Is George Michael the ultimate fag hag icon?

I’ve always found my female friends to be more die-hard George Michael fans than my gay friends (both here in Vancouver and around the world). I’ve always been somewhat curious about that.

Even for myself, I’ve never been a fan of his music or looks. The significance of him coming out of the closet didn’t even really matter that much to me.

Kim Cattrall once said in an interview that there is nothing like gay fans. They love you so much and if you fall down or make a mistake, they will love you even more.

I would say that is also true of female fans.

One needs to only take a look at some of the fierce comments from Backstreet Boys (II Men) fans sent to our music department to see proof of that.

But in spite of George Michael (who recently  performed at a concert here)  coming out of the closet, all the problems he has been through, and periods when he wasn’t putting out albums or any new material, he still seems to appeal very much to a female fanbase.

I think that’s because he’s one of the ultimate unthreatening sexual icons for women.

If you take a look at where he came from in pop culture, you can see how this evolved.

In ’80s mainstream pop, there were the unmistakably male and macho rock stars like Bruce Springsteen, Sting, and even Vancouver’s own Bryan Adams. At the other end, a number of sexually ambiguous, androgynous, and effeminate male figures emerged, such as Boy George, Prince, Michael Jackson, and George Michael (plus a number of makeup or cross-dressing friendly male New Wave acts like The Cure, Dead or Alive, and Depeche Mode).

(As an interesting side note, all the members of the latter group went through a lot of personal and legal problems, whereas members of the first group didn't. In part, it could be due to a number of factors, such as greater sensitivity to pressures and low self-esteem growing up due to not being accepted as a "traditional" male.)

They drew upon and expanded the gender-boundary bending made by their ’70s predecessors (who also continued on in the ’80s) such as David Bowie and Elton John. And they also gave women a new type of male to worship.

Boy George was the most overtly feminine out of the lot, with his makeup and outlandish outfits.

Michael Jackson presented the stereotypical aggressive black male sexuality in an unthreatening effeminate skinny male body (which Justin Timberlake later channeled).

But then he turned into an alien, and no one's quite sure what to make of him.

Prince and George Michael were the most overtly sexual in their acts. But Prince was the kind of guy that women weren’t sure if he wanted to sleep with them just so he could leave the next morning in their heels.

George Michael, on the other hand, wasn’t. Though he did have a feminine energy in his early image—the long hair, the earrings, the short shorts, the dancing about—he was preppie, not a cross-dresser.

(Also, it probably didn't hurt that he resembled one of those '80s Jockey underwear models back when they still had hair on their chests and lean bodies before they became overpumped muscle monkey firefighters in the '90s.)

And in mass marketing terms, George Michael had broader appeal than Prince because he was white.

His songs and music video imagery actively courted women, from the romantic melodrama of “Careless Whisper” to the aggressive passion of “Father Figure” and “I Want Your Sex” (which even featured him with an Asian girlfriend, long before Asian women became the hot new accessory for white men).

Though George Michael may have come out of the closet, the majority of the body of his work, as reinforced by the images in his music videos, remains female-skewed rather than gay male–oriented.

The only song of his that ever appealed to me enough for me to buy it was the club-oriented “Flawlesss (Go to the City)”, which, like his post-arrest theme song “Outside”, seems more geared towards a gay demographic.

In comparison, the Pet Shop Boys’s early body of work, for example, is a lot more easy to interpret and embrace from a gay perspective in retrospect after they came out as their material was ambiguous in sexual terms and not specifically geared towards women or men.

In fact, Madonnas work was far more active and ballsy in challenging homophobia, promoting homosexuality in the mainstream, and courting a gay audience than George Michael.

But George is the ultimate unthreatening sexual icon for women because, unlike boy bands, even if women do meet him, their lust for him can never really be consummated in reality.

George Michael also remains one of the only leading openly gay male solo artists in the mainstream. Other than him, I can only think of the aging Elton John and Rufus Wainwright (who is not quite mainstream).

It’s about time more men had the balls to join him. (Oh Ricckkkyyyyyyy”¦)

Comments

8 Comments

GMishugelyunderrated

Jul 6, 2008 at 8:06am

As a straight female fan of George Michael, I can say that it's not rocket science as to why so many females love him. He's incredibly good looking, not that efffeminate (no matter what other men think) , sensitive, incredibly talented, seems to be well-spoken and intelligent (despite his boo-boos) and has a voice (especially when heard live) to die for. He's not perfect and is a "flawed genius", an attractive quality. And, having attended two of his current concerts, one can truly say that he is a master live performer and showman in a way that very few singers are today.

Craig Takeuchi

Jul 6, 2008 at 11:42am

But it is interesting that those same qualities don't translate to the same extent in the gay community necessarily.

Someone like Madonna seems to have bigger appeal in the gay community than George Michael. (Strong women are always iconic in the gay community.)

Part of it may also be personality. Madonna has been outspoken, abrasive, provocative, and a real fighter for the sake of pushing buttons and instigating change—qualities which are often endearing to the gay community or may be identifiable to activists.

In contrast, George Michael's coming out was a reluctant act under unfortunate circumstances.

Some members of the gay community may find it harder (or even more painful) to identify with him than, say, other gay pop acts—Pet Shop Boys, Erasure, Bronski Beat—who came out on their own under more positive circumstances.

If he really wanted to ingratiate himself with the gay community, he should either write or cover some sort of positive, upbeat, empowering anthemic song (perhaps D:ream's "Things Can Only Get Better"?) that would be embraced by the community.

Yogchick

Jul 7, 2008 at 7:01pm

<a href="http://www.yogchick.blogspot.com" target="_blank">www.yogchick.blogspot.com</a>
I don't feel George Michael has to ingratiate himself to anybody. Doesn't his impressive back catalogue of excellent pop craftsmanship prove to be enough? Since when are we judging singer/songwriters by their political correctness? I am so sick and tired of hearing people praise Madonna just because she champions the gay community -- as if it's the most heroic thing a person can do. Of course, it's the right thing to do, but I'd like to think people go to concerts and buy CDs for reasons other than political. It's easy to be provocative and push buttons (Madonna), but what I'm looking for in an entertainer is actual talent and singing ability (George Michael). Both Madonna and George Michael will endure, for decidedly different reasons. Finally, I don't think its fair to judge George Michael for being closeted for so long. What role models in the pop pantheon did he have? He had to figure things out himself without any entertainment-industry role models. Sure, his coming out was awkward and far from ideal. But he was very forthright and upfront on the CNN interview he did just days after his cruising arrest. I think that took a lot of courage and I respect him for that.

Craig Takeuchi

Jul 7, 2008 at 10:29pm

I'm unclear if Yogchick's comments were in response to mine, or if they were just voicing an opinion in general, as they referred to a number of things I didn't mention (such as him for being in the closet for a long time).

I was trying to point out the reasons why he may have a different appeal between straight women and gay men, not about political correctness.

There are gay role models in the entertainment industry George Michael could have looked upon for guidance: the pop acts previously mentioned (PSB, Bronski Beat, Erasure, Communards, Elton John), and in acting: Rupert Everett, Alan Cumming, Ian McKellen. Not to mention authors and filmmakers.

But everything in pop culture has socio-political impact. Even if George chooses not to recognize that, that's his choice. But that doesn't mean it's not there.

I was trying to say that "if" he wanted to seize the opportunity, it's there.

Yogchick

Jul 8, 2008 at 8:04am

<a href="http://www.yogchick.blogspot.com" target="_blank">www.yogchick.blogspot.com</a>

@ Craig Takeuchi: Some of my comments were directed toward you (the "ingratiating" part) and some were just my thoughts in general. I think it's pretty clear which ones were what.

As for Madonna championing the gay movement for so long and so early (thus her gay following): she could afford to do that because she's straight. Had she been a true lesbian (and not fashionably bisexual), I doubt she would have been so supportive so early -- her career would have suffered and her career, for her, is priority #1. The other acts you talk about, such as PSB and Erasure, were popular but not as thoroughly mainstream as George Michael. Those acts could more easily come out to their respective audiences (of clubbers and more open-minded college students), whereas George Michael's audience was less predictable (being mainly young women, many of whom had a crush on him). George Michael would have lost a huge cut of his audience had he come out earlier. Sure he would have gained a loyal gay following, but I don't think it would have made up for the original loss in terms of numbers. He could only officially come out years and years into his career -- after his fanbase had matured (grown up literally and emotionally, gotten married, had kids, etc.).

As for Rupert Everett and Alan Cumming ... when is the last time you've seen these actors in anything?

Finally, to me anyway, George Michael has been out for some time -- even before his arrest when it became "official." His lyrics had been directed toward a male object of love in his third solo album OLDER and, moreover, even before that you always got that sense that those love songs were coded, actually more directed toward a man than a woman. Because in the lyrics of his solo work, he talks in such a way that a man speaks to another man -- not in the way any straight guy would ever talk to a woman. That's my take on it, and I know I'm not alone. Hell, my friends and I assumed he was gay since the Wham! days! But my point is, he's been a gay artist practically from the beginning of his solo career, however subtle his hints may have been. To some, these hints have been pretty loud (case in point: Freedom 90, Kissing a Fool, Hard Day, and Waiting).

So has George Michael reached out enough to the gay community ("seized the opportunity") ... probably not enough to satisfy some. But I think his body of work speaks for itself and any ingratiating is unnecessary. I would even go so far as to say that ingratiating himself might be crassly opportunistic and tacky. If I wanted an anthem, I'd go to a football game.

Craig Takeuchi

Jul 8, 2008 at 11:45pm

Cumming was in X-Men 2. Everett was in Shrek 2 and 3 as Prince Charming.

But if the point is that George Michael didn't have enough gay role models, then that acknowledges the social impact that visible gay icons and allies (or the lack of them) have on audiences.

Like many gay men, George Michael may have grown up suffering from feelings of invisibility, hatred, self-loathing, rejection, or alienation. Gay men still face being bullied, beaten up, ostracized, blackmailed, and in some cases murdered.

It's not a question of whether Madonna or George Michael is better than the other. They're just different. They have different approaches. There are certainly a lot of negative aspects to Madonna. Just as there are to George.

Anyhow, a gay anthem would never be played at a football game. If George is such a talented monkey, I'm sure he could come up with a tasteful way of doing it. C-c-c-c-c-c-c'mon!

Yogchick

Jul 26, 2008 at 2:55pm

www.yogchick.blogspot.com

Regarding George Michael's appeal to women...

On “Good Morning America” George Michael recently said, to paraphrase, that the reason women love his music so much is because he understands them, having grown up with two sisters and so on. I disagree, and I think he just said that because it was a catchy sound bite. I can only speak for myself, but I don’t relate to his music as a woman, I relate to his music as a human being. There’s nothing particularly woman-directed in his lyrics. In fact, I think just the opposite: his music is told from a (gay) male perspective and this was evident even during the Faith era. Because if you listen carefully to the lyrics, they are told in a way that a man would express himself to another man – straight men just don’t talk like that to women (how nice if they did). There’s an honesty and vulnerability there that you never see in straight male songwriters (case in point: “A Different Corner”). Furthermore, up until OLDER (and maybe even parts of OLDER), the lyrics were coded; this actually made for some elegantly nuanced wording and phrases. I actually miss those days as I feel, now that he is out to the public, that his more recent songs lack the mystery and ambiguity that made his earlier work so intriguing.

But back to the whole “women” thing. Yes, I think women make a disproportionate amount of his fan base in the United States, but I attribute that to the fact that American women, unlike American straight men, aren’t ashamed to embrace an openly gay singer who’s been arrested for cruising. George Michael has an impressive back catalogue that crosses a large stretch of the pop landscape; his music is good, simple as that, so he has a large following of women and gay men. Morover, much of his music is brave and vulnerable simulateneously; it has a poignancy and heartfelt honesty that women find irresistible -- again, qualities seldom found in straight men. Finally, I’d like to add that when he does sing blatantly women-directed songs, they are usually ambivalent and tortured: “Everything She Wants,” “Battlestations,” “This Is Not Real Love,” “Understand,” "An Easier Affair," etcetera. And yet, women still love him in spite of these realities, not because he has any ultra-sensitive insight into our souls (he doesn’t).