English Girl, Irish Heart

As a young girl growing up in a predominantly Protestant suburb of Leicester City in England, my friends found it strange that I was Catholic. I got used to fielding questions like “Do you want to be a nun?” since I was five years old and always answered with a polite, and slightly shy “No!”. I didn’t mind these questions as they were never intended to hurt my feelings, but stemmed from their childlike curiosity about an aspect of me that was different to them.

However, they became even more confused when the subject of my nationality was brought up. “I’m Irish!” I would say, in my midlands accent, which was a terrible mixture of a Birmingham and London accent. This proclamation was met with varying reactions from astonishment right through to downright mockery.

I will never forget the World Cup of 1994. When me and all my schoolmates went soccer mad, and for the first time this tournament meant something to us. Everyone had the Merlin World Cup sticker album and every break all you could hear was choruses of “Got, got, got, got, got, NEED!” as kids tried to find the elusive Jurgen Klinsmann to complete their German squad. It was almost the summer holidays and everyone was excited. On this particular Friday, my elder brother and I were more excited than most because the next day Ireland would be playing Italy in the World Cup. My friend Michael Colangelo, (who was Italian), and I were swapping stickers in the playground when I came across my double of Jason McAteer. He then turned to me and said “What is the difference between Italian Football and Irish Football?” I replied saying that I didn’t know, thinking that Michael, (who I also had a huge crush on) was about to impart some piece of football knowledge that I could impress my Dad with later, when he rudely knocked my stickers to the ground, pushed me over and said “In Italian football we kick the ball, but in Irish football the ball kicks them!” He then ran away laughing, calling me a “Paddy!”. I started crying as it was the first of many times where my Irish nationality would be ridiculed.

A few days later came Monday morning, and the now famous match had already taken place. My brother Daniel and I strode straight into the school yard our heads held high, walked straight up to Michael and said in a very mature and dignified manner, “1-0! 1-0! 1-0! 1-0! 1-0!” we then spent the rest of the day following him around singing “Give It a Lash Jack!” A bittersweet lesson in karma for the young Michael, that Daniel and I were only too happy to dish out.

As I grew up I got used to defending Ireland and the fact that I was Irish to almost all of my friends. So imagine my delight when my parents sat me down one day when I was eleven and told me that we were moving home to Galway. I thought finally I would stop being ridiculed and would be with my cousins and good friends from near where my Grandmother lived in Loughrea, who I spent every summer with as I was growing up. As it turned out I was very naive. I knew it wasn’t going to be as straight forward as that when on my first day in Ireland I pronounced the name of a small village, near my school, Crag-well (in my English accent), when it should have been Craughwell. All my new school mates, my cousins included, laughed and that is when the name-calling started. Yet again I found myself in tears in a playground.

I remember thinking that I just couldn’t win! I was bullied in England for being Irish, I was being bullied in Ireland for being English and as for my family holidays in Armagh, where my other Grandparents lived, the kids didn’t know what to make of us and decided to beat us up anyway, just so they had their bases covered.

Luckily, within a few weeks I lost my English accent. A few months after that Brendan and Gerard, who still bullied me on a regular basis, stood in front of me in the playground and wouldn’t let me pass them to play football. In unison they put their fists to their hearts and started humming the tune to The Soldier’s Song. I stood their and waited till they had stopped laughing over how clever they were. I put my hand to my heart and this little English girl, with an Irish heart sang word for word and note for note the entire song of Amrhan na bhFiann.

The L Word

In what ways do television shows like The L Word convey and/or contradict society’s perceptions of lesbians and of the lesbian community as a whole? The L Word is a television show made by lesbians, (writers, producers and actresses) about lesbians. Through this essay I will discuss this show’s representation of lesbians and the lesbian community. Analysing the show through feminism, patriarchal and hegemonic outlooks, which we, as a society are influenced by when considering our preconceptions about the lesbian community as a whole. The media today sees a rise in popularity of, what is known as, “Gay TV”. Shows such as Will & Grace, Queer Eye For The Straight Guy and Queer As Folk explore homosexuality in an open forum. However, in all of these shows the gay characters are mostly all male. Why are lesbian characters/shows not as popular or numerous? In the history of the media, any sign of physical affection between two women, especially in America, has been met with controversy and usually a fall out. The first on-screen lesbian kiss, shown in drama L.A. Law in 1991 resulted in, C.J. the character of the bisexual lawyer, being written out of the show. The arrival of TLW , with its ensemble cast of lesbian characters is groundbreaking television, crashing through barriers not yet attempted by television networks. But why up to this point has lesbianism been somewhat of a taboo subject for the media? And is this growing popularity for this TV show and more of its kind a sign of a more open minded and tolerate society? All of these questions and more I will attempt to answer.

It is important, before I discuss the development, production and airing of TLW to discuss past representations of lesbians in the media, concentrating mainly on American television (as this show was first aired in America). In many cases in the past, and continuing today, lesbian characters are first portrayed as straight, or at least their sexuality is not unveiled until we are introduced to the character “as a person”. A typical example of this would be that of comedian and sitcom star Ellen Degeneres, the star of the sitcom Ellen. For the first several seasons of this sitcom Ellen, the character, was a heterosexual. Audiences were introduced to this funny, intelligent, witty character. That was until Ellen, the actress, came out as a lesbian. Then, too, the character also “came out”. As in most television shows with a lesbian character, she is first “…depicted as likeable, attractive, good at her job…” and then, later, as a lesbian. As a result, it gives the impression that the character must be accepted before conveying her sexual orientation. Television shows feel the need to produce standard token lesbian characters in conformance to what they believe will not shock or upset their audience. “Television packages oppositional values and repackages them within dominant terms.” These “dominant terms” stem from the ideals of hegemony. Hegemony is a basis on which fundamental aspects of our society are determined by the ruling class of that society. In the case of the Television, this ruling class is made up of straight, white male network executives who make all decisions concerning televisual content. In my opinion, lesbians, (unless portrayed in an affable, and therefore unthreatening, light) are restricted from our screens due to the patriarchal influences brought about by these executives. “He [man] confirms his image of us [women] – of what we have to be in order to be acceptable by him”. Patriarchy sees gay women as an affront to the very core of its beliefs, due, not only, to the fact that a lesbian is independent, but, more importantly, due to the fact that a lesbian does not need a man at all. Therefore, “to theorize about female-female desire…is precisely to envision the taking apart of this supposedly intractable patriarchal scholarship.” This is also why gay male characters are not seen as big as a threat to patriarchy as lesbians are. However, the characters in TLW are most certainly different from these past representations. All characters are conveyed as gay from the start, its examination of these women’s sexuality is the main theme of the show, which can be seen even in the slogan used to advertise the show, “Same sex. Different city.” Yet again there are still some obvious patriarchal influences. All of the main characters are affluent, white, attractive females. Especially in the case of Bette, a successful art curator, who is hard working, intelligent and in a happy seven year relationship with her partner. “…female characters, for example, are constructed as ‘strong women’ with the help of those two televisual signs of feminism, ‘power dressing and assertiveness training.’” The irony is that the media have not started to portray strong female characters on our screens due to a need for society to see such characters or to represent this minority, it is, like all other businesses, mainly to do with profit. Women are the largest consumers of television serials and dramas, advertisers know this and target women as a group due to their buying power. “…the collation of feminism with consumerism means the feminist audiences “count” for programmes in a way that few other minority groups do.” Although it is important to note that lesbianism is different from feminism. Lesbianism is a small aspect of feminism which is somewhat sidelined in favour of feminism as a whole. Feminists resent being assumed to be gay and as a result lesbians are often overlooked by the very people one would expect to support them. Radical lesbians believe that lesbianism should be the forefront of feminism as “…lesbianism was an example of feminism in action and preached that the only true feminists were those who renounced relations with the opposite sex entirely.” However, this is not the case.

Queer theory, which came to the forefront in the 1990’s, examined premises dealing with homosexuality in both females and males. It acts as a vehicle for the politics of homosociality. But yet again, lesbians are again marginalized, “To equate lesbian existence with homosexuality because each is stigmatised is to erase female reality once again.” Lesbianism is therefore independent of both feminism and queer theory. This is obvious to see through the development of the show. The executive producer of the show, Ilene Chaiken approached the television network Showtime to pitch the idea for this show. At first the network resisted. It wasn’t until the very same network aired the American version of British television show Queer As Folk, that the concept for TLW was even considered as a possible show. If it wasn’t for the success of the predeccessing show about male homosexuality then it is very possible TLW would not have been made. This represents the hierarchy in queer theory between lesbians and gay males. (Again, it is important to note that the success of Queer As Folk was very profitable for the network and airing a “lesbian version” would no doubt attract yet even more attention). However, queer theory does outline many of the issues surrounding lesbianism and the quest for equal rights in the eyes of the law, public, employment etc. The storylines portrayed in TLW act as a vehicle for highlighting gay rights. An example of this would be in the character of Dana. A ‘closeted’ professional tennis player, Dana must hide her sexuality in order to succeed in her career. She is advised not to publicise her sexuality as advertisers will not endorse her and therefore her career will be effectively ended. (It is interesting to note here that after legendary women’s tennis player, Billie Jean King ‘outed’ herself as a lesbian she lost all of her advertising endorsements.) This mirrors real life issues dealing with equality in the workplace for lesbians and gay men. Other storylines deal with such issues as gay couple parenting and gay marriage. In this effect, TLW acts as a positive force in the process of accentuating gay rights and therefore, educating the audience as to what the lesbian community have to endure politically. As a result, it shapes our assumptions of the lesbian community as a whole. But, due to the sexual content of the show the majority of the audience of the show is made up of lesbian women and straight women. Therefore, the opinions voiced in the show are not accessible to a wider audience than one would hope.The producers of the show believe there is an “open and receptive dialogue with the straight, white male executives” but an important criticism is that of the sexual content of the show. There are numerous scenes in each of the one-hour long episodes of the show. Most viewers admit to watching the show for its sexual content. This contradicts the beliefs of the producers of the show who aimed to create a show depicting the trials and tribulations of their lesbian characters, concentrating on relationships, life issues and careers of the “dynamic, intellectual, inspiring group of women.” However, by showing innumerable scenes of detailed sexual situations are they not conforming to the pressures of what is expected of a show about attractive lesbians? The answer lies in whether or not the scenes are erotic or pornographic. “The erotic has often been misnamed by men and used against women.” Whereas, some straight males will find the scenes to be purely pornographic and view them for their own titillation, some lesbian women would disagree and be of the opinion that the erotic scenes are vital in order to fully examine lesbianism. “…we have often turned away from the exploration and consideration of the erotic as a source of power and information, confusing it with its opposite, the pornographic.” In the past, television shows which had gay women characters would not show the physical relationship between two women, even though it is a fundamental aspect of a lesbian relationship. Love scenes between two women rarely went past an affectionate hug. Therefore, is the depiction of these intimate scenes merely to publicise an important part of lesbian relationships, which has long been hidden by the media? There is no doubt that the sex scenes are almost always between two characters who are emotionally involved and since, “…pornography is a direct denial of the power of the erotic, for it represents the suppression of true feeling.” it can be said that the scenes in question are an important and fundamental part of the plot of the show.

Surprisingly, many lesbian viewers of the show believe that it is not diversified enough. Some of the opinion that depicting each of the shows main characters as attractive, feminine lesbians is patronising and fails to include other lesbian identities such as the ‘dyke’. A dyke is “Not only a lesbian but also a ‘masculine woman’, the dyke, in this definition, blurs the borderline between masculinity and femininity.” By not showing this aspect, TLW fails to highlight a very substantial characteristic of the lesbian community. Therefore, it cannot be a true representation. The people involved in the making of TLW admit that they “certainly can’t represent all lesbians at every end of the spectrum”, but Ilene Chaiken also says that “there are a lot of subcultures within the lesbian community and I think we’ll portray them as they come into our stories.” One should also note that by showing the ‘lipstick lesbian’ as the main character type makes the show more accessible to straight women, who will be able to compare themselves to these more familiar characters in every other way except for the characters sexual orientation. As a result, this will aid in widening the audience and therefore, educating more people about the lesbian community.

In my opinion, TLW is a show that is a making a step in the right direction towards highlighting a minority group that is marginalized in numerous ways. It is trying to educate people in the ways of the lesbian community by depicting, likeable, strong female characters that can act as role models for any women, gay or straight. Any information supplied on the gay community that can help obliterate the ignorance that fuels homophobia and therefore, help create a more tolerable society can only be described as a good thing. I believe the show does emphasise important issues for gay rights, which, like any other human rights deserved to be acknowledged and granted to all people, despite their sexual orientation. I also am of the opinion that the sexual content is essential in order to fully explore the dynamic of a lesbian relationship, as this is where the difference from heterosexuality is based. I do not think that it is a pornographic show in any way. Its representations of lesbians are somewhat lacklustre, but I believe in time, as the show grows and becomes more popular it will begin to include more diverse lesbian characters which help quash old stereotypes of lesbians and the lesbian community as a whole. As to it’s effect on society, it is hard to say if the show is influential enough to cause any worldwide difference towards the attitudes towards gay women. However, this is the first show solely about lesbians and their lifestyles. It is a huge success worldwide and therefore, more and more shows will continue to be made that will further accentuate the plight of the lesbian community. This will aid in educating more and more people, eventually leading to a social change. Through this essay I have set out the difficulties met by the production staff of this show when setting out to create this very important and influential television show, but also how they overcame them. I have highlighted how the show conforms to patriarchal and hegemonic views of lesbianism and also how it has tried to convey a true representation of the lesbian community by resisting these same ideologies.

Bibliography

Phelan, Shane Playing With Fire: Queer Politics, Queer Theories, Routledge, 1997.

Heller, Dana Cross Purposes: Lesbians, Feminists, and the Limits of Alliance, Indiana University Press, 1997.

Abelove, Henry Etal The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader, Routeledge, 1993.

Lecture notes on Hegemony

Quotes taken from cast, producer and directors interviews on The L Word DVDs.