Subscribe to Breaking NewsRuby-Sachs: Is Any Exposure Good Exposure?
Ugly Betty is getting nods for portraying gay characters as part of mainstream media. Some Betty fans are thrilled that the writers have chosen to include a gay character in its main cast. Others worry that the stereotyped gay man who plays assistant to the shows’ evildoer only reinforces negative images of the gay community.
I’m not sure it’s a dispute that can be resolved. Ugly Betty is one of my guilty pleasures, and I have followed the portrayal of gay characters from close to the beginning. Some are truly realistic and heartfelt, but themes of extreme effemininity and chronic infidelity are present. The question is, should we care if the portrayal reinforces stereotypes as well as dispelling them?
If Ugly Betty is a show that both reinforces stereotypes and contradicts them, then perhaps they should receive an award simply for providing exposure for LGBT people. Harvey Milk insisted that coming out of the closet was an act of political defiance. If they know that we exist, if we are their teacher or family member or employee, homophobic individuals will be less likely to preach intolerance.
This may very well apply to television shows. If employing a gay man is normal on Ugly Betty, perhaps it becomes more normal in real life too. Maybe it doesn’t matter if the gay man is a cliched version of actual members of the LGBT community. Exposure on television might be some bastardized version of Milk’s vision.
That said, there is the possibility that negative stereotyping without a counterbalance will set back the LGBT struggle. Ugly Betty, though, is not that kind of show. I’m happy it is being recognized for its inclusion, even when the inclusion can be offensive.
Like any other group a person places themselves in, Gay people are diverse. No one and nothing well be pleasing to everyone.
Gotta chalk it up to taste.
I found Jack on Will and Grace funny as hell. I have friends who found him offensive.
In the end, it all comes down to personal tastes
Why is it not a surprise that you’re writing on something that you don’t watch. Ruby-Sachs, if you did watch Ugly Betty, you would know that there are a variety of gay characters that are regular – semi regular and passing through.
You seem to focus on Marc, alone. Though I don’t find a lot in common with Marc’s character he is far more developed than anything on Will and Grace. When I was growing up, the only gay character to be seen was on Soap. For a kid struggling with his sexuality it was very difficult to have people think that gay people were like Billy Crystal’s character.
On Ugly Betty you had Cliff. (Finally! A Bear/Cub type character!) You also have Justin Suarez who is a teen that is facing being gay better than any teen I can think of on TV.
Before you criticize a show, try watching it.
Face it, we GLBT folks are not all cut from the same Betsy McCall patterns. And, certainly, we don’t all fit the Brokeback Mountain image.
I have a new manager who is gay. I chuckle to myself when he provides muffins and coffee for our group meetings. With our former straight boss, these were sterile sessions. Joe arrives with a picnic basket full of goodies, table cloth, matching napkins, etc. And, he’s this handsome, macho hunk.
He talks about his partner (who even baked for us one day), but I’m not sure that my colleagues observe the gay finesse Joe has added to our meetings – or even if they think it gay.
This is good!
Typical gays, arguing about accurate and progressive representation of a little queen, when in reality no one (including Ruby) has made any note of their inclusion of a sexy, power, trans-woman.
I mean, Ugly Betty’s exposure is better than none, but it is stereotypical; however, we have stereotypes because at least some people act in that manner. But there are positive depictions out there.
It should be noted that there will always be stereotypes and people who act in a stereotypical manner, but a queer identity should not be someone’s sole definer.
http://stuffqueerpeopleneedtoknow.wordpress.com/
The deal with Ugly Betty is that it’s about a fashion magazine. If we’re honest with ourselves, any gay character that they put into that environment already enforces some stereotypes. The writers seem to make a very deliberate effort, however, to make Marc a full character and not just a silly swishy caricature. He’s had a boyfriend, he’s screwed it up, and at the time his was the least scandalous relation screw-up. He’s no worse than the straight characters, and no less REAL. Even the “evil” he partakes in, he’s got motivations for that aren’t at all unrealistic, and he’s certainly not easily pegged as always being “the villain”.
It’s a worthwhile discussion as to whether no exposure is sometimes better than poorly written exposure, but I’m not sure this show was the best example to make any points.
(What other mainstream show has even mentioned bears?)
I believe that all mainstream culture represents gays in some ways. Gay people are always present, and media usually finds a way to represent these differences, even in sometimes subtle ways. It seems as though you think that because they have a gay character they are somehow being progressive. I would like to remind you of two things, first of all the devil is in the details. The way this character is portrayed does matter. Secondly, we aren’t winning anything by making a standard in which people (i.e. the producers) become used to bashing gay people and then making up for it. Not that ugly betty does this. I just think its important to realize that Gay representation isn’t a credit account, you don’t cash in after your good for a while.