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.

Transphobia, ABC, and Dancing with the Stars

The other day I was driving home from work and was basically tuning out the radio until something along the lines of "...negative backlash...Chaz Bono...contestant on Dancing with the Stars..." caught my ear. Really?

I looked it up, and it seems that tons of people (over 1,000) commented on ABC message boards when the contestants were announced. People ranted about being "DISGUSTED" with the show's decision, and many said that they would no longer watch the show. Luckily, the message board also had Chaz supporters firing back, but it's still worth commenting on.

For those who may not know, Chaz Bono is the son of Cher and Sonny Bono. Born Chastity Bono, Chaz has undergone a female-to-male transition as well as legally changed his name and gender. On DWTS, he will be dancing with a female professional dancer. And this seems to bother many, many people. 

What's interesting to me is that many of the "concerned" and "disgusted" viewers seem to think that ABC is "pushing a homosexual agenda" by featuring Chaz. No one, however, has mentioned fellow dancing star, Carson Kressley, an openly homosexual TV star, formerly of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. Are they really concerned about homosexuality? Or are they more concerned about harder-to-understand transsexuality and transgender individuals? 

I also find it funny that at the top of the message board (with the most recent posts; I couldn't scroll through them all!!), there is one Chaz-hating, trans- and homophobic commenter who is constantly firing out angry messages, but when anyone posts a response that is calm and level-headed, this Chaz-hater ignores it. Because they don't know how to answer questions that use logic instead of anger? I think so... 

What makes me sad, though, is while ABC is standing by their decision to feature Chaz and his story (they pointed out that his "fascinating story" is one reason for choosing him), they are also very adamant about saying that they are not pushing a homosexual agenda. I mean, I don't really know what these critics have meant by a homosexual agenda: one that features homosexuals? one that dares to accept homosexuals as normal? one that says "everyone should be gay! we'll take over the world"? Out of those three interpretations (though there could be many, many more), ABC is certainly in the realm of the first two: Chaz and Carson are both featured contestants, and as far as I know, they are both seen as normal, capable contestants, no different from any others. And I know that in our homophobic culture, a channel can't come out and say "Yay! We love the gays!" without losing some ratings, but oh I wish they would. I, for one, would watch more if they did that! And based on the message board, many Chaz supporters have commented that they will watch DWTS when they never would have before, precisely because Chaz is a contestant.

In fact, I might also...I'll just mute it when the judges talk. They're annoying.

Mississippi Sissy- Read It!!

I just finished reading Mississippi Sissy by Kevin Sessums. It's incredible. I've never been more ashamed and, simultaneously, more proud to be a Southerner than I was while reading this memoir. I've never felt particularly connected to Southern culture, or even felt particularly Southern, but in this book I found dozens of little sayings, jingles, behaviors, or references that I recognized from my own Mississippi upbringing (I had completely forgotten about the "lil' shortnin' bread" song!). And his story of loss and grief intermingled with his coming-of-age and attempting to find himself in a culture that is less receptive than most is beautifully told. This is a great, great book and everyone should read it!

Film vs. Novel: Fried Green Tomatoes

I finally finished reading Fannie Flagg's Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe. I think it took me so long to finish this book (years, in fact) because it's nothing like the movie, Fried Green Tomatoes, which I grew up watching. But now that I've finished it I can definitely say: the book is so much better!

First of all, I love the film. Love it. I love Jessica Tandy and Kathy Bates, I love Mary-Louise Parker and Mary Stuart Masterson. The film is great. However, the film avoids the core of Idgie and Ruth's relationship: namely, that it is a loving, sexual relationship between women. The film shows two women who have an intense friendship, an indivisible bond, and maybe even some sexual desire (that is not acted on). Ruth comes to live with her friend out of desperation: she is constantly abused by her husband and has to escape before she has a baby in such a horrible environment. There are moments of intimacy, sure, but the relationship is never defined, by Ruth and Idgie or by other members of the community, as anything but platonic.

The film's interpretation of this relationship makes me so sad because it's the reason the book is so interesting. In the book, Idgie and Ruth have an open lesbian relationship. Ruth leaves to get married because she feels Idgie is too young to choose a partner, not because she doesn't love or need her. When Idgie gets lonely, she visits the local prostitute (I couldn't think of a nicer word for her, but prostitute doesn't really fit), Eva. When Ruth is living with Idgie and about to have her baby, Idgie's father gives her what I have to call a 'man-to-man' talk; he talks to her about the responsibilities of caring for and supporting a family. The book is so interesting because it shows an open lesbian relationship in the South in the 1930s (and on) that is never questioned, never scorned and never ridiculed. No one in the book wonders why two women are living together, raising a child. No one questions Idgie's right to discipline Stump, as another parent would. No one questions the love and devotion that exists between Ruth and Idgie. Everyone simply understands that Ruth and Idgie are a loving a couple like any other.

What I think the film really gets right is Kathy Bates's character, Evelyn Couch. She may be one of my favorite literary characters ever. In the beginning of the novel, she is exactly the woman that Betty Friedan was writing about: She's married because she thought she had to be. She never had sex before marriage for fear of the bad girl reputation, but finds as an adult that she has less knowledge of sex than her sixteen-year-old daughter; worse, she discovers that nothing horrible ever happened to the bad girls in high school, they are all unhappy or happy, married or not, just like everyone else. She feels like she missed out on feminism, and doesn't understand it. She lacks control in her life and tries to gain it through hopeless dieting. Through the meetings with Miss Threadgoode and the stories of Idgie and Ruth, Evelyn gains the confidence and understanding she needed to take back control of her life. The film shows this beautifully, with Kathy Bates slowly getting stronger, going through an angry, man-hating phase, and finally settling down in a place where she's happy, employed, and healthier.

The biggest travesty of the film is the ending, when we discover that Miss Threadgoode has been Idgie all along. Never mind that she has explicitly told us that she married into the Threadgoode family by marrying Idgie's brother Cleo (incest anyone?). Never mind that she's discussed having a child of her own. As a professor of mine put it, the filmmakers seemed to have wanted to 'redeem' Idgie, by having her straighten up (literally), marry a man and have a family of her own. Never mind that it doesn't fit the character of Idgie, whom we've watched onscreen for an hour and a half at this point! Never mind that it doesn't make any sense!! I hate to think of this move being remade, because of the beautiful performances by all of the actors involved; but, I would like to see a film that explored the relationship between Ruth and Idgie as it was written to be.

I don't want this to be a rant against the film, because I do love it. I've watched that movie since before I can remember. My grandmother looks and sounds just like Jessica Tandy, and I love all the memories of watching the movie with my sisters and seeing our grandmother so perfectly imitated onscreen. But for those who love the film, or even who have never seen it, Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe by Fannie Flagg is a must-read novel.

Sassy Gay Friend

Like many other people, I love wasting time on youtube. And it was on this fabulous website that I discovered Sassy Gay Friend. I love these videos! If you haven't seen them, Sassy Gay Friend is, you guessed it, a gay man who pops up to provide an alternate ending to famous, but tragic, female characters. The first few videos have SGF saving the lives of Juliet, Ophelia, Desdemona and Lady MacBeth; after that, he branches out from Shakespeare to save the lives (or destinies) of The Giving Tree, Eve, and Miss Havisham. (Recently, he also tackled Nina from Black Swan, but I don't like this one.) In each video, SGF sassily talks the women out of ending (or otherwise destroying) their lives.

First of all, I love these videos because they are hilarious! Especially in the first few, SGF makes very clever jokes based on the text he's making fun of. ("I think you're 14 and you're an idiot. You took a roofie from a priest. Look at your life. Look at your choices." -Juliet video) Also, he often points out the absurdity of the power dynamics between men and women at that time; in Desdemona's video he says, "Some guy ends up with your handkerchief so your husband gets to murder you?" In each of these videos, he takes a female character who is, at least by the end of her literary journey, powerless, and gives her strength to make a change.

But what about the continued stereotype of gay men as simply fun accessories for straight women? In most (commercial) movies I have seen with a gay male character, he is the sidekick to the female heroine (Monster-in-Law, The Devil Wears Prada, Easy A, Bridget Jones's Diary, Clueless, to name a few off the top of my head). The gay friend is usually a good shopping buddy, a good listener, a shoulder to cry on, and, most importantly, single, and therefore available to the female, until the end of the film (if even then). Many of these characters in commercial films have little importance as people; they are sidekicks, crutches and open arms. And aren't the Sassy Gay Friend videos just perpetuating this stereotype?

In some ways, I think they could be. But I think, more than that, these videos are making fun of these stereotypes. His language and mannerisms are completely over the top. And he is always pointing out the obvious that the straight girls are completely unable to see. It's almost as if the creators of SGF are saying, "OK, you want to make the sassy gay friend a necessary accessory to the straight woman? All right then, he'll just be way smarter and more clever than her! And he'll save her life! Take that!" 

At least, that's what I hope they're saying. I'll definitely keep watching these videos as long as they keep making them.