I have recently been sucked into the vortex that is the So You Think You Can Dance franchise. The newest installment, So You Think You Can Dance Canada premiered a few weeks ago, and it’s mostly been a fun time, although I have the same issues with it that I have had with the American version.
Among them, there is the mystery I like to call “The Case of the Amazing Invisible Homosexual.” In SYTYCD, this mystery reveals itself in two ways. First of all, despite the number of gay male dancers that have appeared on the show, none of them are ever referred to explicitly as such. Not that I’m asking for it to be made into a big deal that there are gay men in the arts, but it would be nice if, instead of cutting to their moms in the audience, just once the cameras could show their happy boyfriends celebrating.
It would also be nice if the show wasn’t so rigid in its gender expectations. Male dancers who stray too far from the show’s idea of maleness are regularly told to “butch it up” and act more like “men”, not, it is implied, like prancing, delicate women.
This is a common issue in reality TV. I first noticed it on season 5 of America’s Next Top Model, when a contestant on the show, Kim Stolz, an out lesbian, was often berated for being too butch or too manly or for not being girly enough. Wearing a designer women’s polo shirt and sporting a short hair style was apparently enough to upset the judges’ ideas about femininity.
That was 2005. This is 2008 and things have not changed one bit. Another show guilty of rampant gender stereotyping is American Gladiators, a show on which the producers have decided that everyone is a particularly staid 50s sitcom version of straight. When one of the male contestants strays too far from the show’s male ideal, he is treated with a mixture of condescension and revulsion.
“Wow, Bob,” the show’s announcers spit out. “He’s a dancer! Who would have thought a dancer would be able to best our gladiators?”
And when it comes to the female contestants, the only women the show spends any time on are aggressively post-feminist “ladies” who give squealingly enthusiastic interviews in which they extol the virtues of their husbands and how they certainly could never have climbed a rope wall without the help of a good man. Women who don’t meet the stereotype are interviewed about their job or their parents and never mention any relationship that does not meet the show’s “family friendly” standards. I find it suspect that no one on that show has ever even mentioned a same-sex partner. Do they give the interviews which are then never aired, or does the show operate some kind of don’t-ask-don’t-tell policy?
What I would like to see on this coming Fall season on reality TV is one or two same-sex partners actually identified in the audience, fewer male judges deciding what it is to be a woman, and maybe just once, an interview in which a gay man or woman is allowed to say, “I dedicated this dance/run through The Eliminator/walk down the runway to my partner.”


Digg
13 comments
I think "The Amazing Race" has been far and away the best reality show in this regard. (And in many other regards, but that's another topic!) Most cycles have featured at least one gay couple who have kissed and hugged each other and talked about their relationship. I do wish we'd see much more of this on other reality shows. The homophobia in the dance world never ceases to amaze me.
Posted by Keira
October 14, 2008, 2 PM
I remember one episode of So You Think You Can Dance where the amazing gay dancer Danny was talking about how he wasn't attracted to his partner Anya (the hottest person I have ever seen in my life), and how he had to make an effort to fake "chemistry". He never explicitly stated that he was gay, but it was pretty obvious, and it was nice that the editors chose to put that segment in the show instead of editing it out.
Also, the main judge of the American show, Nigel, used to be criticized by viewers for 'homophobic' comments (i.e. telling gay guys to act like real men) but he has pretty much come full circle. He now compliments male dancers on their hot pecs/asses after almost every dance.
Posted by Deborah
October 14, 2008, 2:43 PM
Thanks for your comment, Deborah. I haven't watched more than a couple of seasons of So You Think You Can Dance, so I am happy to hear about that interview with Danny.
Also, it's true that Nigel isn't typically that homophobic. My issue with Nigel is his tendency to enthusiastically play the part of the creepy old man, commenting endlessly and with great vigor on the looks of the various female dancers. The two male Canadian judges behave similarly, often offering no critique beyond "Damn girl, you look FINE in that dress."
Posted by Michelle
October 14, 2008, 3:01 PM
so true--I love those dance shows...except for how unbearably heteronormative everything is: the partnering for every dance, the gender roles they play in dances, and the queer invisibility. And the finale of the American one was so typical: when 2 women finally did dance together, it was a "girls in frilly dresses having fun" and the 2 men did a "who is stronger and can jump higher?" type routine. Though a number of other reality TV shows more queer visibility, this one really does not--why?
Posted by Amy Hasinoff
October 14, 2008, 4:46 PM
Exactly! I guess there are reality shows and then there are these variety/reality shows. With shows like Amazing Race, that Keira mentioned, it's easy to see the background story to the real people. But I think this is both the problem with these variety shows that really do get people invested in the real life dramas, not just in the performance, of the 'characters'. I *love* that, but I also think it makes them vulnerable to finding the moments that suit the central space of the show, and with variety, it's so middle of the road, I worry about how they'd handle sexuality (actually gay or straight).
I've always found it interesting how many queer folks inhabit the reality show space... from shows like Top Chef, where I think we might be very well represented (and almost always named), to the more obvious design shows that tend to create spaces where the occasional straight man, seems required to continually reinforce his straightness. Bloody interesting.
Posted by Sandy O'Sullivan
October 15, 2008, 2:28 AM
Project Runway has been great for visability: contestants speak on the phone to their partners back home, and in season 2 there is a whole sequence were a few of the queer boys discuss the difficulties growing up in small towns, loving fashion and being gay. It's awesome.
Posted by serah-marie
October 15, 2008, 12:10 PM
Thanks for your recommendation, Serah-Marie. As Sandy pointed out above, I think it does have something to do with the essential differences between reality shows and variety/reality shows, as she defined it. I have only seen a few episodes of Project Runway, but I will have to make it a point to check it out.
Posted by Michelle
October 15, 2008, 12:47 PM
I still remember watching the second season of the UK version of Gladiators, back in the mid-1990s. The female winner was a truck driver, and she did talk a fair bit about her job. I remember really appreciating that show when I was a kid, because of the way it celebrated tough women alongside tough men. I feel there has been some cultural backsliding since then...the joyful aggression in something as simple as the old Spice Girls videos isn't here any more.
There's a Bitchy Jones post about good-looking men in Gladiators being framed as 'gay' - interesting, NSFW in the banner+naughty words department. I've not seen any of the recent revivals. But it sounds like backsliding on that front as well - that women can't be seen to have sexual desires, and men can't be seen to be sexually desired.
Posted by Thene
October 15, 2008, 1 PM
Hey Michelle,
You are so right about the sexism and heterosexism in the show. But I try to look for positive things in shows that I love this much. It can be pretty hard, though. It's my opinion that the producers of the show actually sat down and decided to tone down the "gayness" as much as possible to make the show more accessible to Middle America... or something.
Anyways, another small positive gem was the new choreographer this year, Sonya. I have no idea what her sexual orientation is, but I do know that she is a strong woman with a crazy kickass mohawk. You can watch one of my favourite dances of hers here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdDPkO...
Posted by Deborah
October 15, 2008, 2:41 PM
Hey Deborah,
I see what you are saying about dancers like Danny and choreographers like Sonya pushing the boundaries of gender on the show. However, I think that the fact that Danny can't come out and state his sexuality is precisely part of the invisibility that queers face on these shows. What that says to audiences is that it's okay to just pretend that queers don't exist; or to pander to a certain population of "Middle America" as though they are representative of all of America. It may be a few steps from accepting and reaffirming hatred, but it is no closer to affirming difference, either.
Having come originally from what may be called "Middle Canada" myself, I can attest to the damage that the lack of acknowledgment can inflict. When the producers of shows like this make the show accessible to certain audiences through exclusion or silence of others it makes the statement that it is okay to exclude. It legitimizes the power that those populations/audiences have over the excluded, and it legitimizes their hatred.
All of this is not to say I don't also love these shows; as with anything I love, I just want it to be even better. I do think there are things the show does, as you have mentioned, to push boundaries, but I think they could go further.
Posted by Stark
October 15, 2008, 3:27 PM
Although I agree with Stark on how problematic pandering to one group as if it represents everyone can be, I also do often find myself finding things to enjoy about all these shows, despite their flaws.
One thing that can be said about SYTYCD's relentless heterosexuality is that it doesn't actually successfully hide the queers. They are there, and although they might not be saying it out loud, they are broadcasting it in other ways, to anyone who wants to listen. But, in selling dance as an acceptable activity for straight men, the show is fighting decades of gender stereotyping and implying that dance can, in fact, be "manly" and "cool" (ie straight). And maybe, just maybe, this policy marks a change in our society's ideas of "acceptable" behavior for men, and will encourage young boys to take up dance, without having to be mocked for wearing tights. So maybe, in some roundabout way, any boy who wants to dance, gay or straight, will find it an easier road to travel. Hmmm... I am so conflicted on this issue.
And Thene, yes, I have the same lovely memories of the original Gladiators, and the endless numbers of female cops and soldiers and construction workers that were counted as contestants. That does still hold true for the new incarnation, although perhaps now I'm more attuned to the flaws in the show. Thanks for the article, it's an interesting read. I would disagree with the idea that the Gladiators aren't homoerotic. I don't think it's necessarily their looks that makes this so, however, but the fact that they exist to wrestle other skimpily clad men to the ground. I think this applies to the women as well, although I suppose there is less of a tendency to view muscular women wrestling each other as homoerotic, and more as entertainment for the male viewer. The show sort of floats between being "family-friendly" entertainment and a rather subversive homoerotic playground full of same sex action and double entendres, the latter being the only reason I actually watch this show.
Posted by Michelle
October 15, 2008, 4:03 PM
"a rather subversive homoerotic playground full of same sex action and double entendres ... being the only reason I actually watch this show" -- DITTO! :)
Great post, Michelle!
Posted by D. Cole
October 15, 2008, 5:34 PM
Ha. Homo subtext (intended or not) is the main reason I watch most things.
Posted by Anna
October 15, 2008, 7:47 PM
Leave a comment
This blog post is older than 90 days old. All comments submitted regarding this post will be automatically held for review by the editors before posting. Your comment will not appear on the site until it has been approved.
Our comment policy
Shameless prides itself on the diversity of opinions expressed by our writers, and we encourage and appreciate different points of view. Our intention at Shameless is to foster community and to maintain a safe and positive blogging environment; we do not consider it our duty to give a voice to anybody with an opinion.
Discussion on this site is moderated. We will delete comments that:
(We get to decide what's discriminatory, hateful, attacking, or inflammatory).
In some cases, we will cap off comments on a discussion when we feel they are spiralling out of control and fostering an unwelcoming space for bloggers and readers. Comments will be closed by the Web Editor, unless the post is by the Web Editor, in which case the Editor in Chief will close them.
If your comments repeatedly make the same point, they may be deleted. This also applies to comments made by multiple members of the same organization.
Your comments should be about the topic of the post, not its writer—although we certainly encourage praise for our writers, if you want to say something nice.