Gay Icons: A Theory

[robbiej]

Posted: 11/25/03 at 1:15pm

I know...I should have posted this under Anthony's column...but I find myself fascinated with the topic of why we can't seem to find today's Judy or Liza. And I have a theory I'd like to offer and hear what you all think.

Once upon a time, there was a very dark, almost medieval period in American history known as Pre-Stonewall. During this time, boys who liked boys and girls who liked girls had to live secret lives because, not only was being a homosexual considered sick, it was tantamount to a crime. In these woeful days, these very special people had no real release for all the pent-up emotions they felt. Sure, they could move to a big city (or even small city) and try to find a clandestine group of like-minded folk or, risking life and career, have a tryst in the bushes of a park. Imagine what that could do to someone!

During those times, a few patron saints were canonized by the very special ones. St. Judy, St. Bette, St. Joan...these women, knowingly or not, spoke very deeply to those who couldn't speak for themselves. They were tough, talented women who, against social norms, wielded real power. But I believe it is what they sacrificed that ultimately endeared them to the homosexual community. To get where they wanted to go, they needed to put on some sort of mask and give up parts of themselves for their art. It's that sense of loss and the vulnerability that it produces that clicked with so many who were giving up so much to make it in this world. As the years went by and the homosexual community became the Gay Liberation Front, our icons became loud, defiant 'freaks' who made no more apologies (just like the gays).

So...where are we now? We're all over TV, we're no longer criminals, we're having children, buying homes, driving SUV's and going to parent-teacher conferences. We no longer hide that most intimate part of ourselves, therefore we no longer look to other tragic heroines to speak for us. Are we losing something...a wonderful culture of camp, double entendres and style? Yes...I think we are. Do I regret that? A little bit. But I'd much rather sit by myself in my room, listening to Judy at Carnegie Hall and thanking God that my nieces and nephews and, hopefully one day, my children are growing up in a world where gay icons are obselete.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 11/25/03 at 1:25pm

Well said, Robbie. I totally agree with you.

By the way, how are the kids? Is the soccer team doing any better this year? How was Robbie Jr. in the school production of LOVE VALOR COMPASSION. I'll bet he was great and I am sure he overcame his "shyness".

Gotta go, Live with Regis and Kelley just came on and the Fab 5 are on.

Later, lovie,

Sueleen

[orion59]

Posted: 11/25/03 at 1:45pm

That's pretty well thought out theory that makes a lot of sense. I agree with you taht we do lose something. I think every time you take a step forward you leave something behind...some good things, some bad, but, all of it becomes part of the history. It becomes part of what defines your group and it's culture and part of what made it what it is.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 11/25/03 at 1:55pm

Robbiej---I think you have summed it up rather well. We don't have as strong the need for divas.

And, in our "normalizing", we have (as a community in general) become less "gay"--so many gay guys have abandoned the camp, the theatre, etc. They would rather die than admit that they listen to or own anything stereotypical. It's gotten to where being an actor who likes musical theatre, Madonna, the occasional Barbra, Judy, or Bette CD makes you a freak. There is a lot of pressure to be gay and not be a "faggot".

But, also, the gay icons of today are not going to be singing standards and showtunes---unless it is a diva of the theatre crowd. The new gay icons are likely to be the Britneys and Xtinas and J. Los of our culture. Is this sad news? Probably.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 11/25/03 at 2:10pm

Beautifully written, Robbie.

As always, cultural evolution -- and revolution -- is about trade-offs.

It's not quite the same subj -- well, yes it is -- but I have a tender spot for Harvey F's remark in "Celluloid Closet" when he wistfully says, "..but I still kinda like the sissy." (If I've misquoted, that's the sense)

[tpdc]

Posted: 11/25/03 at 2:24pm

Great comments guys. As you've noted, sometimes we have to leave some things behind as we move forward. The sad part is that far too many young Americans--straight and gay--have little respect for history. Those bits on Leno where young people are asked questions about current events, history or geography are funny but it's sad too that so many of them can't answer really basic questions on these topics. And they don't really care either.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 11/25/03 at 4:33pm

I never really thought about that, but I must say that I totally agree.

[Jack O' Hearts]

Posted: 11/25/03 at 5:28pm

True. Times have changed.
But,in keeping with this I also think that we still have our "gay icons"...they're just different...and what they represent and the purposes that they serve are different.

Perhaps the "gay icons" of today are:

Madonna
Britney
Whitney
...

[Al Dente]

Posted: 11/25/03 at 5:33pm

What a wonderful post Robbie.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 11/25/03 at 5:56pm

gee robbie, could you have been a little more tender, thoughtful, accurate and insightful? every once in a while a post just makes me feel better about humanity and this was definitely one! thanks, robbie.

Posted: 11/25/03 at 6:17pm

I truly believe in the what you said Robbie.
I think now there are smaller icons.
Sort of a Demi-god of sorts.

The last really great goddess was Madonna.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 11/25/03 at 9:53pm

Robbie: This is way OT, and I'm sure I'll be pounced upon for not posting in the OT corridor ... but what do you think of the gay icons being replaced by ... say, Queer Eye? One person's idea of progress is another's idea of perpetuating the shallowest -- corny -- stereotyping. Tonight's show really kinda got to me. They took a sort of interesting aging Tarzan type and turned him into a cross between David Bowie and Chuck Cooper. When the gay expert with Evlis Costello glasses was babbling about the right fish to serve(!), prior to the makeover, I kept thinking ... who's the geek here, and who's hip? And Carson, with his odd hair that no one I've ever seen actually has (and bridge and tunnel jewelry...) Then, I dunno, watching them sit around with cosmos and talk about how much "energy" is in a straight Jersey man's family as they eavesdrop on their plasma TV in Chelsea... Sure, it's harmless. But it's already self-parody, in my opinion. Ultimately, to what end?

Again, if someone want to drag this to the OT, and slap me for being non-theater focussed, mea culpa. But Robbie's discourse on the post-Sontag world of disappearing camp really has had me thinking all day.

Updated On: 11/25/03 at 09:53 PM

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 11/25/03 at 10:21pm

Great post, robbie.

Another thing...our gay 'icons' inevitably dissapoint us. They get crazy, they get pretentious, they find Jesus. They die. They are forgotten.

We have enough of our own to look up to. We don't need 'icons' any more.

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 11/25/03 at 10:27pm

Oooh, Auggie, you are really on to something.

In the bad old days, The urban Gay Man aspired to (or at least attempted to aspire to) a sophisticated high culture. We were the keepers of the flame for Broadway, opera, dance, literature, the fine arts. We were better informed, even scholarly about our interests. That world has vanished. Gay Men no longer aspire to culture. They aspire to a lifestyle.
That's what so depressing about the Queer Eye phenomena.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 11/25/03 at 10:46pm

I think Queer Eye is doing amazing things all across the board. They are 5 different "types of gay guys" who the straight guys aren't threatened by--in fact, seem to absolutely adore. They show people in general how to get more out of their lives (I've learned a lot myself). They are real. They aren't trying to be politically correct "straight-acting" gay men, nor are they campy, drag queens doing generic make over bs.
And, while gay men and women are fighting to win the equal right to marriage and family, they work hard to make sure that these heterosexual families and families to be are happy. The ironies are endless--but they are making a difference. And, they are making a difference on network television where Larry and Betty Sue in Podunk, TX can see that we aren't scary people.

I know--I know, we won't happy until the gay men are teaching others how to be doctors, truck drivers, and baseball players.

=)

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 11/25/03 at 10:46pm

oops, I made a dupey! =)

Updated On: 11/25/03 at 10:46 PM

[Auggie27]

Posted: 11/25/03 at 10:47pm

You said it, Master. Lifestyle. A nasty word, used by either right wing fundamentalists, or urban arbiters who think a trip to a furniture wearhouse, spa, or the home depot will give you "edge." Makeovers: The current ultimate act of personal evolution. It all depresses me. As Master cogently opines, I can't bear the fact intellectual discourse has been replaced with how to apply eye cream. "Don't smear it... dab." We live in a dab-to-succeed world all right.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 11/25/03 at 10:59pm

Sorry JRB, but "they work hard to help straight men get more out of their lives" By re-arranging furniture and teaching about moisterizer? Sorry, bad hair days and dry skin are no fun ... and bad shelving should be replaced... but that's progress? Gay men in the typcally least threatening arenas? Home decoration and makeovers?

So where's a show with, say, the liberal answer to Andrew Sullivan. A strong gay man with an opinion about something besides "sytle." You know, something sooooo tired, like maybe--the body bags coming hoime from Iraq. Anderson Cooper doesn't own being gay when asking the dem candidates about gay marriage. Think how refreshing it might be to see him with a POV like Aaron Brown on CNN. Where's ANY high profile gay man even talking about the gay issue. All the serious discussions are left up to straight people. Seeing men drink cosmos and gloat over how much better a closet looks without the wrong Hawaiian shirt -- it may be fun, it may be escape -- but is it really changing perceptions? Jeesh, when I was a teen, gay men were all hair dressers. This -- men babbling about using "hair product" to save a marriage -- has changed that stereotype?

Updated On: 11/25/03 at 10:59 PM

[Luvinbroadway]

Posted: 11/25/03 at 11:41pm

Auggie,
Fascinating posts...I agree...comments such as "Oh my God he didn't jooz (sp?) his hair" and "He is shaving against the grain" don't do much for public perception.
The focus on "culture" ....such as "take a picture of your family" and "this is how to make coffee" is beyond dumbing down...

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 11/26/03 at 2:55am

I'm talking about the end product of the show--that they help straight men become more confident about themselves and comfortable adding "gay" behaviors like hair gel and eye cream into their life. (The irony that they help a guy put together the perfect proposal setting--to let the guy show the girl how much he cares about her by making some changes she could appreciate.) That may seem trivial, but ultimately, it's a big step for straight people to be accepting of this. I'm all for whatever it takes to show people we are not perverts--that we are real people. Does Queer Eye convey every nuance of gay life that one might want the straight world to learn? No--how could it? I just don't see why Queer Eye should be beat up because it doesn't fulfill some vision that

1. Straight America won't watch or listen to yet (who is going to watch an Andrew Sullivanesque news program--besides gay/liberal people right now?
2. represents an "ideal gay world"--if such a thing exists

I know to some people it is patronizing to have shows like Queer Eye and Will & Grace on TV--but it's better than nothing. And, I personally think these are two excellent programs on their own merit. And, in the end--they are both just entertainment.

=)

Updated On: 11/26/03 at 02:55 AM

[Auggie27]

Posted: 11/26/03 at 8:32am

JRB: When I step off my soap box,I must agree that the end result of Queer eye is a demonstrated rapport between gay and straight men. That's positive. I only wish the turf they share wasn't the traditional area of gay "expertise." Fashion, style, domestic accoutrements. But you're right -- it's an entertainment, not a news show, and I am mixing apples and oranges to talk about Andrew Sullivan and the fab 5 as collaborators in the same genre. (I do get carried away.)

I hate PC preaching, and get nervous when people start demanding "role models." But... As Robbie so movingly wrote, it's a different world. Gay people have concerns other than style. I am the parent of an adolescent boy, and what bothers me is this: the worst thing you can call another kid isn't the N word, or fat, or a geek. It's gay. The schools have had to adopt a policy of instant suspension if a kid calls another kid gay -- it's that bad. And I live in a hip community. The word is the ultimate put down. So I get depressed about how far we HAVEN'T come. And it makes me wonder: do the fab 5 -- I must say it, as role models -- make gay teens feel more comfortable? Do they look to them and say "call me gay -- that's okay, because look, that's what gay is?" I guess it's the fact that the fab 5 carry no moral, intellectual weight. Their opinions are about deep-as-a-teaspoon issues. They are benevolent and fun, but they perpetuate a kind of ghettoization. At the end of the show, the straight man always has a party in suburbia, and the queer 5 retreat to a gay loft to watch and critique in their separate world. I know, I know, it's entertainment. And I know, the gay men are living successfully, not in the shadows. But on a subtle level it says: at the end of the day, the gay folk go back to their nabe, and the straights stay in theirs. So we've demonstrated tolerance and temporary camaraderie -- but have we shown much else?

Maybe that's why I WOULD like to see, say, an out Anderson Cooper ask the Dems about gay marriage. Even gay marriage is being discussed mostly by straight people. It's like white liberals deciding the fate of African-Americans. Ultimately, that didn't wash. I strongly agree with Robbie -- gay men are strong, and don't need Judy and Joan to explicate their inner emotional lives, to voice their pain. But they could use some other spokesmen for thier strength and success besides the Fab 5.

Updated On: 11/26/03 at 08:32 AM

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 11/26/03 at 8:37am

I dunno. Sure, "Queer Eye" is entertainment. But so are Minstrel Shows.

[orion59]

Posted: 11/26/03 at 11:05am

After watching a couple of episodes of Queer Eye I just consider it entertainment for heterosexual women who like gay men.

[sheekala]

Posted: 11/26/03 at 11:16am

I had an intimate dream last night of Harvey, is he now my "icon"? QESG has done a great deal in calming nerves and opening eyes and hearts.

[robbiej]

Posted: 11/26/03 at 11:25am

What's interesting is that we wouldn't be having this discussion if there was equal and fair representation of all different types, colors and classes of gay men and women on TV. But that's not where we are...now. I read a fascinating article in the new Vaity Fair comparing the gay tv boom of 2003 to the black television boom in the mid-70's. The writer believes we will some day look back on 2003 and think 'How quaint...how kitschy...but thank God we've gotten past it!'

And to dear Auggie,

I know it seems we haven't come far enough. But the visibility of our fight has only been on the radar for 34 years. What other minority has gotten so far in such a short period of time?