Black Eye for The Queer Guy
By Keith Boykin, in pop culture
Wednesday, August 27 2003, 8:50AM
The long gone black guy from "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" speaks out today on Africana.com. James Hannaham, who is now an MFA candidate at the University of Texas in Austin, explains how he got picked and dumped for TV's hottest new show. Hannaham says the show is not about stereotypes, but I'm not so sure.
I've seen a few episodes of Bravo's new show, and I think it should be renamed "Queer Guy for the Straight Eye." It's not a bad show actually. It's light, fun and mostly entertaining, but it's filled with gay stereotypes. What emerges is an image of stereotypical "queer guys" that works well for the "straight eye."
Each week, the so-called "Fab 5" -- made up of grooming guru Kyan Douglas, food and wine connoisseur Ted Allen, fashion savant Carson Kressley, culture vulture Jai Rodriguez and design doctor Thom Filicia -- drive into suburbia to rescue a hapless straight man from the evil clutch of unfabulousness. It's great for the straight guy who gets fixed up, but not quite so great for the gay guys forced to cater to the straight audience.
It's the same problem with the other summer gay reality show, "Boy Meets Boy." That show, billed as "television's first gay dating show," is actually nothing of the sort. A gay dating show would only use gay men, but "Boy Meets Boy" employs the services of heterosexuals (or maybe metrosexuals) to deceive the gay men.
According to the marketing campaign, it's a gay dating show with a twist. They're not all gay. Give me a break. If gay people tried to deceive straight men there would be national outrage. Remember that guy who shot and killed his friend because the friend revealed a crush on him on the Jenny Jones show?
The Pros and Cons of Gay TV
Before gay men start to uncork the champagne bottles, we need to seriously consider if these media images really help the community. On the one hand, we get to see more gays on television. On the other hand, those images aren't exactly flattering or representative. Sure, we're not being depicted as murderers (the news takes care of that), but we aren't being depicted with substance either.
The gay men on these shows (and yes they are all men; I guess lesbians will have to wait for the Ellen show this fall) are safe for heterosexuals because they reinforce a nonthreatening image of homosexuality. Some gay men want to create a "boy next door" image so they can assimilate into mainstream culture, but that image leaves out plenty of people who don't fit into the norm, and it limits society's "tolerance" for nontraditional expressions of sexual orientation identity.
Sure, it can be wonderful to be gay if you're a young, attractive, well-dressed, urban professional white male. But there's more diversity than that in the LGBT community. We don't all live in the gym, go to the opera and sing show tunes. We're not all white, not all male, not all fabulous, and God knows we're not all cute. But this is television.
"Welcome to the rise of the gay minstrel show," writes Christopher Kelly in the Ft. Worth Star Telegram. Kelly calls the "Queer Eye" show "more a creepy case of gay self-ghettoization than a step forward."
"What's worse," Kelly writes, "gay people have become complicit in their own oppression: playing up to grotesque stereotypes, and widely ignoring the troubling questions these shows raise."
James Hannaham doesn't see it that way. Writing in this morning's edition of Africana.com, the former token black guy from "The Queer Eye" says "the argument that Queer Eye depicts gay stereotypes actually confuses me, since the show is virtually unscripted." That's true, but the producers still get to pick the people who best fit the stereotypes in the first place.
"As a gay man," Hannaham says "you're freer to embrace your stereotypes with humor and a sense of performance, whereas black folks who try to fit stereotypes claim they're "keeping it real" and expect to be taken very seriously." He's got a point. Some groups actually like their stereotypes. You won't find too many black men, for example, challenging the stereotype that black men have big dicks. (And we all know that's not true.)
How To Make A Quick Buck
Most of the reviews I've seen of the "Queer Eye" show have been positive, although some do acknowledge the issue of stereotyping. Still, I disagree with New Yorker magazine writer Nancy Franklin's description of the "Queer Eye" cast as "frank but not nonjudgmental." At the end of the show, while the straight guy gets the props for being so fabulous, the gay guys sit together in a living room watching it all on television with funny, unscripted, self-congratulatory bitchiness.
Maybe "Queer Eye" isn't the end of the world, and "Boy Meets Boy" isn't going to destroy the gay community, but can we please have at least one good show for us and by us? "Will and Grace" is designed for straight audiences. "Six Feet Under" is a great show but it's not a gay show. "Queer As Folk" is supposed to be a gay show, but talk about stereotypes. And I still can't get over the use of the ultrawhite word "queer" in any of these shows.
I'm not surprised by these shows, just disappointed. Television promotes capitalism and reinforces social stability. Since TV shows are designed to get ratings to sell advertising, most networks want to reach the broadest audience possible. That's why "black shows" usually don't do as well without white cast members. Blacks, Latinos, Asians, gays and lesbians are simply entertaining straight white people and reinforcing their dominant image as the center of the television universe.
It's not all bad for minorities. Some of us are actually making money off of these shows. I have no problem with that, but let's not pretend it's a public service if it's just another way to get a laugh and make a buck.
Comments conceal
Damien
August 27 2003, 9:31AM
Keith,
As African American gay males, my friends and I have sat and discussed the very topic that you chose to discuss today. The 6 of us range in ages from 21 to 24. With the exception of 2 of us, we all hold at least one degree. We are not wealthy by any means but we don't attempt to take from anyone. We all represent and embrace our various perceptions of our masculinities and the differing stages that we find ourselves in dealing with our sexuality.
However, we understand that we are no different than any other African American gay male that has come before us or that will come after. With this being the case; why then are "we" not represented in all of the gay advancements that have been made in the past year. The "Whitewashing" of gay and lesbian advancements and identity has proven to be the most disappointing. I do understand that this is not a "new" ideology (that gay & lesbian advancement only represents white gay & lesbian liberation). However, you would think that within in today's "progressive" cultural climate we would "all" be represented in the various victories that have been made.
Unfortunately...we are not. I found it striking and rather discerning that two months after "we"
celebrated the advancement of gay rights, an article is published in the New York Times about "DL" men and the "Black" man's (which in our heteropatriarchial society leads to Black community) struggle to deal with/deny his true sexuality. Once again, our identities are compromised...we do not share the advancements of a group that does not embrace us...and still must struggle to seek acceptance within a race that does not wish for us to live our lives in truth.
There is so much more that could/ should be said...however, there is not enough time. I do hope that one day when we speak of advancement in civil rights, "accurate" depictions of gays within the media and understanding that to be a proud black gay man does not negate masculinity...one day I will see the six of us somewhere within the crowd.
Damien T.
mr
August 27 2003, 10:14AM
I thought James was much more interesting (though not as animated) than the current cultural guy that offers really silly advice ("When shaking hands, think rock not noodle"). While I enjoy the show, this behind the scenes information on how shady they treated him especially when replacing him make me less enthusiastic to watch it. I think they were looking for a Gay Black male that acted more like the those portrayed in beauty shop as opposed to James low key, well spoken well thought out behavior. Thir loss.
NLoco
August 27 2003, 10:27AM
Well Keith, it is so funny that you post this today. I had a long discussion about this topic with my roomate last night. Your mention around the end of your post that Capitalism has a lot to do with how these shows are produced. Not to get ahead of myself here, but I hope you all are aware that ABC and CBS are scrumbling around to get a gay show up and airing by fall to compete with the NBC produced "Queer Eye". I have even heard that one possible show CBS is concidering is titled "Queen of Queens".
ABC in their part have been developing a show with gay decoraters. The title that ABC originaly wated to use had such a negative response from insiders that they have scraped it and are looking to re-name the show.
In any case, I myself find "Queer Eye" quite funny. I am also aware that not to many people in middle America get the tongue-in-cheek feel of the show. With that in mind, it is pretty obvious that the prdoucers of this show are looking to capitalize on the lowest common denomenator. In this case that being the sterotyping of homosexuals. In a lot of ways, this is not any different than the stereotyping that the networks had a field day with when they were producing such shows as "Archie", "Good Times", etc...
To understand how this new "gay tv" trend will effect the gay cause we need to wait and see the context and intent of the networks who will be rolling out many more shows withing the nesxt season with "gay" being the shows selling point.
As you know, "Queer Eye" was tested out on NBC (a network station)as a half hour repeat of the same show that originaly aired on Bravo (a cable channel). When the first premier episode ran on Bravo, it received a 2 million viewership, giving Bravo its highest rating ever. NBC who had recently acquaired Bravo took no time to realize that they had a hit on their hand, so the following week, they edited the hour show into a holf hour and aired it on NBC's gay night Thursday, right after "Will and Grace". Needless to say, NBC was very impressed with the very high rating it received (if I remember right, it was over 10 million).
I just hope that advertisers will not only buy into this very sterotypical and onesided view of portraying gay and gayness on tv. Unforturanly, I think we all know how this is going to end. Let us not forget what one little show called "who wants to be a millionaire" had done to what networks and advertisers have decided should be 75% of their primetime programing.
In the mean time, I am going to sit back and laugh my ass off thinking "what in the world can the conservatives be thinking wathing as everywhere they turn, GAY is the new WAY".....hahahahah
peace out
NLoco
Guest
August 27 2003, 10:30AM
Another huge look at racism at it's television media best! When all of us wake up to racisms super existence in the world then and only then will you get to know what it all means.
Now with the black guy cut from this show maybe the light of understanding will finally blast on in a few young black buff minds, but who knows, it looks pretty fast and bleak out there...
David
August 27 2003, 11:38AM
I'm glad you brought up this topic, Keith.
When I saw the first episode of “Queer Eye”, I thought it meant progress for gay men. However, after close inspection, it is obvious that the very underpinnings of the show are harmful to the gay civil rights movement. Presenting gay men as frivolous, fabulous men with no real-life concerns only establishes the stereotype that gay men are shallow guys with nothing on their minds but Prada and good sex.
I hope gay people all over will not accept the success of these shows as the crown of the struggle for gay civil rights. These shows are not a sign of imminent equality between the gay and the straight.
The show also raises perplexing questions. Don’t other gay men also deserve a makeover? Even if the gay man must serve the straight, why must he serve only in roles that, until recent decades, have been attributed to women? Why not as doctors, lawyers? Of course, I don’t subscribe to the ideology that some fields of expertise are gender-specific. However, one must note that the Americans who believe that some careers are better suited for women, are also the ones must likely to believe that gay men are men who really want to be women. They are the ones to whom the media needs to show that gay men are just men who are sexually attracted to other men. Pandering the fabulousness-addicted gay stereotype hardly helps.
While “Queer Eye” may pander some unwholesome stereotypes, “Boy meets Boy” is a sordid disaster both to the gay morale and to minority groups in the gay community. It is too horrible to even discuss objectively on this forum.
That the Fab 5 reserves it’s “services” exclusively for straight men makes the show even more pathetic- despite its success. Somewhere in the human sub-consciousness, a feeling that gay men are lower than straight men and that gay men exist to cater to the straight man’s fancy, creeps in after watching the show. The show has given gay men all over the undesirable roles of “keepers of the King’s palace” with the King being the straight guy. I find the phenomena analogous to straight men’s putative infatuation with lesbian sex-scenes.
alicia banks
August 27 2003, 12:23PM
great column keith!
i just want to see some afrocentric black
lesbians and gays on tv!!!
there are black homosexuals who enjoy each other as lovers and friends in the real world
the only lesbians i see are bimbos on howard stern!
shame
peace
ab
Guest
August 27 2003, 3:16PM
Actually the show does bring to light a much used and often seen at the mall type of men; the infamous Snow Queen. Now that the black is cut could the latin one be next?? Real Queens survive the Axe (and don't run to all places TEXAS!) But hey a girls gotta do what a girl's gotta do! Next season they plan on doing a gay Sanford & Son, it'll give new meaning to the phrase: 'Watch out sucka'!
lucascage
August 28 2003, 1:50AM
Very nice article Keith!
I had no idea that an african American Gay man was even auditioned as a potential "fab5er". Who'da thunk it?
After reading Mr. Hannaham's article on africana.com I find his reference to "Black folks who try to fit stereotypes claim they're "keepin it real" as problematic at best. There are many facets and dimensions of "keepin it real", at worst "keepin it real" is a stereotypical caricature of often the lowest racially constructed negative images and ideologies that are internalized (by both Black and White folk) and held to be erroneously true. Conversly "keepin it real" at its best attempts an informed authentic( I hope I dont get hate mail from Prof.John McWhorter on this point!) socio/political resistance to cultural assimilation by the dominant White cultural imperative.
So I say to our Beloved Black Gay/Straight community, lets keep "Keepin it real!"
Resistance is not futile!
Regarding the "queer eye" of cousre its a gross depiction of Gay men worshipping at the altar of patriarchal staightness. Gay(White) America should take( just as they have effectively co-opted the Civil rights movement to their benefit!) a lesson from us(Blacks) the former oppressed group du jour, as long as you submit to servicing us( White Straight folks) you are welcome.
And you know that, to the beat y'all!!
vardamoi
August 28 2003, 10:29PM
wasn't the black guy kicked off the show (who was guest culture vulture on ep. 2) named blair? now there's another named james? is one a stage name, or did they kick off 2 nancy negroes?
Adam
April 3 2004, 8:40PM
actually yes black men do have big dicks, and we all know this is true, so who ever wrote this article is mad because his dick is small!