Reinventing Privilege: the New (Gay) Man in Contemporary Popular Media

Critical Studies in Media Communication Vol. 20, No. 1, March 2003, pp. 67–91

Reinventing Privilege: The New (Gay) Man in Contemporary Popular Media

Helene A. Shugart

ᮀ – In recent years, the gay man/heterosexual woman couple configuration has become a genre unto itself in mediated popular culture, resulting in unprecedented mainstream visibility for gay men. Major mainstream films, such as My Best Friend’s Wedding, Object of My Affection, and The Next Best Thing, showcase this combination as their centerpiece, as does the highly rated prime-time network situation comedy, Will & Grace.Inthis essay, I assess this particular performance of gay identity in order to discern what qualities render it – as presented in this configuration – not only acceptable but popular, given the heteronormative sensibilities that characterize the mainstream audience to which it is directed. I argue that, in these texts, homosexuality is not only recoded and normalized in these representations as consistent with privileged male heterosexuality but is articulated as extending heterosexual male privilege. In so doing, blatant sexism is reinvented and legitimized, and gay male identity simultaneously is defined by and renormalizes heteronormativity.

ccess to the media historically has and to which they are simultaneously A been restricted, arguably severely, contributing has resulted in a cacoph- by controlling interests – in the case of ony of media content, suggesting that the United States, especially, this has the presence of alternative ideas does meant corporate owners of the media not represent the implied political invested in maintaining a political, so- threat that it once did. Indeed, it is no cial, cultural, and economic status quo longer unusual to apprehend the rep- in which they have thrived (e.g., Fiske, resentations of marginalised groups in 1987, 1989; Gitlin, 1986; Hall, 1980; the conventional media of the status Poster, 1990). Although these con- quo. However, the rendering of those trolling interests are no less a factor messages invites serious consideration today, the explosion of mediated tech- given their context; many scholars nologies as well as the postmodern have noted that apparently emancipa- context in which they are occurring tory messages and representations may, in fact, function to reify dominant discourses (see, e.g., Cloud, 1992; Helene A. Shugart is Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Condit, 1989; Dow, 2001; Harms & Utah. An earlier version of this essay was presented Dickens, 1996; Shugart, Waggoner, & at the 2001 annual meeting of the National Hallstein, 2001). Communication Association in Atlanta, GA. The An interesting contemporary inter- author would like to thank two anonymous reviewers section of disenfranchised groups and for their helpful insights and suggestions. the mainstream popular media is rele-

REINVENTING PRIVILEGE MARCH 2003 vant to the issue of homosexuality. As what qualities render this performance Walters (2001) states, “there is no of homosexuality not only acceptable doubt that gays and lesbians have en- but popular, given the heteronorma- tered the public consciousness as never tive sensibilities that characterize the before” (p. 3). But visibility, as she and mainstream context in which they oc- others (e.g., Dow, 2001; Gross, 2001) cur.1 I argue that, in these texts, homo- caution, is no guarantor of legitimacy; sexuality is not only recoded and Gross (2001), echoing the concerns normalized as consistent with privi- noted above, argues that leged male heterosexuality, but it is articulated as extending heterosexual when previously ignored groups or per- male privilege. In so doing, blatant spectives do gain visibility, the manner of sexism is reinvented and legitimized, their representation will reflect the biases and gay male identity simultaneously and interests of those powerful people who is defined by and renormalizes het- define the public agenda. And they are eronormativity. mostly white, mostly middle-aged, mostly Historically, representations of gay male, mostly middle and upper-middle men and lesbians in the mainstream class, and overwhelmingly heterosexual. US media have been sparse and selec- (p. 4) tive (see, e.g., Fejes & Petrich, 1993; Gross, 1994, 2001; Gross & Woods, An additional layer that complicates 1999; Russo, 1981). Although the increased visibility of gay men and “homoerotic images and behavior lesbians in mainstream popular media were used as comic devices” (Fejes & is the constitution of the audience, Petrich, 1993, p. 397) such as cross which is by definition mainstream and dressing and role reversals, “as ex- presumed heterosexual, not least by pressed onscreen, America was a virtue of the fact that its “acceptance” dream that had no room for the exist- of said representations is consistently ence of homosexuals … . And when featured as at stake (e.g., Capsuto, the fact of our existence became un- 2000; Dow, 2001; Gross, 2001; Russo, avoidable, we were reflected, onscreen 1981; Walters, 2001). Although in- and off, as dirty secrets” (Russo, p. xii). terpretation is always contingent upon When presented in mainstream film or the location of the audience, because television until quite recently, gay the quest for legitimacy is grounded in characters were almost exclusively the assumption of a mainstream audi- portrayed negatively, as either villains ence at least imbued with heteronor- or victims (Gross, 1994). In both ca- mative sensibilities, my interest is in pacities, they were rendered as prob- how contemporary mediated represen- lems to be solved and almost always tations of gay characters address that reflected gendered stereotypes that audience. characterize gay men as effeminate In this essay, I am interested in rep- and lesbians as masculine. resentations of homosexuality that Attendant to the emergent gay have proven successful with and palat- rights movement in the 1970s, al- able to contemporary, mainstream au- though standard negative tropes did diences of popular mediated fare. In not disappear, mainstream film and particular, I examine the popular television began to feature more posi- configuration of the gay man and the tive portrayals of gay characters (Cap- straight woman in order to discern suto, 2000; Dow, 2001; Gross, 2001; 69

CSMC SHUGART

Walters, 2001). By the 1990s, the rep- catalyst for heterosexual characters’ resentation of gay men and lesbians in growth and understanding (e.g., the popular mainstream media be- Brookey & Westerfelhaus, 2001; Dow, came de rigueur for film and even obli- 2001; Walters, 2001). gatory for television fare. Major Brookey (1996) has argued that the box-office hits like Philadelphia, The acceptability of many of these repre- Birdcage, To Wong Foo, Thanks for Every- sentations is contingent upon the de- thing! Julie Newmar, and In & Out fea- gree to which they support an tured sympathetic gay protagonists, established “economic and ethnic hier- and the gay secondary-but-permanent archy” (p. 41). He avers that Philadel- character became a staple of the ma- phia’s protagonist, Andrew Beckett, is jority of mainstream television dramas ultimately rendered sympathetic not and situation comedies, including, for because he is a victim of homophobia example, NYPD Blue, Chicago Hope, ER, but because he is a “white male and a Mad About You, Roseanne, Spin City, and successful lawyer” who, furthermore, is Friends. This television trend ultimately motivated by family concerns – homo- culminated in prime-time shows that sexuality in the film thus is assimilated featured lead gay protagonists in dra- as “formed around a [heterosexual] mas like Melrose Place and Dawson’s family unit” (p. 47). Indeed, this pat- Creek and, more prominently, in the tern is apparent in nearly all of main- situation comedies Ellen and Will & stream media fare that features gay Grace. characters, such that “gay identity is As many critics have argued, how- made legitimate only through assimi- ever, the “chic” visibility of gay men lation into the dominant heterosexual and lesbians in the mainstream media gestalt” (Walters, 2001, p. 18) – a is not unproblematic (Capsuto, 2000; gestalt that, Brookey would assert, is Dow, 2001; Gross, 2001; Keller, 2002; fundamentally configured upon econ- Walters, 2001); Walters notes that “we omic and raced agendas (1996, p. 55). may be seen, now, but I’m not sure we Similarly, in her analysis of the Ellen are known” (2001, p. 10, italics hers). coming-out episodes as an example of Nearly all of these portrayals skirt the contemporary gay visibility in the realities and implications of homosex- mainstream, Dow (2001) argues that uality by desexualizing the characters “heterosexism governs Ellen’s repre- – i.e., by almost never depicting them sentation as well as the production of in romantic or sexual situations (e.g., the truth of her sexuality: what it will Gross, 2001; Walters, 2001). Some of and will not mean, how it does and these representations, as in Personal does not matter” (p. 131). Dow con- Best, depict homosexuality “as a tem- tends that this is accomplished primar- porary interruption in the flow of het- ily by a resolute refusal in those erosexual life” (Gross, 2001, p. 74). episodes to acknowledge, much less More common themes are that, first, address, the political contexts and con- gay characters are presented devoid of straints of homosexuality; rather, “gay gay social and political contexts (e.g., identity [is constructed] as primarily, if Brookey, 1996; Dow, 2001; Walters, not exclusively, a personal and rela- 2001), thus capable of being wholly tional concern” (p. 134). The depoliti- grafted onto established heterosexual cization of Ellen, attendant to her “girl communities and contexts; and se- next door” persona (Walters, 2001, cond, that their presence is used as a p. 86) – a persona that arguably is 70

REINVENTING PRIVILEGE MARCH 2003 coded by the same sort of privilege sistently occupy daily media content, that Brookey describes – established the more subtle images of heterosexu- her viability in a heterosexual and het- ally-defined homosexuality are equally eronormative community. damaging to affirmative gay and les- Related to this dynamic is the se- bian identity and politics” (p. 412). cond theme: that gay characters, when presented, are seen through the eyes of and function as catalysts for the devel- Generic Representations: opment of heterosexual characters. The Odd Coupling For instance, Brookey and Westerfel- haus (2001) address the problematic Sympathetic gay characters thus are ways in which the gay, cross-dressing no longer a rarity in the contemporary characters of To Wong Foo collectively mediascape of popular culture, even if raise the consciousness of the populace their representations are problematic. of a small, Midwestern town, a feat Of particular interest to me are the that culminates in the deification of patterns that these contemporary rep- those vessels of understanding and, the resentations assume in an effort to authors argue, ultimately reinforces make themselves palatable to a main- their marginalization. Walters (2001) stream audience that is presumed het- speaks to the same issue as relevant to erosexual and is largely endowed with the gay character of Carter on the heterosexist sensibilities.2 These pat- situation comedy Spin City, noting terns may well place very specific con- the centrality of heterosexuality to homosexu- ditions on the definition and evolution ality. Gayness is seen through the eyes of of mainstream perceptions of gay confused heterosexuals, struggling with identity and politics, even beyond their own reactions and feelings. While I those identified by Fejes and Petrich applaud the attempts to reckon with het- (1993), for example. One such pattern erosexual fears and homophobia, I am that has enjoyed considerable success afraid that this focus can further marginal- in recent years is the gay man/straight ize gay people, set them aside as vehicles for woman configuration featured as the straight enlightenment, much in the way primary or lead “couple.” Jacobs that people of color serve as avenues for (1998) writes that “the gay-man/het- white understandings of race. (pp. 104– ero-gal duo has become the pop-cul- 105, italics hers) ture relationship du jour, the screwball Although representing gay characters comedy match for the millennium, a as instrumental to straight enlighten- safe, lucrative way to package gay ment does invest them with some de- characters for the heartland” (p. 20). gree of political significance, that Although she also recognises the ways significance, ironically, has nothing to in which this configuration renders the do with them; it functions instead to representation of gay (male) characters enrich and strengthen specifically het- more palatable to mainstream audi- eronormative social and political sensi- ences, Walters (2001) suggests that the bilities. Thus, the high degree of gay formula may also “allow for an actual visibility that characterizes contempor- engagement with gay and lesbian ary popular media is further qualified; sexuality and identity and, impor- as Fejes and Petrich (1993) have ar- tantly, a reckoning with the interac- gued, “while the blatant negative tions between hetero and homo worlds stereotypes of the past no longer con- and desires” (p. 166). My goal in this 71

CSMC SHUGART essay is to examine just the ways in show, of course, vary from week to which these interactions are negoti- week but typically are consistent with ated. To this end, I analyze three films standard sit-com fare – quirky behav- and one television program that reflect iors, silly misunderstandings, embar- the popularly received gay man/ rassing peccadilloes, and so forth. straight woman formula – namely, the Indeed, Battles & Hilton-Morrow televised situation comedy, Will & (2002) argue that it is just these Grace(1998–present), and the films My “familiar situation comedy genre con- Best Friend’s Wedding (1997), Object of My ventions of romantic comedy” that Affection (1998), and The Next Best Thing make homosexuality “safe” for main- (2000). stream audiences (p. 101). The gay man/straight woman Also a romantic comedy, My Best configuration is epitomized by the im- Friend’s Wedding, released in 1997 by mensely popular television situation TriStar Columbia, was very well re- comedy, Will & Grace. Touted as the ceived by the public, grossing $286.9 heir to the trail that Ellen blazed (e.g., million at the box office (www. Gross, 2001; Walters, 2001),3 Will & worldwideboxoffice.com). In the film, Grace debuted in 1998 as part of Julianne “Jules” Potter (played by Julia NBC’s fall lineup for the new season. Roberts) is a heterosexual woman It was aired in and continues to oc- whose (second) best friend and cupy the prime-time, 9Ϻ00 p.m. (ET) confidante is her editor, George Dow- slot on Thursday night, which has nes (Rupert Everett), a gay man. Jules been NBC’s strongest night for several learns that her ex-boyfriend and best years (Adalain & Schneider, 2000); this friend, Michael O’Neal (Dermot Mul- suggests that the network anticipated a roney) is getting married, and she re- positive reception by its targeted main- acts badly, recalling a vow that they stream audience. The network was had made some years before to the correct in its assumption; the show has effect that they would marry each enjoyed considerable success with that other if they were both still single at a audience, consistently drawing the certain point in time. She convinces highest ratings in its time slot since its herself that she is and always has been inception and often securing the in love with Michael and sets out to highest ratings as compared to all break up the wedding; George is at her other television shows (Adalain & side through most of her escapades Schneider, 2000). Set in New York during the film, posing as her fiance´ City, the plot of Will & Grace revolves through much of it. about two best friends: Will Truman In 1998, 20th Century Fox released (played by Eric McCormack), a gay Object of My Affection, starring Jennifer male attorney, and Grace Adler (De- Aniston, one of the cast members of bra Messing), a straight female interior the very popular network (NBC) situ- designer. Also featured regularly as ation comedy, Friends; her attendant part of the show’s ensemble cast are its popularity and celebrity have assured secondary lead characters, who have her a loyal and extensive fan base, thus their own very close friendship: Jack making her an attractive casting op- McFarland (Sean Hayes), a gay male tion to major film studios. This film friend of Will’s, and Karen Walker fared relatively well in theaters, earn- (Megan Mullally), Grace’s heterosex- ing $45.8 million in box office returns ual female secretary.4 Plots of the (www.worldwideboxoffice.com). The 72

REINVENTING PRIVILEGE MARCH 2003

film centers on the relationship be- friends, even if particular relational dy- tween Nina Borowski (Aniston), a het- namics vary according to plot. Also, erosexual woman, and George each film or television program is Hanson (Paul Rudd), a gay man. mainstream – solidly situated in popu- When George’s relationship with his lar culture and directed to mainstream partner ends, he becomes Nina’s audiences – and is billed as a comedy flatmate and they become best friends. or as a romantic comedy. Apprehend- Nina, who is in a relationship with ing this configuration and its main- which she is not entirely happy, ends stream context as a rhetorical genre, I that relationship when she becomes want to assess the rhetorical dynamics pregnant and decides to keep the that characterize it and identify child. She asks George to help her whether and, if so, how it is successful raise the child; at first reluctant, he in affording greater social acceptance ultimately agrees. Nina falls in love of sexual alterity as defined by social with George, however, and becomes convention. increasingly possessive of him and in- tolerant of his homosexuality. The Next Best Thing was released in “Heterosexualizing” the 2000 by Paramount. Although it was Gay Man: The First Subtext not a huge success, grossing $15 million at the box office (www. Analysis of this generic pairing of worldwideboxoffice.com), it did enjoy gay men and heterosexual women in some popularity with the public; cer- contemporary popular media reveals tainly, Paramount’s investment in the two distinct subtextual layers that work film suggests that the studio antici- together to naturalise heteronormativ- pated its success. In the film, Abbie ity. The first and most accessible of Reynolds (played by Madonna) is a these endows the gay male characters heterosexual woman whose best friend with decidedly conventional heterosex- is Robert Whittaker (Rupert Everett), ual signifiers, as established by the a gay man. One night, intoxicated, broader discourse of mainstream Abbie and Robert have sex; Abbie popular culture: the relationship be- soon discovers that she is pregnant and tween these men and their heterosex- decides to keep the child. Both agree ual female best friends is coded as that the one-night stand was a mistake romantic, and the lead gay male char- (as well as a marked aberration in acters are contrasted with highly Robert’s case), but they decide to raise flamboyant, outrageously stereotypical the child together, living in the same gay male characters who function as household. This works until Abbie falls foils against which the leading men in love with a man whom she wants to emerge as more traditionally mascu- marry and with whom she may decide line and, thus, more consistent with to relocate. Robert is very angry about mainstream tropes of heterosexuality. the threat this poses to his relationship with their son, and this puts a tremen- dous strain on Robert and Abbie’s re- Romance Afoot lationship. Each of these texts features the same Walters (2001) describes the gay core configuration of a gay man and a man/straight woman genre as heterosexual woman who are best “wannabe partners whose sexual ori- 73

CSMC SHUGART entations are at odds” insofar as it of their relationship in the series, not represents a new take on the story of least as evidenced by frequent refer- star-crossed lovers that “raises the ences to their romantic liaison in vari- stakes for the would-be lovers” ous episodes; as such, Will’s sexual (p. 166). Battles and Hilton-Morrow identity as constructed on the show (2002) note that the configuration of- includes a definite heterosexual com- fers the “ ‘ultimate twist’ on the de- ponent. layed consummation trope” (p. 92) Although Will and Grace resume a that Scodari (1995) identifies as core to relationship as best friends following the classic, mainstream (i.e., heterosex- their breakup and the ensuing hiatus, ual) romantic comedy genre. Indeed, the romantic subtext of their relation- in each of the texts, the gay male leads ship persists. For instance, the pilot conform precisely to mainstream, het- episode features Grace standing up her erosexual romantic comedy conven- fianceátthe altar, primarily due to tions in which straight male leads are Will’s objections, and celebrating her “handsome, muscular, and physically decision, in her wedding dress, with fit” as well as, without exception, white Will at a local bar where the patrons and upper-middle class (e.g., Battles & assume that they are the “happy cou- Hilton-Morrow, 2002, p. 90; Brookey, ple.” Neither Will nor Grace dispels 1996). While gay men certainly can be this notion; in fact, upon the urging of characterized by these traits, notewor- the crowd, they kiss deeply. Although thy is the fact that this is the only Will confirms that he felt “nothing,” performance of homosexuality avail- notably, this is in response to Grace’s able in these configurations. As such, hopeful, “Anything?” Irrespective of the range and complexity of gay (and Will’s response, the discursive codes of lesbian) identity is obfuscated, and a traditional, heterosexual romantic “acceptable” gay identity is limited to relationship are blatant in this scene: that which most closely approximates she has left her fiance´ for Will, she is heteronormative conventions of mas- depicted as a happy, blushing bride in culinity. his presence, and they both are aware In Will & Grace,ofcourse, a roman- of and explore themselves the romantic dynamic is prominent in the rela- tic potential of their relationship. Fur- tionship between lead characters Will thermore, throughout the series, Will and Grace. As several shows have es- is referred to by other characters as tablished, Will and Grace met each Grace’s husband: for most of the se- other in college, prior to Will’s coming ries, they cohabitate, they are very out – to himself and others. Will and close, and they spend a great deal of Grace dated, and the hour-long epi- time together, far more than with the sode that recounts this phase in their romantic partners that drift into and relationship establishes the seriousness out of their lives.5 Recently, Will and of this romance: Will’s growing dis- Grace have explored having a child comfort notwithstanding, he proposes together, which further serves to frame marriage to Grace, who is very much them as a conventionally heterosexual in love with him. When he does come couple in tandem with the romantic out, Grace, her heart broken, breaks pretext that frames their relationship. off all contact with him for over a year. The entire premise of the show is that This early romantic relationship, their emotional intimacy is far greater significantly, is posited as the premise than any of their other relationships, 74

REINVENTING PRIVILEGE MARCH 2003 and this relationship is the most im- room, searching, searching, where can portant in their lives. he be … the crowds part [she sees In My Best Friend’s Wedding, too, the him], and suddenly, there he is, like a relationship between Jules and George jungle cat, sleek, stylish … and then is endowed with romantic features. In the music begins to play … .” At this the opening scene, in fact, she ac- point, clearly arranged by George, the knowledges his suitability as a roman- band begins to play the same love song tic partner, describing the man she with which he serenaded her, and he believes herself to be in love with to takes her in his arms. The scene fades George as “like you, only straight.” out on their dancing happily to this Jules and George are very close to love song at the wedding reception. each other; he is her confidante, and This scene, as well as others through- she reveals herself to him emotionally out the film, is rife with highly tra- as she does to no one else. Similarly, in ditional heterosexual codes. As with the course of the film, George braves Will, George’s heterosexual his fear of flying twice to come to her qualifications are intact by virtue of his aid, symbolic of his love for Jules. posited potential romantic relationship Throughout much of the film, George with Jules, even if his homosexuality is poses as Jules’s fianceínpart to make not entirely dispelled. her former lover and best friend (en- Object of My Affection heterosexualizes gaged to another woman) jealous. In George, the gay male character, in this capacity, the romantic subtext of much the same way. Nina and their relationship is optimized. At the George’s relationship also is character- rehearsal dinner, George “ad libs” his ized by great emotional intimacy, and meeting Jules, waxing eloquent as to this intimacy takes on a romantic qual- her astounding beauty and his passion- ity. This is established, for instance, by ate love for her, and in a clever double virtue of their taking dancing lessons entendre, he notes that their love is together, where the teacher and other like a “Doris Day/Rock Hudson ex- students assume that they are “a cou- travaganza.” George’s courting of ple,” and being depicted dancing to Jules under this pretext takes on epic old, culturally popular love songs (fea- romantic proportions. As her fiance´, turing heterosexual romantic love), in he serenades her in front of a full the style of old romantic films, both in restaurant, whose patrons all chime in the context of the class as well as alone for this tribute to the fair Jules, in their apartment. Indeed, one such charmed by this “perfect” young cou- scene fades into a scene from an old, ple and the obviously smitten young romantic Gene Kelly film featuring man. Notably, in the final scene, Kelly’s character and his (female) which takes place at the wedding re- “love interest” dancing to the same ception of Jules’s best friend, as she is music. Once Nina becomes pregnant sitting alone reflecting sadly on her with her soon-to-be ex-boyfriend’s lonely, single status, George calls her, child, she asks George to help her raise commenting on her “radiant beauty” the child because “you’re home to in very precise terms. She realizes that me.” This heightens the romantic sub- he must be able to see her, and he text as it configures Nina and George, narrates – in very culturally tra- already cohabitating, as parents-to-be, ditional, romantic terms – the scene and their relationship takes on the very unfolding: “she moves through the traditional heterosexual hallmarks as- 75

CSMC SHUGART sociated with that scenario: they pick down the street together, holding out baby clothes together, they hold hands, creating a traditional, hetero- hands everywhere they go, often set to sexual family tableau. Although none romantic, heterosexual love songs. In of these features obviate George’s ho- fact, Nina falls in love with George, mosexuality, the particular ways in and her behavior toward him conse- which they are coded, especially in quently casts their relationship as ro- relation to each other, cultivate an in- mantic. George, too, exhibits terpretation of heterosexual romantic behaviors that appear to reciprocate potential for Nina and George’s rela- Nina’s romantic love for him: he fre- tionship. quently caresses Nina’s face and neck, In The Next Best Thing, Robert and he tells her that he doesn’t miss men Abbie’s relationship has a romantic when he’s with her, and he comments edge to it, as well. Again, Robert and on her beauty in a sexual context as he Abbie are exceptionally intimate emo- discusses his first lover, a woman. This tionally; they are best friends, and she latter revelation has great significance confides everything to him. Of course, for Nina, and thus the film, in terms of the fact that they have sex blatantly his potential ability to “switch teams.” evokes the specter of a romantic rela- Although sexual encounters alone are tionship, given that sex and romance, hardly a sure indicator of sexual ident- especially in the context of emotional ity, George’s early heterosexual experi- intimacy, are discursively linked in ence, in the context of other actions mainstream popular culture. However, and behaviors in the film, becomes other romantic signs are evident in the coded as evidence for his potential, relationship, as well. For example, perhaps latent heterosexuality. Robert caresses Abbie’s face, stating Although George ultimately states that she’s the most beautiful woman that he does not want a romantic rela- he knows: “I can’t imagine a man tionship with Nina, the final scene of letting a woman like you slip through the film, set four years later, retains a his fingers,” he says gently to her. In traditional heterosexual romantic sen- one scene – notably, the prelude to sibility. Nina has established her their sexual encounter – they dance friendship with the father of her child, intimately together to old 1930s love but they are not romantically involved, songs, she in a dramatic evening gown, and although she is dating a man, the he in a tuxedo, strikingly evocative of nature of the relationship is portrayed old Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers as impermanent. Similarly, George’s films, icons of heterosexual romance. relationship with his partner is por- Once Abbie and Robert decide to trayed as highly unconventional – the raise the child together, of course, the partner already has a partner who is hallmarks of heterosexual domesticity aware of and accepts George – and abound: they are “Mummy and thus likely to be perceived as less than Daddy” to their son, Sam, and the stable. George and Nina remain very three are depicted in countless family close, and George is clearly a fixture in photos – again, constituting a Molly’s (Nina’s daughter) life. As vari- specifically heterosexual family tab- ous people depart from the scene, leau. Abbie and Robert’s relationship which follows Molly’s school play, takes on qualities of an “old married Nina, George and Molly are the only couple” as they are featured stumbling three who remain, and they walk around their son in the kitchen in the 76

REINVENTING PRIVILEGE MARCH 2003 morning, discussing school with him, in mainstream popular culture (e.g., and talking to each other in the bath- Battles & Hilton-Morrow, 2002; room as they shower and prepare for Brookey, 1996). All of these texts ei- their days. Abbie, like Nina in Object of ther establish a past or present roman- My Affection, feels increasingly threat- tic relationship or (in every case) ened by Robert’s homosexual lifestyle implicitly posit the potential for one. even if she does not consider herself in Coupled with the fact that these men love with him. are very infrequently depicted in When Abbie meets and falls in love homosexual or even homosocial rela- with Ben, the codes that describe the tionships – and if they are, those rela- fallout to her and Robert’s relationship tionships are usually revealed as are equally reminiscent of a tra- lacking in comparison to the easy sim- ditional, romantic heterosexual rela- patico characterizing their primary re- tionship, albeit one that is on the lationships with the heterosexual rocks. Robert deliberately tries to women – these depictions render the make Ben feel uncomfortable on first male characters’ gay identities am- meeting him, and he makes borderline biguous and potentially pliable. The snide comments to Abbie about Ben – portrayals suggest that gay men are behaviors easily construed as jealousy fully capable of “doing” heterosexual- in the conventionally heterosexual ity, and while this is not necessarily a context of Abbie and Robert’s dom- misrepresentation of gay men, the fact estic arrangement. When faced with that this malleability is the premise of the prospect of Abbie and Ben moving their sexual identities in these texts is away, Robert becomes furious, and highly problematic. The fact that only Abbie and Robert embark on an in- the gay characters’ sexuality is pre- tense and bitter custody battle over sented as variable contributes to this Sam. Again, this scenario is articulated problem; straight characters are never as the typical fallout of a marriage represented as engaging in or legiti- gone sour. Even though the custody mately exploring the possibility of battle creates a huge rift between Ab- homosexual practices. Accordingly, bie and Robert, the final scene, again, these texts satisfy heteronormative de- seems to resurrect the heterosexual sires that posit heterosexuality as un- framing of their relationship. Abbie, ambiguous and constant, and initially furious at Robert’s attempts to homosexuality thus becomes the dis- see Sam, ultimately relents. Silhou- cursive practice by which heterosexu- etted against the sunset on a wide ality is renormalized. boulevard, she approaches Robert: “I miss you; I miss us,” he says to her. They embrace, and Abbie lets Sam The Foil Factor out of the car: “Go have dinner with your father,” she says to him. The second means by which the gay In each of these cases, the gay male lead characters in this generic male/straight female relationship is configuration are heterosexualized is presented with clear romantic over- via their juxtaposition with outrage- tones, not least by virtue of male char- ously flamboyant, stereotypical gay acters’ static conformity to the male characters. These secondary conventions of white, middle-to-upper- characters serve as foils against which middle class, heterosexual masculinity the lead characters emerge as more 77

CSMC SHUGART conventionally masculine and thus and in Ralph Lauren advertisements. more consistent with gendered het- In any case, his vanity is at a far eronormative sensibilities that equate remove from the preening, feminine masculinity with male heterosexuality sort that characterizes Jack. Certainly, (e.g., Battles & Hilton-Morrow, 2002; Will’s mannerisms and expressions are Gross, 2001; Keller, 2002; Walters, largely consistent with traditionally 2001). Thus, the flamboyant foil ulti- masculine behaviors – he is stoic, he mately renormalizes heterosexual con- drinks milk from the carton, puts his ventions. In Will & Grace, the feet up on furniture, and so forth. He character of openly gay Jack is clearly is also a successful and wealthy man, Will’s foil in this respect; although Will consistent with the privileged identity does, on occasion, exhibit stereotypi- that Brookey (1996) argues is a con- cally feminine behaviors (see Battles & dition of mainstream audiences’ ac- Hilton-Morrow, 2002), Will nonethe- ceptance of gay characters. This is in less “provides the norm of masculinity sharp contrast to Jack, who is notori- against which Jack’s gayness is ously unsuccessful (eternally unem- defined” (p. 91). Jack speaks in a rela- ployed) and lives off his friends. tively high voice, which he often uses Notably, Will is often the one who to “gush” or to shriek, and his man- snidely comments on Jack’s femininity; nerisms and expressions are often con- although the two are friends, the com- ventionally feminine, entirely ments are not delivered kindly. In- consistent with the established cultural deed, much is made of the fact that discourse that assumes that feminine Jack and Will find each other repulsive behavior in a man is indicative of ho- insofar as potential romantic mosexuality. For instance, he is often prospects, and an entire episode was shown applying face creams and devoted to their mutual disgust at the makeup to himself, filing his nails, and (misunderstood) prediction of a psy- being obsessed with his looks, clothes, chic that they would be together. hair, and weight. His mannerisms in- These dynamics all function to dis- clude tossing his hair in a decidedly tance Will from Jack in the program. feminine fashion as if it were very long They could not be more different, and (it is not), crossing his legs and sitting because Jack’s stereotypical gay ident- very primly with his hands clasped on ity essentially comprises his entire his knees, and fluttering his eyelashes character, the differences between the at a man he considers attractive. He two may well be construed as relevant and others frequently allude to his ef- to sexuality such that Will reads as at feminate nature: he comments on his least not as gay as Jack, and perhaps efforts to maintain his “girlish figure,” not even “really” gay. As Gross (2001) Will refers to him as “Puff Mommy,” notes, “[Jack] provides the missing evi- and others will refer to him as a “lady” dence that Will is indeed gay: focus when addressing him and a group of groups on whom the program was other men.6 In contrast, Will is con- tested often failed to identify Will as ventionally masculine; although vanity gay, but never misread Jack” (p. 179). does characterize him to a certain ex- In the films, these foils also are pre- tent, it is a vanity highly consistent sent in various ways. If they are not with contemporary, middle-to-upper always featured as prominently, I sub- class heteromasculinity – as epito- mit that they nonetheless play a mized, for instance, in GQ magazine significant role in distinguishing the 78

REINVENTING PRIVILEGE MARCH 2003 gay male leads from what is culturally Early in the film, Robert decides to presumed to be “typical” gay men. In take matters into his hands to retrieve My Best Friend’s Wedding, this pattern is Abbie’s key from her recently departed established in two ways. First, as Jules ex-boyfriend. To this end, he dresses and Michael and Kimmie (Michael’s very effeminately – in pink and laven- fiance´) enter a karaoke bar, a man is der, wearing a beret, a silk scarf onstage singing “I Am Woman.” His around his neck, very large sunglasses, gestures and mannerisms are conven- a tight short-sleeved shirt unbuttoned tionally feminine; he sways back and to his navel, skin-tight three-quarter forth, clutching the microphone with striped pants, and high heels – and he both hands, tossing his head about and behaves accordingly, swishing into the swinging his hips. Although this scene man’s studio in front of his colleagues, is seemingly incidental, it nonetheless tossing his head, and cocking his hip serves as a referent in the larger dis- provocatively. In essence, he poses as cursive context of sexuality that frames the man’s lover in order to embarrass this narrative, and the extreme differ- him in front of his colleagues. What is ences between this man’s apparent telling about this scene is that when he femininity and George’s relative mas- leaves the studio to rejoin Abbie, who culinity – established largely by his is waiting for him in the car, he is bourgeois status, success, and wealth – desperate to remove his clothing, tear- are thrown into sharp relief. Second, ing it off of him as he leaves the build- George himself exhibits very over-the- ing and tossing it into the street, top, feminine mannerisms when he grunting in disgust as he does so. and Kimmie meet for the first time. So Robert is distinguished from “other” pleased is she to meet him, Jules’ al- gay men and their trappings in a var- leged fiance´, that she is extremely ef- iety of other ways, as well. In the first fusive, throwing her arms around him place, he works for two older gay men, and kissing him, shrieking and jump- partners, whom he and others refer to ing up and down, and George mimics as “the most evil queens in Christen- these extremely stereotypical feminine dom.” These two are stereotypically behaviors. Although this may seem to flamboyant in their mannerisms; they contradict the argument that this func- shriek, they make “catty” remarks to tions as a foil, the conspicuousness of each other, and they share a passion this performance – given that George’s for showtunes and musicals. When “real” persona is articulated otherwise they attempt to engage Robert on this as exclusively suave, dapper, hand- latter issue, he responds, “Don’t ask some and sophisticated – establishes it me, I’m afraid I flunked gay history,” as just that: a performance (see, e.g., again clearly differentiating himself Shugart, 2001). The fact that this in- from them and, thus, “the” gay terchange ends with George’s deliver- lifestyle. Robert’s rejection of these ing a sharp slap to Kimmie’s rear end stereotypically gay trappings is thus effectively frames the performance, registered and recorded in the context distinguishing between her “authentic” of the film. Robert also is shown in the femininity and affirming his masculin- presence of his gay male friends from ity and attendant distance from the time to time in the film, but rather stereotype of effeminacy. than provide dimension and texture to Conspicuous performance as a foil his character and to representations of also is featured in The Next Best Thing. queerness, these scenes similarly func- 79

CSMC SHUGART tion to juxtapose Robert against those face, he gushes, “Look at you, you’re other men. This is primarily accom- adorable! I mean, your brother’s cute, plished by virtue of the fact that sev- but you’re irresistible! You look like a eral of the men are HIV positive or peach!” Clearly to George’s chagrin, have AIDS; although this arguably he comes on very strongly and George contextualizes Robert in a gay lifestyle, does what he can to fend him off, as he I would submit that it also renders him does the next two times he encounters as relatively “whole” and “normal” him by chance. In this case, the man’s just as it simultaneously conflates the extreme, butch masculinity is con- virus with homosexuality. As such, his trasted with George’s relative “normalcy” may well contribute to an “normalcy,” and it is posited as interpretation of his character as a fea- strange and disturbing, especially in ture that distinguishes him from other conjunction with his quasi-feminine gay men and, thus, complements if not overtures to George. His gender and accommodates other heterosexualizing thus sexuality are suspect. George, in features of his representation. Note- contrast, is presented as consistently worthy as well, the one serious rela- masculine by virtue of his traditional tionship that Robert has ends because role as protector and partner in Nina’s his partner is unable to accept life. Robert’s familial obligations to Abbie The foils that appear in each of and Sam – Robert is thus construed as these cases further the heterosexualiza- rightly prioritizing the traditional het- tion of the gay leading men, which is erosexual family, as opposed to other already largely established via noted gay men who counsel him otherwise. conventional codes of heterosexual ro- The gay men (including his performed mance. Consequently, the men’s ho- character) in this film against whom mosexuality is rendered as either Robert is showcased thus effectively secondary, incidental, qualified, or function as foils for his relative mas- nominal, not only by virtue of the fact culinity. that their primary, profoundly inti- In Object of My Affection, George also mate relationships are with women but is contrasted with a stereotype of gay that they are far removed from the male sexuality, although the stereotype stereotypical gay lifestyle as repre- is not strictly feminine in this case. At sented in the cultural mainstream and one point, hoping to “get him back as manifest in the secondary gay char- into the game,” George’s brother, a acters. More to the point, their re- physician, sets him up on a blind date moval is voluntary. Their discomfort with a colleague of his. George meets with, revulsion regarding, and ultimate him in a bar, and when he arrives, he rejection of that lifestyle, as articulated is taken aback by the man’s appear- via the foil characters, is definitively ance; he is large and very burly, wear- established and serves as an additional ing jeans, a large leather belt, and a premise for the conclusion that hetero- singlet under a leather jacket replete sexuality is at least within their grasp if with belts and chains. Although his not in their natures. physical appearance thus is not femi- In critiquing the representations of nine, it nonetheless is evocative of an- these contrasting gay men and their other classic stereotype of gay responses to each other, I do not pre- masculinity – the ultra-masculine sume essential or “authentic” gay sen- leather “butch.” Caressing George’s timents or sensibilities; rather, my 80

REINVENTING PRIVILEGE MARCH 2003 intent is to demonstrate that this static, sexual women does much to lay the generic foil configuration effectively groundwork for acceptance into the reinforces heteronormative discourses cultural mainstream of these particular that are predicated on acceptable het- representations of gay men and, by erosexual performances. Indeed, the extension, their particular lifestyles. foil operates at a larger level such that However, I submit that the noted “familiar” (to mainstream audiences) strategies of heterosexualization only homosexuality (e.g., Keller, 2002, partially secure entreé for these gay p. 125) – becomes the means for men into the dominant heteronorma- renormalizing heteronormativity. This tive culture. After all, even if their is not simply a function of the outrage- homosexuality is narrowly construed ous, extreme dimensions that the sec- via these tactics, it is not eradicated or ondary gay male characters assume, even camouflaged – it remains the os- although this is one half of the equa- tensible premise of their identities, tion; rather, heteronormativity is resta- which would seem to at least qualify bilized against the conventionally their acceptance by and popularity heterosexual performances that the with mainstream audiences. I argue gay male leads engage. Walters (2001), that their entreé into heteronormative speaking specifically to the interplay culture is ultimately guaranteed by between Will and Jack, asserts that strategies apparent in a second, subtler “both are integrationist images … . If subtext, one that features increased Will is the perfectly integrated gay sexual access to, license with, and pa- man through his recognizability to ternalistic control of women, all of straights (like them and one of them), which accordingly reframe gay male then Jack is also perfectly integrated sexuality as an extension of heterosex- though his recognizability as the ual male privilege predicated on con- charming, narcissistic, witty, flitty fag trol of female sexuality. next door” (p. 108). That most of these gay men are not depicted as part of a larger gay community – and Robert, Sexual Tension the one who is, is contrasted sharply with a very narrow depiction of that Although sexual interactions and community – further enhances this activity between the gay male charac- function; the simple juxtaposition of ters and their heterosexual female the approximately straight and out- counterparts arguably could be con- rageously flamboyant gay men in a strued as manifestations of and further relentlessly straight world codes het- evidence for their speculative romantic erosexuality as a default performance, relationships, I think that, in general, endorsed and enacted even by rela- they are better apprehended and tively sensible gay men. understood as a separate subtext, for two reasons. First, with very few exceptions, the sexual activity depicted Doing Patriarchy One between the characters is unilateral: Better: The Second Subtext gay men are represented as having sexual access to and license with their The heterosexualization of the gay heterosexual women friends, but the male lead characters in the generic women are not depicted as having configuration of gay men and hetero- truly reciprocal privileges. Second, this 81

CSMC SHUGART sexual behavior is most appropriately and Grace also are often shown in bed understood in conjunction with the pa- together in various states of undress, ternalism that constitutes the over- discussing various matters. Notably, arching theme of these characters’ Will is often shown as irritated in these interactions as much of the behavior encounters, devising ways to get Grace occurs in the context of the men some- out of his bed, as she has entered how controlling or managing these unbidden by him. The bed, of course, women. With two possible exceptions functions as a sexual signifier in con- that are clearly framed as aberrant, junction with their states of undress; in these sexual interludes are not de- this discursive context, the fact that picted as erotic, much less mutual, as Grace is forcing herself upon Will would be expected in the context of a lends itself to an interpretation that romantic relationship. Will has unlimited sexual access to In Will & Grace, Will has consider- Grace – it is simply a matter of his able sexual access to and license with choice. Grace; as a minor but not insignificant In My Best Friend’s Wedding, George’s example, they frequently kiss each sexual access to and license with other. Grace also dresses and un- women is established in much the dresses in front of Will – indeed, he same way that Will’s is – via the use of often dresses her. Although he will ask subtle sexual signifiers that notably her advice on clothes from time to contextualize him as the controlling time, we (including Grace, pre- party. Again, as with Will and Grace, sumably) almost never see him in his George and Jules routinely kiss each underwear, which in any case consists other on the lips when they greet or of large, roomy boxer shorts, unlike take their leave, a behavior typically Grace’s lacy, “sexy” lingerie. In one associated with sexual intimates. Jules episode, after much discussion with and George spend time in bed to- and demonstration for Will, Grace gether, discussing her plot to break up purchases a water-filled brassiere in her best friend’s wedding, she in a order to appear more voluptuous to an state of undress, he fully clothed, sym- old high-school crush. Inevitably, in bolically endowing him with greater accordance with the laws of situation control and greater access and her comedy, the brassiere springs a leak, with greater vulnerability and avail- which necessitates Will having to stand ability. On two occasions, as well, behind Grace with his hands over her George slaps women sharply on the breasts to staunch the leak. In another rear. In both cases, the slaps feature episode, Jack has become intrigued by sexual significance in terms of access, the proportion of fat to muscle in his especially given that neither woman is chest; under some pretext, he and Will his sexual partner. It is intimate, typi- both end up fondling Grace’s breasts. cally sexualized play between adults, Although she is fondling theirs as and the fact that he is the one slapping well, she is centered in the scene so – not the women – establishes him as that we can clearly see her being fon- in control of that symbolic sexual act. dled; furthermore, the cultural Furthermore, the public context of significance of the fondling of female that behavior as well as the fact that he breasts has far greater import with re- and Kimmie have just met when he gard to sexuality and sexualization slaps her speak volumes in terms of than the fondling of male breasts. Will sexual license. Such behavior is under- 82

REINVENTING PRIVILEGE MARCH 2003 stood culturally as private and even of this interaction are clear, and his then a bit risque´ (suggestive as it is of control – narrative and figurative – sex games), and George’s easy, unim- over Nina is established. The most pugned practice of it in a public con- blatantly sexual encounter between text suggests that he has license where Nina and George comes out of an- others do not. Finally, George also is other such bedroom scene; a pregnant the object of desire of Kimmie’s Nina asks George, “Do you think most cousins-cum-bridesmaids; described to married couples are as happy as we Jules by Kimmie as “slutty” nympho- are?” “I hope so,” responds George. maniacs, their attraction to George is They kiss affectionately, as they often registered, if only briefly acknowl- do, but Nina then deepens the kiss and edged. Collectively, these events culti- begins to make love to George, unbut- vate an impression of George as toning his shirt, kissing his neck and having unregulated sexual access to all working her way down his torso as she of the young, attractive women in the begins to unzip his pants. They are film – if he so desires. The fact that he interrupted by the telephone, which does not pursue this privilege is incon- prompts George to push Nina aside. sequential and, indeed, cultivates a In this scene, Nina is the active party perception of him as sexually in con- and George, although clearly aroused, trol. is entirely passive; however, his sexual Similarly, in The Object of My Affec- control over Nina is not compromised, tion, George has sexual carte blanche as established by his disengagement with Nina, even if he does not act on from her to answer the phone and by it. In a pattern that continues through- his unwillingness to resume after the out the film, his access to her is estab- telephone call, her overtures notwith- lished when he first becomes her standing. Ultimately, George is posi- flatmate: Nina surreptitiously leaves tioned as able to choose whether or her bedroom in the middle of the not he allows Nina to be sexual with night, where her boyfriend, Vince, lies him. That she is available and access- sleeping, when she hears George in the ible to him – even pregnant with an- kitchen. Dressed in their bedclothes, other man’s child – is never in they whisper and confide in each other question and speaks of his considerable as her boyfriend sleeps. When Vince is sexual license with her. not around, Nina and George watch Finally, in The Next Best Thing, television together in her bed, again Robert also enjoys sexual access to and dressed in their bedclothes. In one license with Abbie, even if he only acts such bed scene, they talk about sex – on it once; this is well established both cultivating a sexually charged context prior to and following their explicitly – and George reveals that his first sexual encounter. As with the other lover was a woman, much to Nina’s couples, much of this is established surprise and curiosity. He playfully symbolically via kissing, Robert’s slap- tweaks his description of this woman ping Abbie on the rear, and numerous to fit Nina’s description, further sexu- scenes in bed. Certainly, the fact that alizing the encounter. When she real- Abbie and Robert actually have sex at izes what he is doing and swipes him some point in the film legitimizes with a pillow, he tosses her down on Robert’s sexual access and license. the bed, tickling her as she screams Significantly, the fact that it is his ac- delightedly. The sexual connotations cess and license is established insofar 83

CSMC SHUGART as he is clearly constructed as the per- The Dad Factor son in control of their activity: “You kissed me,” claims Abbie, implying her Another, powerful theme that char- complete passivity and receptivity to acterizes the interactions between the his advances. When Abbie attempts to gay male and heterosexual female pursue the possibility of a future sexual characters in this configuration is pa- relationship immediately following the ternalism, a dynamic that may appear event, Robert makes clear his disin- at first blush to be inconsistent with terest and even dismay at the prospect. sexual access and license but, in fact, Abbie is portrayed as ready and will- the two are intricately intertwined.7 In ing, then and later, an interpretation each instance, the women are por- cultivated by her jealousy of his later trayed as childlike, silly, and cute, as partners. Robert’s access and license is well as irrational and emotional, often regulated only by him. given to hysteria; these actions and In each instance, the gay male char- behaviors are always juxtaposed with acters in these configurations are artic- those of the men, who are depicted as ulated as having unlimited sexual stable, mature, rational, and respon- access to their heterosexual female sible. The overarching dynamic driv- counterparts and, sometimes, other ing the relationship in this peripheral female characters as well. configuration is parental, manifest Furthermore, these men are portrayed most often in the female characters as having great sexual license. Evi- seeking or needing guidance and di- dently due to their homosexuality, rection from their male counterparts: they can touch women with impunity “the new leading men are emotional in inappropriate ways and inappropri- Gibraltars, forever steadying their ate contexts – this may entail overt, zany dames … seems the wise gay very intimate sexual touches, public man is fast replacing the old hysterical- contexts, or access to women who femme-down-the-hall stereotype” (Ja- would conventionally be construed as cobs, 1998, p. 24). This dynamic is not sexually unavailable. This consistent a novel one in mediated popular cul- pattern, I argue, cultivates a percep- ture; to the contrary, it arguably con- tion of gay male sexuality as an exten- stitutes the basis for most mainstream sion of heterosexual male privilege; the representations of male/female ro- access and license portrayed in these mantic relationships, historically and representations is tantamount to a today, as suggested by situation come- degree of sexual entitlement that is, dies ranging from I Love Lucy to Friends notably, no longer readily available to and films from Breakfast at Tiffany’s to heterosexual men. The actions and Sleepless in Seattle. However, the rela- behaviors that are characteristic of tionship between the women and men these gay men’s interactions with in the configuration under review is straight women are precisely those that ostensibly not romantic; consequently, have become the chief signifiers of in the context of and in conjunction sexual harassment by straight men in with the gay male characters’ unilat- the workplace and, often, in other eral sexual access to and license with contexts as well. Accordingly, in this the heterosexual female characters, respect, these gay men function as this relational feature functions to se- the guardians of male sexual preroga- cure a representation of gay male tive. sexuality as not only consistent with 84

REINVENTING PRIVILEGE MARCH 2003 but uniquely positioned to enforce mains constant. When Ben spends the patriarchal control of female sexuality. night and is discovered by Sam, In The Next Best Thing, the paternalis- Robert and Abbie’s son, Robert tic quality of Robert and Abbie’s rela- marches into Abbie’s bedroom and tionship is established within the first reads them both the riot act, delivering three minutes. Arriving home to find the rules of their engagement in no her boyfriend packing his things, be- uncertain terms and brooking no argu- fore she even reveals her presence, she ment. Abbie’s moving out and taking calls Robert, upset and on the verge of Sam without telling Robert – he tears, asking him what she should do. comes home to an empty house – He gives her precise instructions, illustrates further her relatively imma- which she proceeds to implement ex- ture reactions in the face of anticipated actly as he has directed. Furthermore, punishment. Similarly, as Robert and many interactions feature Robert Abbie grow further apart, she becomes scolding Abbie: when she is out of less able to make reasonable decisions, sight in the home of friends for whom as demonstrated by her highly Robert is housesitting, he says sternly, emotional and even hysterical scenes. “Don’t touch anything!” and later, She is insecure and inconsistent in her “Whatever you’re doing, put it down!” decisions, alternatively revealing infor- in a distinctly parental tone. When mation to her lawyer that can hurt Robert and Abbie have sex, Robert Robert but halting court proceedings immediately chastises Abbie: “I can’t that are evolving in her favor when it believe you let this happen,” he re- inevitably becomes fodder for legal ar- marks, in spite of Abbie’s claim that it gument. She is finally restored to rea- was Robert who was control of the son only at the end of the film when situation but simultaneously she gives in to Robert’s desire to see confirming her passivity. Later, Abbie Sam. Throughout the film, Abbie is begins dating Ben almost immediately configured as dependent upon on the heels of Robert’s unsolicited Robert’s direction, whether meted out advice to start dating again, even as guidance or force or construed as though she clearly states her prefer- eminent reason; without it, she is ence not to do so. Even as that rela- hopelessly impetuous and indecisive. tionship develops, Robert’s paternal In Object of My Affection,aswell, attitude persists. When Ben comes to George assumes a paternal role in collect Abbie on their first date, Nina’s life. This is most evident when Robert greets him at the door as a Nina becomes pregnant. Revealing father might, proceeding even to ask this first to him, she begs him to “tell the standard, stereotypical questions a me what to do.” Although he says he is father might ask his daughter’s date. reluctant to do so, he does end up When Ben returns Abbie home that telling her that she must not hide this evening, Robert is portrayed observing information from Vince, her their embrace through the curtains of boyfriend: “You can’t do that to the darkened living room, and as she Vince,” he states firmly, proceeding to enters the house, he interrogates her tell her that she ought to tell Vince about the date. Although the tenor of and “give him a chance” to prove their relationship changes once Abbie himself. Nina takes his advice, even in begins to align her life with Ben’s, spite of her own desires and good rea- Robert’s paternal hold over Abbie re- sons, and when George later concedes 85

CSMC SHUGART that she was right and offers to take due to a misplaced territorialism she her up on her suggestion – that he be feels regarding Michael. She fre- the father of her child rather than quently becomes hysterical or throws Vince – she immediately ends her rela- tantrums when things do not go as tionship with Vince. This paternal dy- planned, and she always calls on namic is evident in other ways, as well; George to “Help me!” in these cases. George is very protective of Nina, George, in contrast, is depicted as con- commanding her not to lift heavy ob- summately mature, sophisticated, and jects, for instance, and telling her that reasonable. He commands her to “Pull “I don’t want you traveling so late on yourself together!” or variations on your own” when she endeavors to re- that theme. Throughout the film, turn home from out of town earlier George advises her to let go of her than planned. Illustrating further this “silly” plan, to accept defeat grace- parental quality of their relationship, fully, and to relinquish whatever hold he takes to calling her “kiddo.” Nina she feels she has on Michael as well as appears to relish and even solicits this whatever fantasy she harbors about sort of attention from George; she calls him. When she asks, in a very childlike him frequently, often emotional and voice, what will happen if she takes his hysterical about something, and he advice, George responds omnisciently calms her down. Indeed, she asks him and assuredly, “He will marry Kimmie to call to check up on her. During one and you will go on with your life.” such phone call, when she is out of When George flies to Jules’s side to town, she begs him to curtail his own comfort her after a foiled attempt, he out-of-town plans so that she can come finds her hung over – another indi- home, even though his presence is not cation of her lack of self-control – and required for her to return. George’s stumbling about in her bedclothes, command of Nina’s welfare also is ap- wearing a facial mask that she had parent when Nina and Vince argue forgotten to remove. As she chatters over Nina’s ending their relationship: on about what has happened, she sits, George is present and physically steps pliant, as he wipes her face, much as a between Nina and Vince, even though parent would a child, uttering noises of Vince is not physically threatening disapproval as he listens. In a later Nina. George clearly assumes the role scene, Jules calls George in a panic, of father/protector in Nina’s life, as- unsure of her scheme, screaming, suming responsibility for her physical “Tell me what to do!” George be- welfare and directing her as to the comes very abrupt with her, scolding most reasonable courses of action in her in no uncertain terms to “Grow up her life: Nina, indeed, is rendered vir- and take responsibility!” In the last tually immobile in this relationship; scene, after Jules has taken George’s she is passive, reactive, and deferential advice and realized the error of her to George’s greater wisdom and in- ways, George notes approvingly, sight. “Good girl, I’m proud of you,” sealing My Best Friend’s Wedding features a the nature of their relationship. similar paternalistic dynamic. Jules is George is the voice of reason in Jules’ portrayed as immature and childish, life; furthermore, his reasonableness in not least by virtue of her stubborn, this film is specifically directed toward selfish resolve in attempting to break effectively ending Jules’s romantic pur- up Michael and Kimmie’s wedding suit of Michael. In contrast, George’s 86

REINVENTING PRIVILEGE MARCH 2003 relationships, past and present, are need his advice, but she will get out of only alluded to, never the subject of control around clothing sales and only discussion, much less Jules’s advice. In he can manage her. In one such epi- essence, George’s character is por- sode, her partner at the time, feeling trayed as having powerful, unilateral left out by Will and Grace’s closeness, influence over Jules’s life, especially attempts to take Will’s place in this her love life, an influence that Jules not regard, but he is unable to exercise the only responds to but welcomes and control and guidance that Will can even seeks. provide. Gratefully conceding defeat, Paternalism also strongly character- he turns her over to Will. Significantly, izes Will and Grace’s relationship on Grace has no such control over Will; Will & Grace.Infact, most weekly plots he rarely wants or needs her advice, revolve about Grace finding herself in and when she offers it, he typically some sort of predicament, often of her rejects it. Although in one episode Will own making, which she then proceeds is embarrassed by the fact that he is to exacerbate via her childish re- dating a much younger man and takes sponses. Inevitably, Will steps in, ei- pains to prevent Grace (and others) ther at her request or in spite of finding out, he ends his relationship protestations, to either resolve the situ- not because of her response but be- ation or advise her as to the appropri- cause of his own inability to relate to ate action. This is especially evident in the young man. In general, Will’s rela- plots regarding Grace’s romantic relationships are mentioned in passing, tionships; she always desires Will’s ap- and Grace’s reaction to them typically proval even if she sometimes rebels is not registered on the show. In con- against it, and – notably – he almost trast, the intense “processing” of never approves, for one reason or an- Grace’s relationships with Will (who other. Indeed, she does not marry her provides input and direction) and the fiance´ primarily because Will finds eventual, inevitable dissolution of him so offensive and inappropriate. those relationships are primary fodder Will also frequently tells Grace what to for the show. wear, advises her regarding her work, Paternalism is a key dynamic in the and reels her back in when she be- popular generic configuration of the comes angry or out of control. Accord- gay man and the heterosexual woman. ingly, when Grace has a problem, she As demonstrated in these texts, its evi- always calls on Will for advice. For dence and prominence in the gay example, when a neighbor steals a mu- man/straight woman configuration es- sic box, Grace confronts her in a child- tablishes that gay men are able not ish and even violent manner, spewing only to access but to reify and even immature insults, and it is up to Will reinforce patriarchal paternalism. In- to calm her down and reason with her. deed, I argue that these texts suggest Similarly, when Grace’s uncle leaves that gay men “do it better” than het- her his dilapidated and nonfunctional erosexual men, given that much of car, Grace insists on keeping it, at their control over these women is rel- great cost to herself, for sentimental evant precisely to their relationships reasons. Will, the voice of reason, with other men. Furthermore, these urges her to “be realistic” and sell the gay men are articulated as the other- car. Grace also needs Will to shop wise ideal partner against whom the with her because not only does she women – and the audience – measure 87

CSMC SHUGART their romantic prospects. It is at this is coded as conventionally desirable; in point that the gay men’s paternalism, each of these cases, the gay subject is rather than being contraindicated, in- not only male but white, middle-to- tersects with their sexual access to and upper class, and socially as well as license with straight women, and their professionally accomplished, which control over these women ultimately – Brookey (1996) notes are important either directly or indirectly – manifests conditions for increased gay visibility in their control over female sexuality. in mainstream media. Gay men are thus constructed as capa- However, the issue at stake here is ble of controlling female sexuality not merely one of assimilation, as the more effectively and efficiently than representation of gay identity as en- the designated heterosexual male heirs tailed in this configuration has implica- of patriarchy. The straight women in tions that extend beyond simple these pairings are construed as sexu- conformity to a heterosexual male ally available to gay men in a way that ideal. After all, these are homosexual they are not to straight men, and they men in these roles, a fact that, if dif- also are configured as dependent upon fused in the ways I have described, is and reactive to gay men’s direction in nonetheless the fundamental premise a way that they are not with straight of these texts. As such, it cannot be men. claimed that the consequences of pairing these men with straight women are The Price of Privilege: identical to those resulting from a pair- Consequences and ing of straight men with those women. Implications Battles and Hilton-Morrow (2002), for instance, have noted that even though A number of scholars (e.g., Battles & Will (of Will & Grace) bears a remark- Hilton-Morrow, 2002; Dow, 2001; able resemblance to an idealized Gross, 2001; Keller, 2002; Walters, straight man, his character is drawn, in 2001) have cautioned that the in- some respects, “in opposition to het- creased visibility of gay men and lesbi- erosexual masculinity” (p. 90). For in- ans in the mainstream media does not stance, a “best girlfriends” dynamic necessarily confer social legitimacy. I between the gay men and the straight share these concerns, and my analysis women characterizes, to varying de- of the gay man/straight woman for- grees, each of the texts I have exam- mula so prevalent in the contemporary ined here, which accounts for much of popular media suggests that they are the emotional intimacy that con- well founded. The popularity of that tributes to the romantic nature of the configuration rests on a number of relationships – although as I have ar- features that function to render the gued, specifically heterosexual markers gay man palatable to, consistent with, for that intimacy invite its interpret- and even a champion of the very het- ation as romantic. Certainly, the fact eronormativity to which he ostensibly that these men, no matter how much poses a threat. These features are sexual license and access to straight manifest primarily in subtexts that women they have, do not take advan- function to articulate gay male sexu- tage of it cannot be overlooked. For all ality as congruent with heterosexual practical purposes, they are character- masculinity and heterosexual male ized as impotent by virtue of their privilege. Furthermore, that privilege homosexuality. 88

REINVENTING PRIVILEGE MARCH 2003

It is at this point that the political heterosexual masculinity and thus risk significance of the straight woman in alienating the audience. Second, the these configurations is realized. A presentation of these women for the closer look at these women on their scopophilic pleasure of the audience own terms reveals the extent to which permits viewers to engage in/witness they constitute almost parodic stereo- sexual play with the women, thus spar- types of women: they are, without ex- ing them from having to engage in/ ception, needy, vulnerable, and witness sexual play between gay men – hopeful, and they are often predatory, indeed, these women distract the men as well, in terms of their barely from their homosexual proclivities. camouflaged, sometimes overt desire That sexual play with women occurs for their gay male best friends. The courtesy of and vicariously through the trope of women making unwise ro- gay men also is highly relevant, ren- mantic choices is familiar to main- dering the men conduits for het- stream audiences, one enhanced by eronormativity – they function as the fact that, at least sexually, no one surrogates for precisely the sexist sex needs women less than gay men do – play that many straight men are con- a point that adds fodder to my argu- ditioned to idealize. Accordingly, these ment that these representations re- representations function not only to volve largely around control of women control female sexuality but to control and their sexuality. The “frustrated ro- gay male sexuality, as well.8 mance and thwarted desire” angle on Ultimately, the gay male characters which these representations turn serves in the gay man/straight woman for- further to camouflage or at least ren- mula manifest heteronormative mas- der secondary the emotional and psy- culinity – that is, they are projected chological needs that do constitute the embodiments of that sensibility – and intimacy of these relationships, thus their sexuality is distilled as the strat- confirming the women’s relatively in- egy via which heterosexual male privi- significant status beyond their function lege is enacted and heteronormativity as defining agents of male sexuality. is renormalized. But this strategy is Indeed, the women’s sexual avail- dense and complex, predicated on a ability to these men is the currency on potent alliance between sexism and which gay male sexuality is ultimately homophobia, and its implications are traded. Positioning women as uncon- profound. Sexual access to women – ditionally sexually available to these not simply by men but by mainstream gay men renders them similarly avail- audiences – is reinvented and legit- able to the audience in ways they imized in these configurations. would not be otherwise (given contem- Women are portrayed as not simply porary awareness of conventional sex- being available for but as desiring sexist practices as performed by straight ist treatment by men who are gay or, men) insofar as the sex play between at least, sufficiently queered to thwart the characters is coded as “safe.” This accusations of sexism. By the same dynamic, in fact, serves a dual pur- token, affording gay male identity le- pose. First, the specifically sexual gitimacy by virtue of its sexist prowess stereotype of these women effectively similarly overwrites homosexuality. counterbalances any effeminacy in the The implications for women are that gay men, thus ensuring that they do sexism is cast as only a vestige of con- not stray too far from the ideal of ventionally defined straight men, sug- 89

CSMC SHUGART gesting that sexist practices by gay them by their heteronormative sexual men – or less rigidly masculine men – relationships with women. The gay “don’t count,” thus renormalizing sex- men in these conﬁgurations thus be- ism under a host of “exceptional” cir- come patriarchal allies – rather than cumstances. The implications for gay adversaries – in efforts to naturalize men are that the price of privilege is and reproduce heteronormative poli- sexism, a fact that necessarily deﬁnes tics.

Notes

1I have elected to examine exclusively in this essay classically mainstream representations of the gay man/straight woman configuration in a primetime network situation comedy and films released by major motion picture studios. It is worth noting, however, that alternative representations of this configuration in particular and gay men and lesbians in general are available in other media outlets, such as independent films and cable programming, and those portrayals may or may not reflect the dynamics I have noted in this analysis. The fact that much cable programming – like HBO and Showtime – is becoming increasingly “mainstream” also is notable and will certainly have implications for the changing representations of queerness in the contemporary popular media. 2Bordo (1999) has argued that the “new” gay men available in contemporary popular culture offer a “fresh image … a glamorous new image of manliness, from the ‘margins’ of masculinity” (p. 26). Although I concur with Bordo that these men “ ‘queer’ representations of masculinity” (p. 26), I am not convinced that those representations play the same way for gay audiences as for heterosexual audiences. Gay male sexuality indeed is central to these representations, as Bordo posits, but, I submit, as a strategy rather than as a subject position or even a more generic identity; rather, it becomes a mechanism by which heteronormativity is renormalized. 3While the differences in audience reception of Ellen and Will & Grace are significant and have implications for this essay, they are not central to it. Gross (2001), Keller (2002), and Walters (2001) argue that Ellen became “too gay” for TV, leading to its cancellation just one season after Ellen’s coming out, whereas Will & Grace “compromises with the dominant culture in many important ways” (Keller, p. 123). I would argue further that the established heteronormative narrative that is largely predicated on male sexual license and privilege is theoretically more able to accommodate gay male sexuality than truly lesbian sexuality (as opposed to eroticized “lesbian chic” [Capsuto, 2000] representations of women together presented for the pleasure of an implied male viewer). Lesbianism, after all, is premised on a rejection of male sexual control, the cornerstone of heterosexual politics. Furthermore, the threat implied by such rejection typically is read as hostile by a mainstream audience imbued with heteronormative sensibilities, rendering a lesbian character less sympathetic and likable for such an audience (see, e.g., Walters, 2001). In other words, the differences between the representations of gay men and lesbians are highly gendered. 4The relationship between Jack and Karen arguably warrants analysis as well in terms of its (hetero)normalizing functions, realized not least by the intimacy, shared outrageous sensibilities and behavior, and high degree of sexual play that characterize it. However, because their relationship does not follow precisely the same generic pattern as those of the other “couples” examined in this essay, I have elected not to attend to it here. For further discussion of how the characters of Jack and Karen play in the context of Will & Grace’s relationship, see Battles and Hilton-Morrow (2002) and Keller (2002). 5Contributing to the “heterosexualization” of Will’s character is the fact that he is, compared to Grace, largely dateless, virtually celibate since the end of his long-term relationship with the never-seen Michael. Indeed, Will’s lack of a (gay) love life is a running gag on the show that functions to distance him further from a gay community and, thus, diffuse his homosexuality (e.g., Battles & Hilton-Morrow, 2002; Brookey, 1996; Gross, 2001; Walters, 2001). 6Several authors (e.g., Gross, 2001; Jacobs, 1998; Keller, 2002; Walters, 2001) have noted that the character of Jack may well function very differently for non-mainstream audiences (i.e., those not imbued with heterosexist sensibilities), and especially for gay audiences; Jacobs notes that “ ‘by having 90

REINVENTING PRIVILEGE MARCH 2003

Will, we earned the right to have Jack’ ” (p. 23). Other critics concur: “He is the embodiment of camp humor, the representation of gay sensibilities” (Keller, pp. 124–125), the “subcultural doppelganger who gets all the good lines” (Walters, p. 100). 7For discussions of the ways in which paternalism and sexualization of women coexist, see, e.g., Kaplan (1990) and MacKinnon (1987, 1989). 8An example that appears to support this argument is the fact that the only gay man/straight woman configuration in popular mediated culture to fail with mainstream audiences was the CBS situation comedy Some of My Best Friends, clearly modeled on Will and Grace. Although the “foil” factor was very much in evidence on the show, as was the “dad” factor to a lesser extent, the straight woman in this case was the sister of the gay male character, thus rendering impossible any acceptable means by which the show could configure a romantic relationship between the two, much less sexual access to her on his part. The fact that the show also featured a straight man as the gay man’s roommate also probably introduced a less comfortable dynamic in the context of conventionally heterosexist mainstream sensibilities by making it more difficult to avoid the specter, if not the reality, of homosexual play.

References

Adalain, J. & Schneider, M. (2000). Emmy’s go “West” – into peacock’s nest. Variety, 380(5), 21, 28. Battles, K. & Hilton-Morrow, W. (2002). Gay characters in conventional spaces: Will & Grace and the situation comedy genre. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 19, 87–105. Bordo, S. (1999). Gay men’s revenge. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 57(1), 21–26. Brookey, R. A. (1996). A community like Philadelphia. Western Journal of Communication, 60, 40–56. Brookey, R. A., & Westerfelhaus, R. W. (2001). Pistols and petticoats, piety and purity: To Wong Foo, the queering of the American monomyth, and the marginalizing discourse of deiﬁcation. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 18, 141–156. Capsuto, S. (2000). Alternate channels: The uncensored story of gay and lesbian images on radio and television. New York: Ballantine. Cloud, D. L. (1992). The limits of interpretation: Ambivalence and stereotype in Spenser: For Hire. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 9, 311–324. Condit, C. M. (1989). The rhetorical limits of polysemy. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 6, 103–122. Dow, B. J. (2001). Ellen, television, and the politics of gay and lesbian visibility. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 18, 123–140. Fejes, F. & Petrich, K. (1993). Invisibility, homophobia, and heterosexism: Lesbians, gay men and the media. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 10, 396–422. Fiske, J. (1987.) Television Culture. New York: Methuen. Fiske, J. (1989.) Understanding popular culture. New York: Routledge. Gitlin, T. (1986). Looking through the screen. In T. Gitlin, (Ed.), Watching television (pp. 3–8). New York: Pantheon. Gross, L. (1994). What is wrong with this picture? Lesbian women and gay men on television. In R. Ringer (Ed.), Queer words, queer images: Communication and the construction of homosexuality, (pp. 143–156). New York: New York University. Gross, L. (2001). Up from invisibility: Lesbians, gay men, and the media in America. New York: Columbia University. Gross, L. & Woods, J.D. (Eds.). (1999). The Columbia reader: On lesbians and gay men in media, society, and politics. New York: Columbia University. Hall, S. (1980). Encoding/decoding. In S. Hall (Ed.), Culture, media, language: Working papers in cultural studies, 1972–79 (128–138). London: Hutchinson. Harms, J. B. & Dickens, D. R. 1996. Postmodern media studies: Analysis or symptom? Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 13, 210–227. 91

CSMC SHUGART

Jacobs, A.J. (1998, 23 October). When gay men happen to straight women. Entertainment Weekly, 20–25. Kaplan, E. A. (1990). Sex, work and motherhood: The impossible triangle. Journal of Sex Research, 27(3), 409–426. Keller, J. R. (2002). Queer (un)friendly film and television. Jefferson, NC: Macfarland & Company, Inc. MacKinnon, C. A. (1987). Feminism unmodified: Discourses on life and law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard. MacKinnon, C. A. (1989). Toward a feminist theory of the state. Cambridge, MA: Harvard. Poster, M. (1990). The mode of information: Poststructuralism and social context. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Russo, V. (1981). The celluloid closet: Homosexuality in the movies. New York: Harper & Row. Scodari, C. (1995). Possession, attraction, and the thrill of the chase: Gendered myth-making in film and television comedy of the sexes. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 12, 23–29. Shugart, H. A. (2001). Parody as subversive performance: Denaturalising gender in Ellen. Text and Performance Quarterly, 21, 95–113. Shugart, H. A., Waggoner, C. E., & Hallstein, L. O. (2001). Mediating third-wave feminism: Appropriation as postmodern media practice. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 18, 194–210. Walters, S. D. (2001). All the rage: The story of gay visibility in America. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Received January 8, 2002 Final revision received September 20, 2002 Accepted November 14, 2002