I know Doug's joking here, but let's face it: gayification of men in the U. S. is not going to do anything to challenge the existing patterns of domination and exploitation. "Style" is far from frivolous: setting and changing fashion is crucial to the maximization of profits and the creation of people who feel compelled to buy commodities to express their "unique style".
In fact, I'd go so far as to call "gay style" an increasingly important ideological element of capitalism in the U. S. today (merely cultural indeed!).
...and Doug replied:
"Well at least some of them - gender cliches help enforce patriarchy, and their erosion means the weakening of patriarchy, which means a challenge to existing patterns of domiantion and exploitation. That doesn't mean the overturning of capitalism by any means, but it's still pretty important. Besides, anything tending towards less ugliness in the USA is deeply welcome. There's just loads of hideous crap in this country." ________________________________
...and yet queerdom (as a form of male bonding) does not undermine patriarchy. Consider the "men for pleasure/women for babies" middle-eastern streak: there you have patriarchy and queerdom conjoined.
Even in the instance of this queened-for-a-day show, you have a situation that combines 1) making fun of the working class (main feature of the makeover) and 2) male bonding: if a guy tells you to change your tie, that's ok; if a woman tells you, ignore her. I don't see anything liberating here.
As for the "gay style" becoming an ideological component of capitalism, I don't know
exactly what Miles means. If by "gay style" we mean an aesthetization of politics, the exclusion of women, and a male identity that is forged exclusively through relations to other men...well yeah, I can see that and again, I don't see much liberation in it.
Joanna