Student Guest Post: A Peer’s Wry on Netflix’s Queer Eye

Editor’s note: This guest post comes from our student Becky, who has revised it from a piece of work for Dr. Shulist’s ANTH308 class on Language, Gender, and Sexuality. As your usual bloggers are currently digging their way out of the end-of-term grading pile/why-won’t-it-stop-snowing grumpy funk, it’s great to be able to highlight some of the insights our students are bringing. Also, this editor is putting Queer Eye on the Netflix queue for a post-term binge-watch (thanks, students!). 


To preface this, I would like to admit that I’m an avid viewer of all things transformative in nature in reality TV set-ups. There’s something so appealing in seeing someone’s life get turned around in 40 minutes or less- especially if you consider yourself a before rather than an after effort.

(Side note: HGTV producers, if you’re out there, call me.)

Netflix’s Queer Eye certainly offers all this and more. The show’s premise is that a group of five gay self-identified men come to renovate a straight self-identified male individual’s life through multiple focuses like food, culture, style, and home renovation; Hence to what the title refers to, in giving a queer eye for the straight guy.

It makes for an entertaining concept, but it became all the more compelling to start this series right we started to discuss the concept of masculinity in one of my anthropology classes.

At it’s most basic, masculinity is the association to what is culturally assumed in being a ‘man’. Masculine ontology would therefore be one’s pursuit to be a man (in establishing particular associations linked within masculinity). But, being a man means different things, which diversifies masculinity in how it relates to the relevant cultural discourses at play that are created through the social practices of those that enact them. There’s a dominant discourse but there are always competing discourses that create these conflicting ways people may express their masculinity.

In Kielsing’s (2005) article, men’s talk is described to respond and recreate four main cultural discourses that surround the dominant discourse of masculinity. While these cultural discourses – gender differences, heterosexism, dominance, male solidarity – are examined through the language community of an American fraternity, let us now turn to Tom, from the first episode of Queer Eye.

In episode one, the ‘Fab 5’ introduce a middle-aged man from Georgia named Tom. What follows is how Tom reacts to the group’s questioning of Tom’s choices, and a push towards a competing discourse that works to challenge what Tom uses, while also making continuous acknowledgment of the dominant discourses. In this respect, this parallels to what Kiesling also describes, that when one engages with a competing discourse, one can still find themselves evaluated in reference to the dominant discourses withstanding. So no matter what you choose sooner or later you’re going to have to acknowledge the bulking frat-boy in the room.

Towards the beginning we get a sense of the schema of what Tom identifies as part of his self through repeated use of words like redneck, ugly, country, old, and fat. Based on what Tom uses to describe himself, there’s a lack of self-confidence is readily apparent. This is where I question Tom’s use of gender difference as Tom often uses his ex-wives as those behind many of his stylistic choices, in that there is some innate separation between caring for one’s appearance (and home) to being separate from masculine. Tom’s lack of confidence and physical masculinity is oddly balanced towards gender difference as having that relation to his masculine identity both negatively and positively impacting his confidence.

Further in the episode, when Bobby mentions to Tom that he’s been married to his partner of 13 years, Tom questions if Bobby is the ‘wife’ or the ‘husband’ of the relationship. In seeing Bobby as masculine, Tom still assumes a degree of heterosexuality despite the fact that Bobby is very direct about the whole husband-husband thing. To rectify Bobby’s masculinity then, Tom assumes a positionality relatable to a hetero-relationship. From previous experience with a similar line of questioning (y’know, the ‘who wears the pants’ debacle) this brings up the subordination of the woman role as being natural by placing an association to the dominating role as masculine.

This also comes to naturalize the heterosexual relationship as the representative of all relationship types. The straight couple is the original, and everything outside of that is just a spin-off series.

Moving back here, Tom also briefly demonstrates the cultural discourse of male solidarity. This is particularly emphasized by his group, the ROMEOS, or the “Retired Old Men Eating Out” … and I’m trying not to think too hard on that one.

This group represents Tom and other retired old men who meet up once a week to eat out at a restaurant, who then go and admire each other’s classic cars. Judging from these activities, there isn’t any necessarily that would suggest a gender divide to being necessary, but the important of male solidarity is emphasized by the men as being important. I mean, it’s in the title!

Besides forming the basis of Tom’s social life (in exclusion to his grandson, and his ex-wife) they’re also a heavy influencer on what social practices therefore become acceptable to establish the types of social practices to engage in. When he is recorded with a group of men, he often uses swears to accentuate his speech patterns and play into his physical masculinity.

These social practices are part of the journey the Fab 5 take on with Tom. By accepting some of the discourse that the ‘Fab 5’ utilizes for themselves, and encourages in Tom, we see a difference between Tom and the fellow ROMEOs at the end of the episode. When he is presented to the men, he is complimented with a degree of emotional restraint to the achievement of his transformation by the men merely pointing out changes (“Look at that beard”) or veiled compliments in the form of insults (“You look vaguely familiar”). Tom instead is openly boisterous and presents himself with a right bit of flair. Tom reflects on these changes when he says goodbye to the ‘Fab 5’, in stating his experiences of being open with them and himself, hoping to continue this into the future.

So, while there isn’t necessarily all four of the dominant cultural discourses present that Kiesling has outlined—there’s certainly some recognizable parallels to be drawn. Tom is definitely one of the more relaxed straight individuals that are introduced on the show, and there certainly isn’t too much push in getting him to accept the group’s mentalities. What I am suggesting still is the balance between how masculinity is practiced and conceived within the narrative of the show, as it dissects how these various men actively construct and promote their identities.

Maybe there’s a little more anthropological footwork at play than the show recognizes, but then again, that’s what nerdy bloggers are for.



Kiesling, Scott Fabius. (2005) “Homosocial desire in mens talk: Balancing and re-creating cultural discourses of masculinity”. Language in Society 34 (5): 695-726. doi:10.1017/s0047404505050268.


Guest Post: “Action, Collegiality, & Courage: An Open Letter to the Participants of Currents”

Editor’s Note: This guest post was written by Dr. Katherine Sinclair, Anthropology Assistant Professor. She kindly submitted it in response to an open call Drs. Shulist and Biittner made at the Currents conference following their keynote address. Drs. Shulist and Biittner encouraged all of the conference participants and their faculty colleagues to write for AnthropologyAs. We all hope that Dr. Sinclair’s post will be the first of many future contributions to come out of Currents. 


I’ll admit it: I struggled a little bit to get out of bed last Saturday, March 3.

I threw open my curtains to see a snowstorm. Add to that the fact that it was my birthday, and I thought this was the perfect recipe to stay home with my current book, my favourite sweatshirt, and (unfortunately) a pile of grading. I try to set aside a bit of time each year on my birthday to think about how I want my next year to look, and Saturday morning seemed like a good moment to do that reflection.

However, this year I had a conference to attend! The MacEwan Anthropology, Economics, and Political Science student conference. I had been lucky enough to be invited to be a discussant.

This conference takes place every year and is organized by the effervescent, optimistic, and boundlessly encouraging Dr. Franca Boag. Dr. Boag solicits abstracts from students at MacEwan, but also students from Mount Royal, the University of Calgary, universities in Saskatchewan, and probably more that I’m not aware of. To say that this amount of work is vast, and the success of the conference impressive, would be an understatement.

The title of the conference this year was Currents: A Transdisciplinary Undergraduate Conference about Flows, Movement, and Directions. Like the title promises, the papers were diverse, ranging from discussions about the intersections of humans with the environment, questions of gender and the #metoo movement, meditations on race and racism, concerns about economic equality, and finally to material culture. Despite this diversity, the papers flowed together and moved in similar directions within each panel.

It is, unfortunately, impossible to outline each of the excellent and insightful papers here, so what I would like to do instead is draw out the currents that brought some of these papers together, the insights they offered for anthropology, and how they helped me tether my own day in the context of my upcoming year in unexpected ways. One of the goals of this post is to honour the students who participated. The other goal is to communicate to them, and others, how inspiring I found the conference to be.

The first thing to say is the quality of scholarship of the papers on the panels. I know that many hours of work went into these presentations, and it showed.

The second thing that struck me about these papers was their focus on action. Anthropology has at times been critiqued as inward focused, and neither ready nor willing to contribute ideas to work towards solutions of local and global problems. While this has changed in some realms of anthropology, it remains a trend in some areas. What I saw in the conference convinced me that this current truly is changing. Strong scholarship was tied with suggested courses of action and movement. The focus on social change – both already existing and potential for the future – was striking. Rather than an air of cynicism, the conference sparked with hope and optimism.

As the day went on, the next aspect of the conference that resonated with me was the collegiality of the students, an area that academia broadly can on occasion struggle. Conferences and other public platforms can be used as a moment to critique the work of others in an attempt to bolster one’s own image. Who hasn’t attended that session where someone asks question that is significantly longer than any response could be, and should be bracketed by footnotes referencing their own work along with prestigious academic names? In the Currents conference, questions were asked respectfully, thoughtfully, and answered in the same fashion.

Finally, and perhaps most powerfully, the courage the student participants manifested during the conference was one of aspects of the day I found most inspiring. I saw this courage on many different fronts. First of all, having the courage to submit an abstract. One of my Ph.D. professors once told me that to be an academic means to be able to wallpaper your office with rejection letters, and too often that process starts at the undergraduate level. To reflect, to write, and to apply for a conference can therefore already a moment of overcoming uncertainty.

To then present that very paper – that one has dedicated many hours to researching, writing, subjecting to self-critique, running through with peers, family members, professors, and more – in front of an audience is itself an act of courage. Aside from the fear of public speaking, putting one’s ideas to a group always has an element of uncertainty.

Finally, as someone who tends to be reserved in nature and private arguably to a fault, the act of revealing one’s self to the group was one of the aspects of courage during the day that I found most inspiring. Whether it was talking about research, answering questions, or sharing one’s own personal story, every student who presented that day manifested it.

This conference, then, not only provided me with that very moment of reflection I needed for my next year, but also gifted me with something unexpected: coming away truly inspired. Inspired to be courageous, in my thinking, acting, and relationships with others. Inspired to be a good colleague in the workplace and a good friend socially. And finally, to try to inspire others, as the very students I have the privilege of interacting with everyday inspired me at this conference. Currents for my next year, indeed.



Gender Role “Reversal” Requires Revision


Recreated ad by artist Eli Rezcalla

I’ll admit that my first response to these vintage sexist ads where the photographer, Eli Rezcalla, “reversed” the gender roles was “lol :D”. By “simply” switching the genders of the subjects, Rezcalla was easily able to show how these ads, much like many today, reinforce sexist gender roles. Now I’m always a fan of calling out the patriarchy and sexism, however, as I scrolled down through the images my initial feeling of glee was overwhelmingly replaced by feelings of grossness. Why? Because with many of the ads selected, for both the original and the reversal, toxic heteronormativity is represented and reinforced. So what do I mean by heteronormativity and what about it is toxic? Well as is well described here and here, heteronormativity packages ideas like there are only two genders representing two sexes, that members of these two sexes/genders are heterosexual, that this heterosexuality must be strictly monogamous, and that sex serves for reproductive purposes only and then argues that these are the only “normal” or “natural” ways to be human. This is toxic because it has serious consequences for individuals who aren’t heteronormative simply and importantly because it invalidates their existence. Clearly it’s not just ads that represent toxic heteronormativity; this article is a good discussion of toxic monogamy in F.R.I.E.N.D.S. because yes, heteronormativity dictates not just who we have sex with but what kind of sex we can/cannot have, how many partners we can/cannot have, and what is/is not acceptable in relationships in terms of jealousy, commitment, competition, and communication including whether or not you can have other kinds of relationships like friendships (*coughs* “But we were on a break!”*coughs* smdh). So really heteronormativity is toxic for everyone including heterosexuals and cisgender individuals.

I was also bothered by the choice to represent domestic violence. As several commenters noted on the “if your husband/wife ever finds out” ad – it’s not o.k. or funny to hit your partner. Listen I get that spanking can be a very exciting and healthy part of a consensual relationship (especially if it IS being used as “punishment”) BUT there’s nothing about that particular ad that reads as consensual (and no it’s not representing BDSM and I am also tired of that being misrepresented in media too!). And I won’t accept “but it’s supposed to be funny” as a counter-argument because no, domestic and/or sexual violence are never funny. The broader use of domestic and/or sexual violence in advertising is a problem that only serves to promote misogyny and sexism.  I know that challenging all of the problems represented by the “everyday sexism” of these ads wasn’t the point of the project but simply “reversing” the players only serves to reinforce other toxic aspects of heteronormativity.