In recent years British TV has seen a growth in shows that have displayed a particular type of masculinity. Shows such as ‘Deadliest Men’, ‘Toughest Pubs in Britain’ and aspects of ‘My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding’ have displayed hyper-masculinity and have strong links to class and social status, arguably more so than the notion of masculinity that we see in the wider mainstream media. The resultant interaction between the male and female participants in such shows also highlights some problematic stereotypes of working class culture in the UK.

These shows embrace exaggerated representations of masculinity, constructing a narrow consideration of what it means to be male in certain social circles. A useful example of this can be found in ‘Danny Dyer’s Deadliest Men’ where ‘cheeky cockney’ actor Danny Dyer spends time with masculine subjects to gain an insight into their violent and aggressive lives.

Click here to view the embedded video.

The discursive repertoires used to construct meaning during these shows are focused around the ‘dark’, aggressive and seemingly out of control nature of the subject’s hyper-masculinity. We see links to various televisual constructions that are outside our usual experience of reality shows and more in line with our experience of fictional crime shows and films: guns, war, killing, violent fights and crime.

It’s particularly pertinent that ‘gangster’ actor Dyer is our conduit between the fictional and factual and the boundaries between these two genres are blurred, encouraging audience readings that potentially see these subjects as some sort of ‘other’. Dyer continually constructs these subjects as dangerous and potentially deadly, and as something that the general public should fear, seeming on edge and worried. In this episode Dyer claims he ‘should be wary’ and ‘not get too comfortable’ around his war veteran subject Mo Teague.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

The show also tends to focus on subjects from working class or lower class backgrounds. The mise-en-scene often consists of backstreet pubs, traveller sites or events that are full of men and highlighted as a hyper-masculine and often aggressive space. This in itself highlights notions of class and makes an inextricable link between hyper-masculine traits and social stratification; these men assert their position through violence and reputation. Dyer and the crew often literally extricate themselves from the culture due to their fears and worry about being subject to aggression. The framing of the out of control group only serves to reiterate concerns in society about working and lower class cultures that has dominated the British media over recent years. This is evident in Dyer’s focus on Irish Traveller Paddy Doherty, who is also featured in popular Channel 4 series, ‘My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding.’

Click here to view the embedded video.

Interestingly in the above clip we also get some insight into the representation of women in lower class and working class culture. Doherty’s wife is referred to merely as ‘woman’ on a number of occasions with her role clearly distinctive in a domestic sense. The focus and discourse in such shows is clearly patriarchal. Doherty’s wife is allowed to have a brief opinion but this is inconsequential. Even when dealing with what could be considered as a feminine discourse around family and death, Doherty’s wife isn’t given much airtime. It seems that in this particular genre women have to be in a subsumed role, or find a more masculine and potentially queered way of expressing themselves.

One such example of this can be found in ‘Toughest Pubs in Britain 3’ – which explores Britain’s pub culture and again the focus is on the working and lower class environment.

Click here to view the embedded video.

The women in this show are vastly different from Doherty’s wife, and seem to have more airtime and some ability to speak within the culture portrayed. But in order to do so these women perform a very different and potentially queered sense of gender than ‘the feminine’. They are labelled as ‘ugly’. Their otherness is reiterated by the backing track of People Are Strange, which introduces women to us through shots that highlight their large bodies in complete opposition to the visual repertoires we usually encounter when viewing women on television.

We are offered an example of ‘Big June’ – who on first viewing appears as polite but is quickly asserted as strange and unpredictable; queered. The only way for her to gain attention and fend off abusive comments is to have episodes of performing the hyper-masculine in her interactions with other pub regulars, potentially queering her identity. We also hear the commentary of the pub landlord regarding an incident where June exposed herself; her femininity is further denigrated and is subject to his ridicule. It seems that again, women in this class culture are subject to, and defined by the commentary of men even when gaining power through queered behaviour. Even men who feel more ‘feminine’ such as the cross dressing karaoke singer are only accepted through queering their identity and such behaviour being ridiculed and labelled as ‘worrying’.

These examples of gender and class representation raise a number of issues. There seems to be a distinct theme of ‘otherness’ throughout these shows. In terms of masculine representations they posit that hyper-masculinity is something to be feared in contemporary society. It is a position that is highlighted as something that is the ‘other’ from the representations of middle class masculinity we see surrounding us in mainstream culture. The examples given above are thought of as dangerous, potentially deadly and something to fear.

Within this culture women are subject to this hyper-masculinity and can only be active participants under certain conditions and through particular gender or queered performance. What is also clear is that any potentially queer identities are portrayed as something to be uncomfortable with. They are stereotyped as ‘odd’ and concern participants, but serve to reiterate that hyper-masculine actions that adhere to the stereotype of patriarchal power are dominant within the televisual working and lower class culture.

Image Credits:
1. Danny Dyer’s Deadliest Man

Please feel free to comment.

All female talk TV shows are still quite a rarity on the UK televisual landscape, but they do exist. Loose Women is such a show talk show; shown each weekday lunch time, it combines general gossip with celebrity promotional appearances (either masquerading as interviews or song performances). In essence, Loose Women is a UK version of the US show The Talk – women talk about typically feminine issues in these shows. There is discussion about relationships, children, sex, sexuality, age, beauty, celebrity news stories and very personal aspects of the hosts’ lives.

Discursively, both of these programmes raise interesting questions, especially with regards to their popularity with female viewers. They are also both a reflection and construction of the contemporary ideological understanding of what it means to be a woman between the ages of 35-55 (the approximate ages of the participants). Such shows fuel and construct distinct expectations in a world which has seen vast changes with regard to fragmenting feminine identity and our wider understanding of who women ‘should be’ in an ideological sense.

Unsurprisingly, Loose Women focuses on what can be termed ‘women’s issues’ from its opening content. Often news stories are flagged for discussion on the panel and viewers are inviting to offer their commentary via email, Twitter and Facebook.

Click here to view the embedded video.

In actual fact, few viewer insights are discussed and mentioned during the course of the show, but there is no doubt that this invitation encourages and supports the notion that women have an emotionally-based community discourse where women’s issues and concerns are celebrated and given attention. In some sense, then, such talk shows exemplify and celebrate ‘gossip’ as a feminine trait.

Gossip has long been considered a key part of feminine discourse, especially in relation to television. It can be claimed that gossip in this sense can be ideologically positive and liberating for female participants, and in this case viewers of the show. In Loose Women, a positive factor is that women’s issues are given space and time for discussion and are not defined by a masculine, patriarchal or dominant discourse which defines women an object to be looked at or role to be played in relation to the masculine.
In this sense the gossip in Loose Women is, “…talking between women in their roles as women, intimate in style, personal and domestic in topic and setting, a female cultural event which springs from and perpetuates the restrictions of the female role, but also gives the comfort of validation.”1

Loose Women achieves its status as a validating cultural event in a number of ways. The show maintains a core of presenters who drop in and out of the community constructed for viewers. The very fact that these women are placed around a table with mugs of tea or coffee reflects a representation which is domesticated in nature; a reconstruction of literally being around the kitchen table at lunchtime. These presenters appear on ‘the side’ of women and the show’s community atmosphere is constructed ‘for us’; essentially providing a social sphere for female viewers and their issues.

Loose Women generates ‘gossip’ about women’s issues both inside and outside the show and space is given to issues which concern women and impact on their lives. Arguably, then, Loose Women and the related feminine discourses which are present in the wider mass media acknowledge the existing cultural position of women in society. This cultural construction occurs when the studio audience and viewers at home are invited into personalised moments via the inclusion of stories and admittances from the panel. At the heart of this construction is discussion of presenters talk about their lives, relationships, children – whatever is occurring in their personal life appears to be available on screen, many ‘stories’ have also made the tabloid press, the discourse expanding into the wider UK mass media. Earlier this year, lead host Andrea Mclean announced her divorce on the show, soon followed by fellow presenter Denise Welch:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Personalisation also appears to also be a factor in the US equivalent of ‘female’ talk shows and is perhaps one of the key popularity factors in relation to the all-female talk show genre. But Loose Women is also ideologically restrictive in its ‘perpetuation of the restrictions of the female role’. It’s often constructed that women’s independence from family life or male-female relationships is something to be concerned about, derided or pitied and sympathised with. The discursive space is a heterosexual one in terms of feminine sexuality and is usually a majority white show in terms of hosting choices. This is actually something which isn’t shared by The Talk which is hosted and exec produced by the out Sara Gilbert and has a variety of black and Asian hosts.

So, in essence, the participants of Loose Women appear compelled to take part in discussion around distinct issues which are traditionally female and ideologically restrictive such as care issues, emotional issues and relationship issues in order to be part of the feminine discursive realm. This could be said to only encourages a sense of self-governmentality where discussion, nurturing and care are a key part of being female and traditionally male issues such as business, entrepreneurship and politics/hard news are not discussed in any serious depth, if at all.

In conclusion, Loose Women treads a fine hegemonic line. In some senses it is asserting the feminine traits of women in a community situation which is constructed to feel independent of masculine discourse and definition. Whilst constructing this positive space, it also fulfils the ideological gender divide, fulfilling a long held stereotype of women’s issues as less worthy, less serious and certainly less important as those dealt with in masculine genres.

Image Credits:
1. Trio of Loose Women

Please feel free to comment.

1. Jones, D., (1980) ‘Gossip: Notes on Women’s Oral Culture.’ Women’s Studies International Quarterly, 3, 193-198

The UK morning talk show The Jeremy Kyle Show is an ongoing national success. The show consists of confessions, DNA tests and lie detectors and is a result of Kyle moving his confessional talk show style from commercial radio to UK television screens. Since the show started in 2005 it has averaged just short of 2 million viewers every weekday morning, becoming one of the most popular daytime shows of the 2000s. Kyle’s show follows in the format of previous UK daytime talk shows such as Vanessa and Tricia, but Kyle has a much more direct approach and aggressive approach he claims is all about being open and honest in order to confront them participants with difficult truths, “I always say exactly what I think and not what people want to hear…It’s very important to get to the truth and sort things out, then move on – we’ve only got one life, it’s not a rehearsal…Ordinary people come on the show – but you usually find that they have extraordinary lives, that’s what fascinates me.” 1

Now Kyle’s show has made the move across the Atlantic to the US – the show retains a similar format with Kyle’s honest, somewhat angry, forthright approach. The show has also realized a relative success and has been renewed for a second season which will be shown across at least 50% of the United States. 2

Click here to view the embedded video.

But what is it that makes Kyle’s show so appealing? For many critics the show is seen as trash television and has been labelled by a British district judge as equivalent to “human bear-baiting” that exposes and exploits a dysfunctional feral underclass within British society. 3 But perhaps we can look to cultural theory to gain a greater understanding of what the show offers to audiences across a number of discursive and pleasurable levels.

In a culturally positive sense it can be claimed that talk shows such as The Jeremy Kyle Show offer a space within the contemporary public sphere for the discussion of issues that are pertinent in society at a particular time. Lunt and Stenner make the argument that talk shows offer the opportunity for people excluded from the media to have their say and express their opinions, lifestyles and social difficulties. 4 In this sense the show offers an outlet for people deemed outside of the middle-class mainstream. These participants are therefore representative of particular aspects of society stereotyped as afflicting the lower class: they are the unemployed, members of the broken home and the drug addict.

But, there is an aspect of The Jeremy Kyle Show which is much more problematic and negative for the public sphere in a discursive and ideological sense. Looking more specifically at the show as a media text, it can be seen that there are clear discourses of authority and class at work:

Click here to view the embedded video.

In the above example we see clear authority represented. Kyle is the middle class man, well dressed, directing the discussion from a standing position. This is presented in opposition to the underclass, which presented as sitting down, being spoken to (or more clearly ‘at’) by Kyle. Our middle class representative is the one in control – of information, of audience interaction and of ultimate judgement about social behavior and action/inaction. Even when a representative of the ‘underclass’ stands up and verbally and physically attacks Kyle he is stopped – not by words, but by Kyle’s ever-present security team. When discursive authority fails the ideological sense of authority is backed up and reiterated by physical action.

In shows such as these there can be no ultimate challenge to the sense that the middle-class authority and judgement should be the one that is dominant. It is Kyle’s voice that sets the standard and he who is applauded for telling the underclass to ‘get a job’, ‘put something on the end of it’ or to ‘man up and be a father’. If there is any challenge to the host he claims that ‘it’s my name on the wall – this is called The Jeremy Kyle Show’ essentially silencing any challenge to dominant ideas about class, morality and this closes down the notion of a full and democratic public sphere within this text. With Kyle, you get what you expect as an audience member – an exploration of social issues but from a judgmental middle class perspective. This perspective must be adopted as a viewer to enjoy the text and this is achieved through sharing Kyle’s cultural position or viewpoint and so internalized ideologies are reiterated. As a participant it must be adopted to join the realms of a normalized, acceptable and naturalized class system.

Kyle is presented as the conduit through which ideological redemption can be found, and this is not only through the medium of television. Recently Kyle even shared a stage with Chancellor George Osbourne at the Conservative Party Conference as he chaired a fringe meeting to discuss ‘Getting Britain Back To Work’. This meeting was sponsored by right-wing tabloid The Sun.

It seems that Kyle has the tools to put the ‘underclass’ back on the right (wing) track and offer them the hegemonic hope of joining the realms of naturalized and settled existence. On the show the work to change the ideological direction of the underclass is often represented through confessions, admittances of guilt and tears and all of this is facilitated by Kyle as middle class ‘expert’ and naturalized voice of authority. He often refers to his ‘aftercare’ team who continue to work with participants to get them into rehab, arrange visits to their children, find jobs and such like. For those who refuse to confess and embrace their sorrow Kyle presents lie detector results to expose infidelities and then ridicules those who have been unfaithful and dishonest. This offers a discursive punishment. This ridicule has even found its way to YouTube with remix videos highlighting some of the key phrases and judgements made by Kyle in a form of cult fan activity which celebrates the discourses of the show outlined above:

Click here to view the embedded video.

So, the middle-class position is constructed as settled, moral, organized and worthwhile. This is seen as something of an ambition for the participants – if they don’t see that immediately, they often do by the end of their segment. Although The Jeremy Kyle Show is considered as harmless early morning entertainment, it can be claimed that it encapsulates many of the fears and concerns of UK and Western cultures. This relates clearly to a variety of cultural contexts in the UK at the moment and mirrors a number of positions taken by news coverage of social issues and class problems by right wing newspapers in particular:

The discursive contexts shown above and via The Jeremy Kyle Show only serve to reiterate the distance between the lower and middle-class discourses of how society should be in an ideological sense. This reflects a cultural anxiety about the difference of a ‘feral’ underclass and their threat to middle-class values and potentially links to deeply held social anxieties about welfare, family, sexual behavior, ambition, capitalism and crime. What we see in such media texts is essentially “…the antithesis of the autonomous, rational subject we are encouraged to be.” 5

Image Credits:

1. Jeremy Kyle
2. Kyle with UK Chancellor George Osbourne at Conservative Party Conference
3. The Daily Express
4. The Daily Mail
5. The Daily Mail
6. The Sun

Please feel free to comment.

1. Kyle, J. (2001), ‘More about Jeremy’ (ITV.com) http://www.itv.com/lifestyle/jeremykyle/abouttheshow/ – accessed 24th November, 2011.
2. Brzoznowski, K. (2011) Jeremy Kyle Show to Return for Second Season in the U.S., Published 18/11/11 (WorldScreen.com) http://www.worldscreen.com/articles/display/32325 – accessed 24th November, 2011.
3. Ward, David. (2007) Judge attacks ‘human bear-baiting’ (London: Guardian Media Group), http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/sep/25/television – last accessed 24th November 2011.
4. Lunt, P. & Stenner, P. (2005) ‘The Jerry Springer Show as an emotional public sphere’, Media, Culture and Society, Vol. 27(1): 59–81. London: Sage.
5. Lawler, S. (2002), ‘Mobs and Monsters: Independent man meets Paulsgrove woman’, Feminist Theory, 3 (1), 103-113. London: Sage.

In 2007 the UK’s Channel Four commissioned Embarrassing Illnesses which was later re-named Embarrassing Bodies. The show is produced by independent production company, ‘Maverick’ and has been a rating success for Channel 4 for the four years of its run so far. Simply put, patients present themselves to one of the show’s three doctors – the examination and treatment of a particular affliction is shown on camera, and the medical problem is solved. In the meantime we are treated to camera shots of the most intimate parts of anatomy and, sometimes, gory treatment.

In production terms it is clear to see that the audiences are being encouraged in their education about diseases and conditions, and also being encouraged to seek help for a variety of problems; albeit in front of a national audience. There is also the question of what else draws an audience into such a show. It seems that there is a dichotomy between the success of the show and the fact that week after week there are graphic depictions of operations and investigations we are persuaded to squint and squirm our way through as an audience.

So, how can we make sense of this through an initial consideration of cultural theory?

On a positive note, Embarrassing Bodies brings critical information into the public sphere; doctors and patients discuss issues. The multiplatform nature of the show has meant that this particular version of the public sphere has extended outside of the television flow and online where there is a far greater interaction between the discursive hierarchy of doctor and patient. In this sense the show has embraced the notion of online community – offering a safe, approachable, easily accessible and private space for the audience and website users to view important information and ask questions in a moderated medical environment. This is also reflected in the content of the show – as problems are solved and conditions clearly explained through graphic stills and narratives.

This is a very particular version of the public sphere and one already related to ‘reality television’. Dominique Mehl outlines many of the personal concerns that are represented by individuals on screen can be appropriated by those watching1. This posits the idea that the Embarrassing Bodies audience can potentially either empathize as they have suffered a condition or take on board the advice and treatment options as they currently suffer from a disorder. The very construction of the show aids in this, with patients seen in a one to one (and seemingly private environment) and the initial investigations being as unglamorous and normalised as any dreaded visit to the doctors surgery. Mehl claims that,

“Implementing the move from the particular to the general is a trick, which implies tacit collaboration between producer and guest. However the symbolic nature of the testifying is only really accomplished in the act of reception. It is through the intervention of the reader, the listener, the television spectator that the move from ‘me’ to ‘us’ is brought about. Private evidence accedes to debate in the public sphere when the spectator can say: ‘I have experienced, am experiencing or perhaps will experience, or those close to me have experienced, experience or will experience the same thing. And this is why this interests me.’”2

Such reality shows offer a level of identification for the viewer and the individual lying on the examination bed becomes a symbol for a story, rather than an individual. If the reader deconstructs the text in this way then part of the producers need is also fulfilled; we shouldn’t forget that Channel 4 is still a public service broadcaster in the UK and as such is obligated to provide public focused programming.

But what of those audiences who are healthy and condition free, or aren’t attracted to this aspect of the show? How can this show complete on the level of ‘entertainment’ and not be dull, boring and medicalised? What else may appeal to audiences in terms of the grotesque and voyeuristic? The popularity of the show raises a key question for consideration, and Sam Wollaston of the UK’s Guardian Newspaper succinctly encapsulates this with his review of a recent episode:

“Maybe it does do something towards getting rid of the embarrassment and shame of these conditions. Encourages us to do something about them, and to examine our vulvas etc. That has to be a good thing. But it simply isn’t very nice to watch. I don’t want David’s itchy red anus on my 42in high definition television. Or Brenda’s non-vagina. Or Brian’s big purple nose getting doner-kebabbed. It’s horrid, all of it.”3

Putrefying feet:

Click here to view the embedded video.

To a ‘nit’ infestation:

Click here to view the embedded video.

To a large labia:

Click here to view the embedded video.

In these instances ’spectacle’ can be considered a central aspect of the genre of reality television and is certainly central to Embarrassing Bodies. This sense of spectacle is not one that can be considered an enormous newsworthy event such as the death of Princess Diana or September 11th but is instead an alternative use of the concept. Frances Bonner claims such medical procedures are a ’spectacle within ordinary television’4. This aspect of the show is a distinct draw to a viewer when an individual who appears as ordinary as the viewer undertakes a serious, invasive or relatively rare procedure. In this instance the viewer does not have an ‘immediate or even long-term need of the information’5 but instead the viewer is drawn in by the affect or shock of the visceral or intimate content.

It’s therefore possible to suggest that Embarrassing Bodies appeals to the audience for two very distinct reasons. The first is a sense of spectacle and to some extent the mirrors ‘make-over’ shows such as The Swan in entertainment and shock value. But what is also prevalent is the maintenance of the discourse of medical information through a personalised narrative around the participant that can enhance a sense of public sphere via the multiplatform nature of the show. This then steers the show being purely rhetorically shocking and in keeping with the public service ethos of the broadcasting institution of Channel 4. In this sense Embarrassing Bodies is not only useful and entertaining to its audience but also indicative of a production grounded in public service television that also has to exist with a competitive and commercial industry context.

Image Credits:

1. Daily Mail

Please feel free to comment.

1. Mehl, Dominique (2005) ‘The Public on the Television Screen: Towards a Public Sphere of Exhibition’ IN Livingstone, Sonia (ed) (2005) Audiences and Publics: When Cultural Engagement Matters for the Public Sphere London: Intellect.
2. Mehl, Dominique (2005) ‘The Public on the Television Screen: Towards a Public Sphere of Exhibition’ IN Livingstone, Sonia (ed) (2005) Audiences and Publics: When Cultural Engagement Matters for the Public Sphere London: Intellect. 80.
3. Wollaston, Sam (2011) TV review: Embarrassing Bodies; Little England: An aggravated anus and a vanishing vagina made this a bad day at the orifice (London: Guardian Media Group).  
4. Bonner, Francis (2005) ‘Looking Inside: Showing Medical Operations on Ordinary Television’ IN King, Geoff (ed) (2005) The Spectacle of the Real: From Hollywood to ‘Reality’ TV and Beyond. Bristol: Intellect. 106.
5. Bonner, Francis (2005) ‘Looking Inside: Showing Medical Operations on Ordinary Television’ IN King, Geoff (ed) (2005) The Spectacle of the Real: From Hollywood to ‘Reality’ TV and Beyond. Bristol: Intellect. 107.

Lip Service was the first BBC screened ‘lesbian drama’ set in the contemporary era. Aired in the United Kingdom on BBC3 during October and November of 2010 the Glasgow based lesbian drama wasn’t heavily previewed or advertised, although in lesbian circles it found huge popularity and has just finished shooting a second series of six episodes. The series was aired on BBC3 which is aimed at the 16-34 age group and continues as part of the UK’s public service system and ethos – it has universal access in terms of UK viewers and no advertising. BBC3 output is mainly UK and Europe based (90%). Lip Service pulled in a relatively high audience (for placement on a digital channel) of 580,000 viewers for its opening night (total UK audience share of 4.4%). The Guardian called Lip Service ‘hugely significant’1. This column considers the popular Lip Service in context alongside another recent lesbian drama: The L Word with a particular focus on introducing ideas for discussion around the representation of butchness and bisexuality.

When a high number of viewers engage with lesbian, gay or bisexual representation, even in the contemporary era – it takes on credence, a credibility and believability. There are a wide number of people who don’t encounter gay lives, lesbian or gay sexuality and its resultant dramas, problems, or various considerations. Once this is represented, it takes on an importance; it constructs a reality for a large proportion of society. For lesbian viewers it also ‘speaks of the self’ – especially in terms of the formation of identity for young lesbians. Lesbian focused drama is still relatively rare and so the burden of representation is heavy.

This is particularly pertinent as once there is some plurality of representation it appears that stereotypes relating to a particular culture begin to emerge and develop and these are what can be considered noteworthy in terms of identity politics. What is interesting with regard to these two dramas is that there is a clear pattern of stereotyping emerging. Distinctions will be drawn in what follows with my brief study of The L Word which can be found in greater detail in Televising Queer Women2, although in this column I will only offer a brief mapping of the stereotype formation around butchness and bisexuality alone.

Initially what seems to be set up in both of these shows is the discursive dichotomy of ‘butch’ and ‘femme’. Whilst these labels are hugely problematic in theoretical terms – they seem inextricably linked to key narratives in these lesbian focused dramas. It is arguable that the distinctions between the two identities are connected to sexual practices and relationships which are arguably forming the dominant discourses of lesbianism for the mainstream. On the one hand we see the lead butch in Lip Service: ‘Frankie’:

Click here to view the embedded video.

In Lip Service, Frankie can be considered as emotionally and morally void in a number of senses. Discursively she is constructed as driven by sexual practice and her own sex drive; arguably to beyond the point of her own control. We see her having anonymous sex with a model she photographs (after just learning her Aunt/mother figure has died) having anonymous sex in a mortuary at a funeral parlour just after viewing her Aunt’s body (next to a body on a mortuary slab).

Frankie also has sex with her male best friend who is engaged and eventually her female ex-partner who has just moved in with a new lesbian partner.

One aspect of Frankie’s character connects clearly with the butchness of Shane in The L Word. This is in both aesthetic and act:

Shane is a character whose actions, ‘equate with promiscuity and emotional detachment’3. Even in these two (arguably) mainstream shows there is a clear stereotype emerging in terms of ‘butch’ lesbian sexuality. This construction is emotionally void in sexual act and often immoral in relationships. This is hugely problematic for the ‘butch’ identity as it mimics the feminist considerations of masculinity as problematic in a lesbian feminist sense4.

But Frankie also communicates some familiar discourses around bisexuality. In The L Word bisexuality is constructed as ideologically problematic as an ‘interim’ and low in the order of discourse which prioritises the solid categories of lesbian or straight5. TLW’s bisexual characters such as Jenny Schechter (seemingly bisexual in Season 1 and 2) are constructed as unbalanced at best. We also saw ‘quirky’ Alice Pieszecki, who again had a ‘dwindling’ bisexuality throughout the show’s run. Between them, these two characters relate the insecure, the unfaithful, the cheater, the unsettled; essentially there is a characterisation of bisexual characters as indecisive and unable to manage their lives in a way that is always successful and balanced. These are all aspects of Frankie’s character which are clearly communicated by the narrative in Lip Service.

The most pertinent point is that these constructions are making the invisible visible6 – this is the stereotype that is appearing to develop in lesbian focused drama involving the 25-35 age group. These dramas are constructing what it means to be butch or bisexual to both a gay and straight audience whose prior understanding of gay culture might be vast or nil; and it is the latter which may be more problematic for identity politics and assumptions about bisexual and gay lifestyles.

What is problematic about such emerging representations is that they are pushed to the fore in the audience mind, and whilst avoiding any ‘hypodermic’ assumptions or accusations that these representations are either ‘good’ or ‘bad’, it’s important to remember that western screens are not awash with lesbian focused dramas. The stereotyping outlined above can only encourage far more audience research to understand the development, impact and formation of stereotypes and their ideologies in the minds of both gay and straight audiences.

Image Credits:
1. The Cast of Lip Service
2. Frankie
3. Frankie’s Anonymous Sex
4. Shane

Please feel free to comment.

1. Cahalane, Claudia (2010). Lip Service is groundbreaking – whatever its star says, The Guardian (London: Guardian Media Group). http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/13/lip-service-groundbreaking-lesbian-drama. Accessed 15 October 2010.
2. Davies, F (2008). ‘Paradigmatically Oppositional Representations: Gender and Sexual identity in The L Word’ IN Beirne, R (2008). Televising Queer Women, Palgrave MacMillan: New York.
3. Davies, F (2008). ‘Paradigmatically Oppositional Representations: Gender and Sexual identity in The L Word’ IN Beirne, R (2008). Televising Queer Women, Palgrave MacMillan: New York. 186.
4. Jeffreys, S (2003). Unpacking Queer Politics, Polity: Malden MA, USA.
5. Davies, F (2008). ‘Paradigmatically Oppositional Representations: Gender and Sexual identity in The L Word’ IN Beirne, R (2008). Televising Queer Women, Palgrave MacMillan: New York.
6. Dyer, R (2003). The Matter of Images: Essays on Representation 2nd ED, Routledge: London.

This week something happened that caught my attention. This was something that hadn’t seemed to have happened in the UK for a while, complaints about gay representation. The reason for this was the appearance of two gay men in bed together in the top BBC soap opera EastEnders. There were 125 complaints to the BBC over the scene, many claiming it would ‘confuse’ children at the UK pre-watershed time of 7.30pm; in the UK 125 complaints is noteworthy in regulatory terms.

The scene in question showed two gay male characters (Christian Clarke and Syed Massood) in bed together – naked from the waist up. The scene was certainly intimate but not sexual. The characters are actually long-term partners and were shown in each other’s arms in an intimate embrace. This is a couple who are planning their civil partnership and attempting to adopt a child. By any standards this storyline escapes the sexual ‘predatory gay’ discourse of yesteryear. But, the complaints certainly raise some questions about the nature of what intimacy between gay couples means to some UK audiences, especially when shown during primetime.

Whilst the characters involved in EastEnders are involved in a long term relationship – it seems that some of the national audience are still unforgiving when a scene more than hints that they may have had sex within the last hour, are close, committed and intimate. Why is this?

Is the playing field actually ‘straight’ when it comes to representing sexual preference, act, and commitment pre-watershed in the UK?

EastEnders appears to have overstepped the boundary of the non sexual gay man. Such characters as ‘Will’ and ‘Jack’ in Will & Grace are the predominant examples of such a non sexual discourse, hinting at their sexuality and sexual acts whilst virtually never actually realising this as part of the narrative. Gay sexuality has been increasingly represented in UK television soap opera since the 1980s and has informed a number of similarly stereotypical and oft seen character types and narratives. These characters can be sexual, but only if for the most part ‘they’ are single and any intimate act, visit to a gay area, or interaction with a wider group of gay people takes place off screen. This further highlights what appears to be a problematic issue with the particular construction of gayness on EastEnders; it can be considered ideologically rare and hegemonically challenging. I believe that these gay characters just weren’t enough of an ‘other’ in lifestyle terms for a number of reasons.

The unspoken pre-watershed ideological rules seem to be that gays are never to have sex or even hint at it; it’s a closeted issue. It is certainly suggestible that the major issue with the discourse present in EastEnders is that it is too close to the hetero-normative lifestyle. In turn it is possible to posit that the ideology of the gay lifestyle for some of the straight audience may not include romance, commitment, monogamous sex, a long term future or a family – all factors which are part of the current narrative between Christian and Massood.

This appears to be in opposition to the most visible, typified and overtly sexualised representations (post-watershed) such as Queer as Folk and Lip Service which have been shown with little complaint, albeit to much smaller audience than EastEnders commands. It appears that whilst gay culture and lifestyle can be represented diversely in what is labelled ‘gay drama’ this doesn’t seem to reach primetime soap. It seems that through scheduling and commissioning diverse representations of the gay lifestyle have only appeared when distinctly labelled as the ‘other’, and for the complaining 125 and others upset by EastEnders this has potentially become an acceptable norm.

Arguably this problem has occurred because the construction of reality in EastEnders is one where gay characters live, breathe, socialise, shop, fall in love, drink and die alongside the group the majority of the audience can relate to in terms of believability, credibility and verisimilitude, and this is hugely challenging in terms of dominant discourse. This isn’t a dramatic visit to the gay quarter of Manchester (Queer as Folk UK) or an insight into the lifestyle, relationships of and sexual acts of lesbians in Glasgow (Lip Service). Instead EastEnders is reminiscent of the audience’s own contextualisation of reality: their front door step, street, pub, bar, nightclub and community. This particular representation wasn’t ‘tailored’ for the heterosexual audience as the stereotypical ‘gay culture’ and neither did it encourage the non-sexual stereotype seen famously in Will & Grace. Perhaps Richard Dyer encapsulates this issue best when he states, ‘a major fact about being gay is that it doesn’t show…the person’s person alone does not show that he or she is gay,’ and whilst it was quite clear from the scene these characters were gay Dyer’s point is relevant because their actions, their interaction, and the narrative surrounding them was not.1 Arguably this settled gay relationship and the narrative context was a little too close to home to the normalised discourse of heterosexual society for some people to deal with.

In all this the BBC are to be commended, and I will let them have the final word of this column via their response to the complainants. Perhaps in the not too distant future more broadcasters will take the same stance and develop more rounded and diverse representations of gay relationships for screening pre-watershed and on prime time television. Hopefully this challenge to the norm will not seem as shocking to some in the long term future:

“EastEnders aims to reflect real life, and this means including and telling stories about characters from many different backgrounds, faiths, religions and sexualities.

We approach our portrayal of homosexual relationships in exactly the same way as we do heterosexual relationships, ensuring depictions of affection or sexuality between couples are suitable for pre-watershed viewing.

We would also point out that same-sex civil partnerships became law in December 2005, giving equal rights to gay couples in the UK. The BBC cannot discriminate by treating gay characters differently to heterosexual characters.”2

Image Credits:

1. EastEnders, Christian and Syed
2. Syed and Christian Inquire About Adoption
3. Christian and Syed
4. Christian and Syed Making Their Bed

Please feel free to comment.

1. Dyer, R. (2002) The Matter of Images: Essays on Representation. London: Routledge, 19.
2. Geen, J (2011) ‘125 complaints over EastEnders gay bed scene’, Pink News, 14 June 2011,
   (last accessed 16/6/11 at http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/06/14/125-complaints-over-eastenders-gay-bed-scene