Men On... 2.0?: Black Gay Men on TV

I read this article on TheRoot by Michael Arceneaux (which is one of my favorite website) and was disturbed.  As many people know, much of my scholarly work centers on the limited representations and constructions of black gay men on television.  But this article bugged me, not because the author is wrong, but because he selectively chose which information to include and which to delete.

His gripe is that there is a revolution happening on television in terms of gay characters appearance and acceptance on TV but that black gay men have not been/are not a part of that revolution. And he rightly points out that these representations are disproportionately white. No arguments so far.  Where he goes off the rails (for me) is in his selection of Antoine Dodson (of "Hide Yo Kids" fame) and Lawrence Washington (from The Real Housewives of Atlanta). While perhaps his selection of these two celetoids (to borrow a phrase from the brilliant Chris Rojek who defines it roughly as a person who acquires short, intense bursts of media attention) speaks to their omnipresence in media he is remiss in recognizing that the Entertainment Weekly article DID mention Calvin from Greek who is an out black gay man, former president of his fraternity, has an interest in sports and has been written such that he has relationships (albeit with white men) that include kissing and sometimes the implication that there was same sex sexual intercourse. 

Also conveniently missing from this analysis is the gang from Noah's Arc.  Are they not gay representations (or at least not the "right" gay representations)?  Are the only "approved" (by whom?) ways that black gay men on television can be represented is as ultra masculine like Keith Charles on Six Feet Under?  What about Carter Heywood from Spin City?  Why is he missing from this analysis?  He is certainly the father of the movement whereby gay black men on TV began subscribing to what Evelyn Higginbotham calls a politics of respectability. 

We have to get beyond this notion of positive and negative when it comes to representations of black gay men in media.  These terms are entirely subjective.  Whose positive? Who's negative?  I often say to a friend of mine that nuance is dead and this article speaks to that notion loud and clear.  If we subscribe to Charles Cooley's notion that TV is a place we turn to in order to see ourselves reflected, then for someone, these representation are grounded in their truth.  Do some of these representations rely on stereotypes?  Of course they do, but stereotypes are grounded in a truth, perhaps not yours or mine, but someone's truth.  It's extraordinarily facile to dismiss black gay characters because they fail to conform to the ways in which we construct what black gayness (or gayness, generally for that matter) is or is not. 

I can't argue that we still need to search for the black gay men on TV, but the notion that all we have to pick from are the caricatures of gayness that harken back to the days of Men On... from In Living Color is a bit disingenuous.  We still have a long way to go, (the same is true for many televisual groups including lesbians, who are as invisible on TV as black gay men), but we have more choices than Arceneaux asserts.

Hetereonormalizing Gay Relationships

 I have (as is usual) been consuming a lot of media recently.  What is interesting is the amount of that media that works to heteronormalize gay relationships.  I've been catching up on Modern Family (a show I have really grown to enjoy and am teetering on the brink of calling myself a fan) and well, the gay relationship between and Cam and Mitchell is not so modern.  And it has nothing to do with the idea that they have not kissed, although there is a Facebook group of more than 13,000 people who want that to happen.  No, it has more to do with the way in which the producers of Modern Family have constructed this couple along "traditional" tropes of the family.  

White Washed Broadway

In the interest of full disclosure, I work in marketing and public relations and fully understand niche marketing.  That, however, in no way means that I like the concept or that I think it's valuable from a consumer/user perspective.    

The consumer me sees niche marketing as a ploy by companies to get me to spend my money and most of the time I tend to reject that sort of marketing/outright ploy.  The primary reason I do so, is that it rarely means that the company supports your "community" but rather that there is market research that shows you and your "community" are an "untapped market" or is a growing consumer segment.

What Are the Rules for Celebrity Forgiveness?

A conversation I saw on Facebook caused me to think: what are the rules for celebrity transgression (and subsequent forgiveness)?  Last night's BET Awards featured performances by both Kanye West and Chris Brown.  For those who have been living under a pop culture rock, Kanye West famously interrupted Taylor Swift's acceptance speech at the MTV Music Awards and ended up looking like an asshole to just about everyone.

Fame Monster

Before I even start this post, I have to go on record saying that I am not a fan of Lady Gaga (or Lady Caca as many in the media call her).  I don't find her music particularly interesting or innovative.  What is innovative and interesting in many ways is the way in which she has creating the Gaga brand.  Let's not forget that before she created Lady Gaga, she was just a singer/songwriter toiling away trying to make it big (like thousands of people before and since her rise to fame). 



With a few crazy costumes and a danceable beat, she has become a worldwide phenomenon sparking college courses and treatises on her persona and female empowerment.  Now she's has even been banned from the Yankees' clubhouse and was accused of upstaging her sister's graduation while "attempting" to not upstage her.

On one hand, one could argue that Lady Gaga is in some ways eschewing the idea of a culture industry, developed by Theodore Adorno and Max Horkheimer which says that pop culture is an industry that produces standardized good for mass consumption, but that would only be true if she really pushed music forward and I don't believe she does that.  Perhaps she is pushing boundaries with her elaborate costumes, but one could argue that Sarah Jessica Parker's Carrie Bradshaw from Sex in the City accomplishes that as well with her often ridiculous outfits. What I think is really at work is that, to borrow her own words and use them against her, she's become a fame monster.

It seems that she just can't stay out of the spotlight. It seems the antics she tries to pull off as "just being Gaga" feel calculated for maximum publicity value.  What makes it grating for her and somewhat endearing for someone like Kathy Griffin is that at least Griffin will admit what she's doing.  Certainly, we (collectively speaking) are not without fault.  If we cease to buy magazines that print stories about Lady Gaga (and other celebrities) or watch the endless parade of newsertainment programs that report every detail of a celebrity's life, maybe it'd all just go away.           

Everything's Coming Up Gay

This is a great article from The New Yorker about the increasing number of gay (or at least gay-ish) young men in media and an attempt to figure out what it means culturally.  I think it just means that tween girls tend to like fey-ish young men rather than that there is necessarily a greater acceptance of gay folk on television.  But what is still troubling is that the identification of gay and gay-ish young men (or the "mark of gayness") still traffics heavily in stereotypes of what it means (or doesn't mean) to be gay.  Gay young men on television are still overwhelmingly showtune-loving, high-kicking and twirling representations (full disclosure: I was one of these young men) but isn't it time for a broader range of representations?  Certainly shows like Greek and Will & Grace (as problematic as the show is) have broadened the range of gay men seen on television, but these are adult men. 

I am a believer that television is a socialization tool and while we're televisually celebrating letting our freak flags fly, we're also limiting the construct of what young male gayness is and can be. 

Donna Brazil: Speaker of Truth?

I am usually not a fan of Donna Brazil, but she has spoken the truth.  Brazil says that if she could get rid of one thing in the world, that'd be pundits.  Amen!  She says:

If a single move could restore civility to politics, that is it. Get rid of the left-vs.-right commentators who are just out scoring points for their team. This sort of opinion-mongering is not only boring and predictable, it is destructive of the truth. If your only credentials are "GOP shill" or "Democratic hack," you've no business cluttering up the airwaves or the op-ed pages. My momma always told me that if you don't know what you're talking about, it's best to keep your mouth shut. That's good advice.

Whom do we put in their place? I say replace the pundits with people who have genuine expertise -- whether from their academic work, professional life or personal experience -- on the key issues of the day. Instead of partisan talking heads or mad hatters from the "tea party" preaching their views on, say, health care and taxes, let's hear from doctors and insurance professionals, or the number-crunchers from the Congressional Budget Office. They're much better equipped to help viewers, listeners and readers wade through the facts, arguments and data.

 We'd have a much more informed public if we could just get rid of this one thing.  But we won't. And the reason we won't is because many will make the argument that regular folk and those with actual knowledge (not to infer that ALL of the pundits who are "approved" by producers don't have knowledge) don't make for "good TV."

From "The Voice" to "Punchline"

How in the hell did Whitney Houston go from "The Voice" to (inter)national punchline?  While Maya Rudolph pales in comparison to Debra Wilson's Whitney Houston, the out of breath "Whitney" is Hi-Larious particularly given her (reportedly) horrible concert performances as of late.

Who's Can We Blame for Being Fat? Certainly Not Ourselves

This is another fantastic editorial about the argument that we "haven't got time to cook."  When in fact, we do have time to cook, we just chose to use that time doing other things that are "more important" to us.    The same can be true for those of us (myself included) who don't work out (or at least don't do so regularly).  Certainly part of the problem is that the media helps to validate us by constantly telling us that we don't have time to cook and food companies use a products "convenience" as a way to market products to us that help to make not making time to cook much easier for us. 

Framing Homosexuality via Archie

The comic strip Archie announcing that it would introduce a gay character to Riverdale was met by me with a yawn. But then I saw this video and this video



and then I realized the damage that media can do and that homosexuality is (and will always be) othered in our allegedly unbiased media culture.

Why is the Prophet Mohammed Sacred in Media?

The question about the sacredness of the Prophet Muhammad in media is a fascinating one.  That is in no way a slam to Muhammad, but rather, it is interesting given the lack of scrutiny that has been given to other things on South Park including God and the Devil.  I don't know the answer, but this New York Times editorial is certainly worth reading.  It questions why the Prophet Muhammad is off limits (and many would argue that he should be) but God or the Devil or even Barbara Streisand and Tom Cruise, are/have been skewered by South Park.

PSA: More Than One Source Needed to Develop a Political Position

I never really care what political bent one has, all I ask is that you REALLY know what your positions are and be able to stand by them when asked to elaborate on your "talking point." That is not the case in this video and it shows why we have such a politically uninformed populace in the United States. Certainly FOX News is not the only culprit, CNN and MSNBC are guilty as well (While Hilary Clinton should have exited the presidential race earlier, I think the overwhelming pressure came from 24-hour news stations like CNN and MSNBC).

Entertained to Stupidity

If a celebrity (or fauxlebrity) makes a statement in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? The answer to the question is only if we follow them on Twitter and it then gets reported all across the Internet. As someone who has worked in PR for more than 10 years, I certainly know a thing or two about manufacturing news, but the proliferation of the Internet as a growing source of information seems to have multiplied this to the nth degree. We are constantly bombarded with news of mistresses "speaking out," explicit email revelations and encouraged to take sides in celebrity and fauxlebrity splits.

It's All in the Context: Erykah Badu and Nudity

Erykah Badu has never been one to suppress her artistic side.  And she is making news for being "artistic" in her new music video for the lead single from her new CD The New Amerykah Pt. 2: Return of the Ankh.  In the video for Window Seat, Badu strips naked while walking through downtown Dallas to the site where JFK was assassinated before herself being assassinated and bleeding the word "group think"  then in a voiceover says:

"They who play it safe, are quick to assassinate what they don't understand.  They move in packs, ingesting more and more fear with every act of hate on one another. They feel more comfortable in groups, less guilt to swallow. They are us. This is what we have become, afraid to respect the individual."

Whose Side Are You On? Celebrity and the Culture of Binaries

We live in a world that is often black and white with no shades of gray. You're either for health care reform or against it. You either support war or you're unpatriotic. We are constantly asked to choose sides in our culture. But never is choosing sides more absurd than when it comes to celebrities. I was reminded of this penchant for the news media to choose sides and then in their reporting make us chose a side as well when I (begrudgingly) watched CNN last week. The "impartial, just delivering the news" anchor Kyra Phillips decided to call Jesse James, Sandra Bullock's husband, a jerk in the course of delivering the news that Sandra Bullock had moved out of the family home in Los Angeles. Kyra Phillips was definitely on Team Sandy.

It's not just limited to coverage of marital/relationship discord (although there are many examples like Team Jen or Team Angie) but also reared its head when we were to chose between Team Coco (Conan O'Brien) or Team Jay (Leno). What's puzzling is that we make these decisions in a knowledge vacuum. As Chris Rojek says in his brilliant book Celebrity "one peculiar tension in celebrity culture is that the arousal of strong emotion [for celebrities] is attained despite the absence of direct personal reciprocity." In other words, we refer to celebrities by first name or by nicknames yet we have so little knowledge about them that would offer us the license to refer to them on friendly terms. For example, Mariah Carey is Mimi, Jennifer Aniston is Jen and Sandra Bullock is Sandy (maybe it's a female thing?). In addition, we have unimonikered people in our culture who go by their first name only: Beyonce, Madonna and for some (or most) gay men when you hear Liza, Bette, Diana, Tina, or Barbara, there can be no doubt about the person being discussed.

There have been some pretty nasty things written about Tiger Woods in light of his extramarital affairs (as well as Jesse James and many other celebrities who have admitted to having sexual relationships with people with whom they are not attached). But the fact remains that we know nothing about them. Perhaps Tiger Woods and his wife had an agreement that sexual monogamy is not an important aspect of their marriage (like Mo'Nique and her husband) and the media's focus on the relationship is really about Elin being embarrassed that the sexual dalliances of her husband have come to light. Maybe Sandra Bullock isn't really America's Sweetheart and is a bear to live with who refused to have sex with her husband. I doubt this is the case with either Tiger Woods or Sandra Bullock, but it illuminates that we just don't have enough information to be able to make the call about who wins when Team Sandy is going head to head with Team Jesse, or Team Tiger vs. Team Elin.

This binary also speaks to the way in which our culture has socially constructed marriage and monogamy. Culturally, we give Mo'Nique the collective "side eye" when she says that one of the partner's "infidelity" is not necessarily a reason to dissolve the relationship -- particularly if we believe that about 50 percent of marriages in the US end in divorce. Who said marriage (or serious relationships for that matter) had to be based on monogamy? We have culturally tied something carnal (sex) to something emotional (love) when the two are not really related. Maybe it is for the best that we live in monogamous relationships, but it's our modern creation and it hasn't been around "forever." And even in the Mo'Nique monogamy situation, we're asked to be on Team Monogamy or Team Open Marriage. Stories on the Internet urge us to make a choice with titles like Are Open Relationships Better?, Is Mo'Nique's Open Relationship Sexist? and Do Open Relationships Equal Insecurity? As Matt Bianco asks us, whose side are you on?

American Caterwauling

"This... is American Caterwauling" should be the way Ryan Seacrest introduces American Idol.

What's become clear to me is that I watch American Idol for vastly different reasons than the producers of the show intend (in a nod to Stuart Hall's encoding/decoding). I like the show and watch, but it's not because I am looking for the next great artist, but because it is so ingrained in our pop culture sensibility that to not watch is to cut yourself off from the "water cooler sessions" the following morning. With the exception of Kelly Clarkson, Fantasia Barrino (which I bought and promptly sold at a used music store), Jennifer Hudson and Allison Iraheta, I've not purchased music from any other American Idol winner/finalist. The singers I like (and whose CDs I have purchased) all have one thing in common: they are belters.

I'll tackle the last point first. I like a good belter as much as the next gay, but American Idol has suffered from the desire to applaud singers who employ what I call vocal pyrotechnics. (I know, the argument could be made that Jennifer Hudson was given the boot relatively early, but Fantasia, another belter, went on to win the competition in one of the most mismatched American Idol finals in history). When a singer can hit a "glory note" that is reason for us to applaud him or her -- foregoing any sense of nuance related to singing. When someone sits and sings a slow song, it's deemed "sleepy" by the judges. But when someone like Season 9 contestant Siobhan Magnus hits notes, we stand up, cheer and take notice.

siobhan 12 @ Yahoo! Video

I admit, Siobhan delivered a WTF moment for me last night and we collectively forgot about most of the contestants who came before (or after) her because we have been trained to focus on things like, "wow, did you hear that note?" "he has a great falsetto," etc. rather than that was a really solid vocal. It seems that we want/expect "good singing" to be loud and long. In other words, can you hit a note and then make it last until we think you are within seconds of passing out from air deprivation? The thing most of us remember from Mariah Carey's early career is her ability to hit the "dog whistle" note, not that she is really a great singer and interpreter of music.

Are White Dolls Worth More than Black Ones?

For our allegedly being in "post-racial" times (if we're supposed to believe the line the media feeds us), I am routinely astounded by some of the things I see/hear. We've seen/heard about studies that demonstrate that when presented with a black doll and a white doll, black girls most frequently chose the white doll. But these studies can often be dismissed because they happened "back in the day." Which is why I was so shocked to hear that Good Morning America replicated the study in 2009 and found that some, not all, of the devaluing of black dolls by black girls still existed in "modern times."



It's quite easy to shake our collective heads and discuss how fashion and fashion magazines often advance a Eurocentric image of beauty which can perhaps lead to lowered self esteem -- a nod to Charles Cooley's looking glass self concept which asserts that a person's sense of self is derived from the perceptions of others. Just like the reflections in a mirror, the self depends on the perceived responses of others. It was just a few months ago that many were outraged that Vanity Fair featured all white actresses on its "The New Hollywood" cover.

But then comes this story, also from ABC that showed that a Walmart, presumably in Louisiana, set the price of a Black doll at 50% of the cost of the White doll. The spokesperson quoted in the story asserts that the Black doll was on clearance while the White doll was not citing anecdotal sales lower sales figures for Black doll. In addition, the spokesperson cited a desire to clear out the inventory of the Black doll to make way for new spring inventory.

I tend to believe everything Walmart does is evil, but in this case their stated reasons may be true and their intentions may have been innocent, but it's important to realize the message delivered -- The Black doll is worth less than White doll. It's important to know that the message sent is not always the message received (remember the game of telephone from childhood?).

The One Where Meredith Vieira Does Not Like Man-on-Man Hugging

The places that one sees, if not homophobia, at least someone questioning male-to-male affection, is astounding. This from the Today Show wherein Meredith Vieira implies that two men hugging is cause for concern and essentially not normal. Her coded language is really saying, "That hug was really 'gay'. Are you gay?"

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I do like how Anthony Mackie shuts her down and essentially, to borrow a phrase from South Park, calls shenanigans on her ludicrous line of questioning. And kudos to Al Roker (words I never thought I'd type) for incredulously asking, "Why would you ask that?!?!?!?"



Why does our society still support such antiquated notions of masculinity? Why does this (or Adam Lambert's AMA performance) raise eyebrows in a way that two women hugging/celebrating doesn't?

Black Women and Hair

My mother is currently undergoing treatment for breast cancer. While undergoing chemotherapy, like most people, she lost her hair. As a man, it wasn't really a big deal to me, (I thought she had a great bald head and could, as Tyra Banks would say, "rock it!" but to her, it was a big deal.

Hair is so important to women (and to culture). As I mentioned in a previous post, hair, particularly among some black women, is of the utmost importance. I really started to notice how much hair meant to some women when I got stuck in an America's Next Top Model Cycle 6 hole a few weekends ago. Jade, a self proclaimed "biracial butterfly" kept belaboring the point that she didn't have long hair (skip to 1:11 and 1:30 in the video below for evidence).



Then I saw this photo from Huffington Post that showed a bald woman starting a fashion show in India.


The accompanying headline was "Bald Model Kicks Off Lakme Fashion Show." And it literally stopped me in my tracks. Without the qualifier "bald" the headline is unremarkable. We are to believe that something about baldness is remarkable. In this case we're supposed to say, "A bald model? It can't be done!" And ooh and ahh over the novelty of it all. Certainly, this could have been a PR stunt meant to drum up publicity, but the fact is that it worked. Why does hair equal femininity/femaleness in our culture? Why is hair, particularly long hair so rooted in ideas about attractiveness? When asked why she shaved her head, the model said she just felt like it. Maybe all women should just do what feels right to them when it comes to their hair rather than worrying about what others (particularly suitors) think.

And while it's often assumed (or at least theorized) that black women straighten their hair to submit to European ideas about beauty, it's interesting that in the film, Something New, that it is a white man who asks his black girlfriend why she wears a weave:

Brian: Can I ask you one more question?
Kenya: Hmm?
Brian: [grabs a piece of her hair] Can you take this off?
Kenya: [opens eyes] What do you mean?
Brian: I mean, its not a wig, right? But its not your real hair either, is it?
Kenya: [stares at him for a moment, then sits up] I can't believe you just asked me that.
Brian: I'm sorry, I'm just curious.
Kenya: Its a weave, if you must know. I thought you dated black girls.
Brian: They had real hair.
Kenya: I have real hair too.
Brian: Underneath?
Kenya: Yes, underneath!
Brian: So what, they just... they sew it in?
Kenya: Something like that.

The White Savior in Hollywood

Last night I got into a discussion about Sandra Bullock winning an Oscar(R) for her role in The Blind Side. The person with whom I had this argument railed against Sandra Bullock's win because she felt that it reinforced the idea of the "helpless black" waiting for a good white person to come and make their lives better.



Before I dive into any argument, I like Sandra Bullock and most of her work. I also liked her work in The Blind Side. That having been said, the movie, while based on a true story, does work to continue the stereotype that white people, and white people alone hold the power. The Touhy family, as depicted in the film, introduced Michael Oher to football (also perpetuating the myth that black people -- especially black men -- excel at sport, not academics) and gave him the tools to be able to succeed. In the film, he also came from a broken home where the father was not present and the mother was a drug addict. In fact, no black person was shown as being "upstanding" setting up what Herman Gray calls black exceptionalism as difference in his book Watching Race. "blackness is figured as cultural and personal qualities that transcend and, from the position of dominant spectatorship established... reinscribe whiteness as the normative site of everyday life... this exceptional blackness has to be harnessed and ultimately placed in the service of good (Gray, 168). In other words, in the cinematic adaptation of the story Michael Oher is made "good" by "white saviors" rather than by other blacks within the community from which he comes. And we must assume that the film largely gets it right as Michael Oher hasn't publicly said otherwise (at least not to my knowledge).

In movies like The Blind Side, blacks continue to be portrayed in ways that became ingrained in our cultural fabric during the Reagan era: uneducated, violent, and "welfare queens." That is certainly not to say that this is the only representation of black people in film, but with two of the most high profile movies of the year featuring black actors (Precious and The Blind Side) featuring the Reagan-ist depictions of blacks, it is worth paying attention to the images we are being shown and the ideology that is being reinforced by the film industry.