|
Volume CXXXIII, Number 11 |
 |
Careful watching "Queer Eye"
To the Editors:
While the opinion I will share below is not intended to reflect too harshly on the character and person of Patrick Rockefeller, a columnist for the Orient, most of what I do intend to be more than frank about my reaction to his views on the pop T.V. show Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. A coherent argument, but not necessarily an understandable viewpoint, in support of Queer Eye, might put forward that the show is progressive because it gives a voice to marginalized homosexual identity, which a few years ago was relatively non-existent.
One might go further by suggesting that the show is representative of a merge of the "queer" world and the "straight," world which undermines the gay/straight binary that on an everyday basis encourages separation and social stigma.
However, I do not think this argument quite cuts it. I am quite comfortable saying that the show seems to operate off of one terribly egregious assumption: stereotypes, which often connote negative conceptions of a group of people and also impede understanding and acceptance, can be representative of the values of a whole group of people.
I don't have a problem with men with effeminate personalities and/or gender expression. How one chooses to express their gender is just as valid, if not more, as one might have been taught and/or brainwashed to do so. However, I think the image of the effeminate male becomes confused and incredibly problematic when meshed with queer identity as it is on the pop show Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.
This is not to say that there is no such thing as effeminate gay men and that they should be given as much respect as anyone else as much as it is to point out how, of all the many types and subcultures that exist within the queer identity, the effeminate gay male is not only looked to the most to embody queer people (men) everywhere, but is consequently looked to the most to draw a basis from which to discriminate and stereotype.
Thus, the key problem with the show is how much it lends itself to stereotype in conjunction with how accessible it is by virtue of being on television. I hate to say it, but only some "big-tenting," overly PC lay person who has nothing better to do with his time than drop a deuce all over an "8.5 by 11" and send it to the Orient with a doubled claim of decency for both himself and what he wrote, could ignore the fact that stereotype, intolerance, and further social skism do not have to exist overtly to be present and even prominent.
Issues with stereotype and accessibility are further amplified when looking to the show's name-its appeal to the masses. Outside of setting up what could hardly be justified as a constructive binary as Mr. Rockefeller mistakenly suggested, one gets the impression that the queer eye is nothing short of a monolith that doesn't just speak for all queers; but, can only find expression in contrast to a straight monolith and thus only find voice through the stereotypes fostered by a harmful binary.
That is, if Queer Eye... is one of very, very few mediums through which people across the country can gain access to queer life and/or culture, what is one to think of the fact that the show articulates many confining and potentially negative stereotypes that are innate in American culture today?
Essentially, I don't mean to exaggerate Queer Eye's pathetic-ness as much as Mr. Rockefeller irresponsibly exaggerated its intrinsic value; I mean to encourage the people that do enjoy it to be responsible viewers-be mindful of the fact that what you're getting on T.V. is not the queer eye, but simply one of many different shapes and colors of eyes within a much broader queer community (if there such thing as a queer community atoll).
Sincerely,
Haliday Douglas '05
For information on sending a letter to the editor, please click here.
|
FastCounter by bCentral |