Lesbian and Gay representation on television: The L Word and Queer Eye

In comparing representations of individuals in media, a critical look takes into account the intent of the production, whether the individuals being portrayed give a holistic picture of the group or culture, and if it contributes in a meaningful way to the real lives of those represented. As we see more and more productions based on LGBTQ characters or individuals, those viewers actively engaged in the social advancement, quality of life, and actualization of acceptance and rights for the group(s) must be increasingly steadfast in our understanding of the importance of identifying how media relates to these issues by answering these questions. We must understand that culture is as much a commodity as anything else being sold, and representation isn't always a free- or fair- voice.
Consider Queer Eye For the Straight Guy. In it, gay-identified men are featured solely for the purpose of lending their 'queer' aesthetic to clueless straight men. The men are all very similar in mannerism, dress, and personality- typical metrosexual flair- which doesn't offer a fair representation of how varied the gay community is. This is okay in some ways, because almost all tv programs feature shallow personalities as their host.On the other hand, the show does nothing to address the issues facing the community, and everything to sell its culture. However, as a celebration of gay culture, it's nice to see this representation at all, for what it's worth. This isn't to say that LGBQ actors should be limited to the same sort of cookie cutter roles straight actors are, but i think it's fair to say that the other party has many more options on prime-time than do those who are Lbgq- identified. For gay men, it's either Will and Grace yuppie, Christopher Lowell crafty, or Queer Eye fashionistas.
Lesbians, however, have recently scored with The L Word. The episode "Let's Do It"touches on aspects of lesbian culture, as well as adressing those identified as bisexual, gay, and straight. The characters at first seem to refute Cheryl Clarke's statement that "there is no one kind of lesbian, no one kind of lesbian behavior" (Gross and Woods 566), as the lesbian-identified characters tally up staight and lesbian traits of a woman whose preference is unknown. But the production reveals a cast of lesbians whose relationships and personalities are varied and unique- some are committed, one always on the hunt for a good time, another has a weakness for bad girls, even a stalker makes an appearance. the main characters do seem to represent a margin of lesbian community, those who can afford to dine at country clubs, have in-vitro fertalization, and drive fancy little cars, but again, as with Queer Eye this is generally the kind of life dramatic characters lead, and in this case, it doesn't take away from the validity of the show dealing with real issues. This episode parallels a heterosexual and lesbian relationship that supports Andrew Hodges and David Hutter's theory that LGBQ individuals enjoy a more free and forward sexuality than heterosexuals do, as they are unfettered by the usual puritannical conventions that pave the way of heterosexual marriage (554). the male in the heterosexual relationship plays a quite apparent role as the dominant and clueless male. A chart mapped out by a lesbian character that links women who have had encounters or relationships to one another in a constellation-like diagram also supports Hodges and Hutters assertion as most are connected in some way to each other. The episode supports Clarkes's opinion that there is no "one kind of lesbian relationship" either, when a committed couple is upset by a lesbian involved in an affair with an engaged woman (566). From an activist's viewpoint, The L Word does a fantastic job of familiarizing the viewer with LGBQ culture, relationships, and sexuality and encouraging those it represents.

Sources:
http://watchthelword.com/102-lets-do-it

Columbia Reader on Lesbian and Gay Men in Media, Society, and Politics. Editors: Larry Gross and James Woods. Columbia University Press, 1999.