Always the Sidekick (And That’s Not Good)

Growing up, I was always fascinated with the sidekick in my favorite sitcoms. Chandler, the funny FRIEND. Ethel from I Love Lucy. The Janitor from Scrubs. I always wanted to be the sidekick.

Mostly, I knew that the sidekick had all of the best lines. They got the laughs, or set up the laughs, and every scene they were in, they stole. Their flamboyancy and ability to garner laughs inspired me to engage in comedic writing today. Ethel was so flawless. Her love-hate relationship with her husband, always joining Lucy’s shenanigans, and never being afraid to use the full force of her lungs influenced my comedic ability today.

I never once imagined myself as a lead, though. I just don’t see myself, a queer person, able to maintain a lead role. I can think of maybe two popular, successful mainstream tv shows that have queer leads, Will and Grace and Torchwood. Of course, other queer characters exist in ensembles, but never in a leading role.

I watch so many television shows and watch queer characters get kicked to the sidekick role. On Witches of East End, the queer best friend is practically invisible. On Teen Wolf, the queer characters are minor and of no real plot interest. On Gossip Girl, the queer character is only shown as in relation to the main character.

Part of the problem is that queer characters are viewed as great accessories. “OH LOOK, OUR MAIN CHARACTER HAS DEPTH BY HAVING A QUEER BEST FRIEND.” Or, “OH LOOK, OUR RATINGS OUR DOWN, SO LET’S INTRODUCE A LESBIAN CHARACTER/KISS THAT WILL BE WRITTEN OFF AS A JOKE IN ONE OR 2 EPISODES.”

Or, even worse, “OH LOOK, WE HAVE A QUEER CHARACTER THAT WE USE TO SCAVENGE AT THE BOTTOM OF JOKE BARREL AND THROW PROBLEMATIC, STEREOTYPE-PERPETUATING JOKES FOR A CHEAP LAUGH.”

When I write my characters, whether queer or not, PoC or not, trans or not, religious or not, etc., I want them to not just be the butt of their own jokes, or perpetuate harmful stereotypes. I want them each to be able to have their own story, and not be cast aside to maintain the guise that a show has diversity.

All my life, I have had the belief that I wanted to be the sidekick, because I have never really seen roles where I could flourish in my own life as a lead character. Everyone deserves to be a lead in their own story.

Yes, Shonda Rhimes, There Are Gay Scenes (And They Are So Important)

“There are no GAY scenes. There are scenes with people in them. If u use the phrase “gay scenes”, u are not only LATE to the party but also NOT INVITED to the party. Bye Felicia. #oneLOVE”

You know, I am in love with Shondaland television. Grey’s Anatomy, Scandal, How To Get Away With Murder, are all what I consider the trifecta of American television (medical drama, political drama, and murder drama, respectively). What Rhimes has been able to do is put on mainstream television people of color, women of color, queers, and queer people of color, and for that, Shonda Rhimes and Shondaland deserve all the praise.

HOWEVER, I couldn’t help but be irked by this tweet from the Queen of television herself. Let me lay it out for you, Shonda.

1) Yes, there ARE gay scenes (queer scenes in her shows). It is so important to recognize that there are actual queer scenes in all of her shows DUE TO THE FACT that they don’t really exist outside Shondaland. By affirming the humanist notion that “they are scenes with people in them”, you fail to acknowledge the radical and historic moment where a full night of television on a nationally broadcasted television channel had queer love scenes in it. This failure disavows the important work you have done to represent diversity and inclusion on television.

2) The “oneLOVE” hashtag is primarily problematic for the notion that all love is the same. Of course, this is what organizations like the Human Rights Campaign have been asserting for years to reach for WASP middle class couple issues, like gay marriage and the right to serve, that queer people are the same. Queer people are NOT the same. We have wildly different lived experiences than heterosexuals, and not all of queer loves conforms to a monogamous standard that exists in the heteroworld.

As much as I love your shows, I couldn’t help but not totally agree with your comment, however your intentions were admirable. Yes, we should be affronted at people not watching shows due to the fact that they do have queer scenes, HOWEVER, they exist, and you should be proud of them.

The Lose-Lose Queer (Or How Reality Shows Cast Queers)

For a long time, I have been obsessed with competition reality shows of the likes of Survivor, Big Brother, The Amazing Race, etc. As a super fan, I read forums, follow live feeds, and spend an inappropriate amount of time posting my opinions on people I will probably never meet.

My favorite part is just to see who gets cast. It’s always been a dream of mine to get cast on one of these shows and play the game. Of course, the cast list is always a “diverse” group of characters that mostly represent stereotypes of specific regions, persons, or groups in the United States.

For instance, take this season of Survivor and the archetypes they represent: divorced mother, black couple, farmers, city-slickers, firemen, and twins. Unfortunately, after 29 seasons of watching Survivor, you can almost guess what type of people are going to get cast, as they need to fill every possible role that is centered on the great “melting pot” America is believed to be.

So, of course, I had to find out who the queers were.

This season, the queer couple consists of two males, both of whom work in New York City on Broadway, one known for being in Spiderman: The Musical. Both very religious, Josh and Reed have been together for two years and continue to remain abstinent until they decide to marry. A pretty interesting dynamic, considering Josh has not been “out” for that long to anyone, including his family.

Right when the cast list gets posted, I go to see what everyone else on my favorite Survivor forum thinks. Lo and behold, the first comments about Josh and Reed are that they are “too gay” and they should cast some “real people” instead of Broadway caricatures.

THIS is what is problematic when casting queer characters, and it is partly the way that casting directors choose to cast queer characters, but also the way different members of the queer community react. In this instance, the poster chose to not like the casting choice of Josh and Reed because they are “too gay” and that he, as another Survivor super fan, would never be cast because he is “not flaming”.

There are two sides to the coin. On one hand, casting directors DO choose the more out and proud homosexuals rather than ones that would be considered SAG (or a straight acting gay (or queer)). You can see this casting choice evident in almost every season of Survivor, Big Brother, or Amazing Race. So, these queers who do not fit into that casting mold resent that part of the queer community for making things inaccessible to them or presenting a singular image of a queer person (white gay man between 25-40).

However, this resentment can be especially deadly. The ones who are cannot fit into this specific reality casting mold usually maintain the privileges associated with being straight, or have an easier time fitting into the mainstream world because they can more easily integrate themselves. Without recognizing those special privileges they attain by being able to masque their queerness, they run the risk of using similar arguments to WASP men and women (i.e. Why did the black girl get hired over me, because she’s BLACK? Why is the flamboyant queer getting cast over me, because s/he’s FLAMBOYANT?).

On the other hand, the casting directors really do have the choice of who they want to appear on these shows. They are the ones that get to pick what is the one (or two) queer people to appear on the show, usually picking a white or white-appearing male. So, if there is really anyone to throw their resentment at, it should NOT be towards they very openly queer individuals that get cast for being open, rather, should be the show’s casting and creative directors who develop the story lines in the show.

So here’s the deal, fellow super fan. Yes, you probably will have a harder time getting cast because you maintain what many queers like to call “passing privilege”, because you can pass for being straight. No, you should not assert that these queers are better or worse than you because they are more open. Yes, you can and should be mad at casting directors for focusing on a very safe and conservative image of the queer community because it is what America is used to.

Whenever reality shows cast, there’s always the “Lose-Lose queer”, because whether you cast someone very codified as queer or someone who maintains strong passing privilege, someone in the community is going to be mad. But don’t be mad at different members of the queer community, how about being mad at casting for almost always casting JUST ONE QUEER PERSON (just one black, just one disabled, etc.)