The Fab Five: Representation Revolution or Standard Stereotypes?

When it was on air, I loved the 2003 Bravo reality show Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. Loved. For one thing, it was so exciting to see gay men on TV, and not only were they accepted by everyone they worked with,  but they were also the authority on the show: they were more knowledgable because they were gay! This was pretty new.

Looking at films and TV shows, gay characters definitely have more representation than ever; but does any representation mean good representation? In many movies today, especially light movies like romantic comedies, the "gay best friend" is often present. (A gay man of course; because we all know that lesbians are butch, and don't like feminine things like fashion and shopping, and therefore are not useful to straight women.) Does this really represent gay men? Of course not, it's based on a stereotype and is not helpful to the gay community. I remember being in middle school/high school and saying "I really need a gay best friend." But did I really want a friend? Or a gossiping and shopping sidekick? As someone in a class of mine put it, the gay man has become, in popular culture, a necessary accessory for every straight girl. No real depth, no well-rounded interests, just shopping and gossiping and makeovers. And witty comments.



Recently, I thought about Queer Eye for the first time in a long time. When writing my previous post on Chaz Bono, I mentioned Carson Kressley, another current contestant on Dancing with the Stars, and former star of Queer Eye, which got me thinking about it. The show was a favorite of mine once upon a time. But even though I loved the show, I have to wonder: was it just perpetuating the sassy-gay-best-friend-who-loves-to-shop-and-is-a-necessary-accessory-for-every-straight-girl stereotype?

Let's break it down: a typical make-over (though they called it a "make-better") show with gay men as the authorities. The "Fab Five" consisted of Carson (fashion guru), Ted (food and wine), Thom (interior design), Kyan (grooming), and Jay (culture vulture (the most vague job on the show!)). Each queer man helped the straight guy (though later, I just learned, the show expanded to "making better" women and gay men) with an aspect of his life. The gay men were also at varying levels of, what shall we say?, flamboyance. I always appreciated that aspect of the show; they weren't all stereotypes with high pitched voices, squealing and talking about fashion dos and don'ts. Kyan was the one we always referred to as the "straight one;" he didn't look or dress like a stereotypical gay man, he had a deep voice, he didn't squeal, etc. Ted and Thom also came across as less stereotypical or flamboyant than Jay and especially Carson.

For starters, the difference in personalities made for non-stereotypical gay personas. And, in the context of the show, the gay men were more than merely accessories, they were authorities. The show was both dealing in, and playing with, the stereotype that gay men know more about fashion and grooming than straight men. The gay men came in and told the straight men how to dress, decorate their homes, cook, etc. But they weren't all about making the men "fabulous;" often, they were focused on making the men neater, healthier, more professional/adult looking and dressing, and more well-rounded in their hobbies/ interests (culture vulture alert!).

What I also liked about this show was that many of the show's participants seemed to be uncomfortable with the gay men at the beginning of each episode. While I'm guessing that outright homophobia might have disqualified men from being contestants, there were plenty of standard heterosexual male "they can be gay as long as they don't hit on me/ touch me/ make me see it" attitudes that usually seemed to disappear by the end of the episode. Now, maybe this was scripted in, but even if it was, I still liked it. It sent an outright message to viewers: Spending time with actual, and varied, homosexuals can break down homophobia and discomfort, and lead to better understanding. Cheesy? Sure. But needed in our culture and on our TVs? Definitely!

While the overall premise of the show seems to be a stereotype, my conclusion is that this show was still great, and the content of the episodes was much more complex than simple cliches. I still love it and would love to re-watch it (while doing research for this post, I tried to find some episodes to rewatch online, but I couldn't! Bravo, if you're reading this, please fix this!). I think Queer Eye was still pretty groundbreaking in its featuring of gay men on TV, and in the accepting and loving way in which they were portrayed.