Queer representation in the media has come in abundance in the past year, creating a visibility for the LGBT community that is unique. But is it genuine?
Queer representation had been hard to come by in past years. The only images of queer characters on television were stereotypes. The characters were often flat, and had agreeable, pleasant personalities, so the public could be feel comfortable with the fact the character was queer. Those in the LGBT community in the ‘90s were only able to get a glimpse of someone they might relate to.
Television shows like Will and Grace, where made to make it okay for the majority to witness a “queer” lifestyle. Will had sassy banter and his alluringly tight pants. He was well-groomed, fashionable, well-paid and his voice was an octave higher than it should have been.
With the public witnessing only the clean, successful and mainstream gay character, it was able to adjust to seeing queer characters on television.
In recent years, there has emerged a plethora of shows that have involved characters from the LGBT community, shows such as Grey’s Anatomy, Glee, Modern Family, The Fosters and Bomb Girls. This has been considered one of the best times for LGBT representation on TV, and therefore its triumph should be celebrated … right?
A study of TV ratings from the 2011-’12 season, done by UCLA’s Ralph J. Bunche Centre for African American studies, found shows with a minority character representation of 31 to 40 per cent had higher ratings. The lowest-rated shows were those that had a less than 10 per cent minority representation. According to the UCLA study, the only shows that were able to meet the 30 to 40 per cent minority representation were A.N.T. Farm (Disney), The Closer (TNT) and Falling Skies (TNT). Television today is still failing to provide adequate minority representation.
The majority of LGBT characters today are white, middle- to upper-class and conservative. This is a common image seen often on television: Someone who is a working professional, who is family-oriented and who is in a committed, monogamous relationship.
Take the gay couple Mitchell and Cameron from the show Modern Family. Cameron is a lawyer and officially wears the pants in the relationship; Mitchell, the sensitive feminine one, is a stay-at-home dad for their adopted Vietnamese daughter. Most of the scenarios seen in their relationship are of Mitchell reacting to something in a feminine way, as Cameron has to try to control Mitchell in his time of distress. Both are stereotypes of what a household would look like with two dads.
In the newer show, The Fosters on ABC, a two-mom household is featured. Lena and Stef are lesbians who have adopted all of their children except one, Stef’s biological son from a previous marriage. Stef, the more masculine mom, is a police officer, and Lena, the more eccentric mom, is a school principal.
In both adaptations of what it means to be in a same-sex relationship, there is a presentation of a stereotypical masculine and feminine partnership that would be seen in most, heterosexual relationships.
Although there is more LGBT representation in the media, it doesn’t mean it is the right representation needed to create proper visibility. Making the heterosexual world comfortable with LGBT people through a mainstream, stereotypical image of what it is like to be queer, means a false, hollow equality is created.
Kait Huziak
While I totally understand the issue with a masculine/feminine role being depicted in homosexual relationships on TV, I feel like the lack diversity in race & social class with homosexual characters have nothing to do with trying to conform the homosexual image that is being presented.
If you look at TV programming in general, ” white, middle- to upper-class and conservative” IS TV programming as a whole. This need for diversity is not a sexual orientation issue but rather our inability to accurately depict society as a whole in TV programming.