and explained within the context of a societal organization. Due to the abundance of information that is to be discussed with these points of interest no attention will be paid to the topics of audience or rhetoric as it relates to the episode.

Thus, it is from the analysis of this episode of The Simpsons where the functionalities of gender and sexual orientation exist tangent to one another that the fundamental nature of these most basic roles within our society will be scrutinized and dissected. From this investigation, the stereotyped idea of what it means to be a heterosexual male, and the common delusion that so many abide to in that that they are far from the seemingly radical and divergent social group of homosexuals, will go under trial as it shall be shown that in reality, these two identities blur within an indistinguishable and interchangeable chaos of Hawaiian shirts and festive dancing to cold beers and deer hunting.

To begin to demonstrate where the roles of sexual identity intertwine with gender, I turn to one of the most eccentric settings within the episode: the steel mill scene. Stereotypically steel mill workers would be portrayed to endorse the most conservative of roles within a blue collar society and to represent the most masculine of men. However, in a revolutionary deviant from this conventional image, the workers of this mill are colorfully flamboyant, flirtatiously feminine, and, as the scene ends, are shown to interact by dancing jovially with one another to the sounds of dance music.

It is in this portion of the episode where the lines of what is normal and appropriate blur most vividly with what is strange and foreign. With the expectation that these men are to behave as the stereotypical conservative traditionalists of America in mind, it is a puzzling to see them partake in behaviors that are classified by an American standard as simply queer. Furthermore it is in the interactions between these men while they work where a firm sense of their gender identity is founded: while participating in these coy activities, the men nevertheless are attentive to their work as they are showed in the scene’s opening strenuously adhered to their labors and as such are clearly identifiable as hardworking and diligent men which is the idea most frequented with the steel mill industry.

It is interesting to note these observances for several reasons. Firstly, if these steel mill workers whom are both so well founded within their identities to be masculine men but yet simultaneously are depicted in such a manner that blatantly deviates from this label, one is only left to wonder where the line which separates these two identities may be established, or furthermore, if such a partition is existent at all.

In a further example of the obscurities between the conventional heterosexual behavior and the practices of homosexuals, I now turn my attention to Homer’s son Bart who is suspected of being gay throughout the episode.

“Oh dad you are living end” says Bart as his limp wrist recoils forward from an arched position and as his pupils are rolled in the most feminine of manners. It is from this first display of a linguist, combined with a physical, depiction that evidence of Bart potentially being homosexual is observed by Homer. Further examples within the show include Bart’s wearing of a Hawaiian shirt which, according to Homer, is a clear indicator that his son is either gay or “a big fat party animal”. From choosing a pink cupcake over a chocolate one to dancing blissfully while wearing a women’s wig, Bart is portrayed at several instances within the episode as partaking in activities which heterosexual males are not commonly related with and are most often stereotyped within today’s society as gay.

However, although not well exhibited within this episode, Bart does possess a firm gender identity that correlates him to being male: Bart has an extroversive personality and a confrontational attitude that is often exhibited with what could be referred to as the “bad boy” persona which in no way embellishes the traits associated femininity and male homosexuality. Thus, it is from these parallel descriptions of Bart that the societal established definition of normality in addition to homosexuality are further defeated and the severance between appropriate heterosexual male behavior is further tangled within an imprecise and distorted mesh between gay and straight males alike.

Nextly, it is interesting to note the similarities and differences exhibited between the interactions of Bart and Homer, both of whom are heterosexual males, and John, the newly introduced colorful gay male within the show.

John is, as described my Marge, Homer’s wife, “quite a charmer”. He is filled with witty compliments, and cleaver remarks as Bart and Homer alike both take a found pleasure from his presence within the episodes opening scenes. This benevolent bond between Bart and John endures throughout the episode as Bart, along with his mother and sister Lisa, are representative of the broadminded and charitably compassionate individuals within society whom themselves see past an individual’s sexual preference but rather, direct their concentration to one’s character and persona.

However, Homer, whose heterosexual orientation combined with a low tolerance for those who deviate from himself, characterizes himself with the conservative heterosexual male identity within the contemporary American society as he soon rejects John based on his sexual preferences. Homer goes on to embellish and embrace this narrow minded heterosexual identity when asked by John why he has such contemptuous opinions of gays to which Home responds: “You know it’s…it’s not usual. If there was a law it would be against it.”

It is with this bigoted statement where the true dilemma of the sitcom is brought about; Homer sees gays as the “them” and not the “us”. From his well founded sexual identity as a straight male, he recognizes only the needs of those who adhere to the same beliefs and behaviors as himself and fails to recognize or acknowledge the common ground and similarities that exists between himself and individuals of a paralleling sexual identity.

From these relations between Homer and John, the homosexual counterpart of the episode, it is relevant for the sake of comparison to note Homer’s interactions between those individuals whom possess a similar sexual and gender identity to himself: his two drinking friends Moe and Barny. Moe, a suicidal and manically depressed bartended, in addition to Barney, whom is chronically dependent upon the consumption of alcohol, are portrayed alongside Homer as the socially accepted and societal welcomed straight men.

It is in this episode where these three “societal norms” are shown discussing possible maneuvers to ensure that Bart develops the same sexual identity as themselves, and, in conclusion, agree that hunting will “set the boy straight so that all the diet sodas in the world won’t turn him back”. Although illogical and ludicrous, this conversation develops to show the leisure and intimacy exhibited between individuals of similar gender and sexual identities.

The relevance of this familiarity among sexual orientation roles is made apparent at the episode’s conclusion when John is accredited with saving Moe, Barny, Bart, and Homer’s lives from a pack of reindeer that had become defensibly violent towards the four hunters. It is here that Homer is seen putting his arm around John’s shoulder, an act commonly associated with affection, in addition to socially engaging the man and befriending him once more in spite of John’s orientation and with the same intimacy exhibited between himself and his acquaintances of a similar sexual identity. In this manner, Homer at last acknowledges and even further, embraces the ideas of homosexuality as he soon informs Bart “that anyway Bart chooses to live his life is okay by Homer”, and in so doing Homer imposes his identity of the straight male to evolve alongside that of a gay male. Finally, as the show concludes, the last scene of the episode shows John driving the Simpson family home and is seen not as an identity but as an individual by all in his presence as his identity of a gay male dissolves interchangeably with the heterosexual family of the Simpsons.

Thus, from this analysis of an The Simpsons episode, after having visually witnessed numerous portrayals of the ordain and socially accepted behaviors of heterosexual men within society as paralleled by the branded stereotypes and flamboyant mannerisms most often associated with queer males, one is only left to ponder where the division of gender roles, in addition to the sexual identities, of these seemingly so far distant, yet upon close inspection, evidently intersecting social roles is found. In truth, it can be witnessed within this episode that no such quarantine is known to exist and that within a contemporary American society the roles and identities of queer and heterosexual men alike, are found only to interweave within an entwined and indistinguishable sea of ideology.

 

 

Bibliography

The Simpsons. Dir. Matt Groening.

URL address where this episode may be viewed

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6497411704049528644&q=gay+simpsons+epidisode&ei=Cd0VSJqfBZGErgKhncXlBA&hl=en