Diversity

[b2sb09]

I always felt a reaction to Charlie and Joey was exactly what they were going for, hence the whole selling it as a ‘controversial storyline’ and running a Today Tonight segment specifically interviewing those opposed to the story. It was one big publicity stunt. They drummed up the drama for the show, deliberately created the controversy, then complained and have since used it as an excuse to pretend the LGBTI community doesn’t exist. Besides that, the backlash was more of a wet lettuce that barely created a ruffle and if anything, I think there was more anger at the way they treated the characters, got rid of Joey, then proceeded to ignore gay characters completely.

Neighbours, with a G rating, introduced its gay characters with little fan fare and fuss, and surprise surprise, little complaint. No newspapers, news segments about outrage of a family show daring to show gay people as normal. Other shows also have gay characters, Janet King even has a lesbian as it’s main, titled character because she was the one character from Crownies that resonated the most with the audience. Bold and the Beautiful is on during children’s viewing and it has gay characters, yet I don’t see Channel 10 running from the show. There’s been gay characters in Australian TV shows for decades, so it's not as if this is a new phenomenon, and the world hasn’t ended. Except apparently for Home and Away.

Being a small country town is no excuse either. The endless parade of violent criminals, murderers etc have no trouble finding Summer Bay, and is a perfect example of the writers willingness to ignore any real representation of a small town for the sake of drama whenever it suits them.

I honestly can’t see any reason for Home and Away to not have had an LGTBI character since Charlie and Joey 7 years ago. 7 years is a lifetime in TV for them to be ignoring a part of the community the show purports to represent. What are they worried about? They don't care when people complain about the violence, the drugs, the crime, the bed hopping or anything else, but a few small voices protest a same-sex couple and that is the one time they decide to heed the wishes of a few? Sorry, but I always found Home and Away and Channel 7's response pathetic and I still do.

[cadyctslover]

Is it a Network 7-specific thing?

From the sounds of it TEN's programming is representative, but what about the rest of 7's shows? - a question for Aussie viewers.

[atrus]

On 06/03/2016 at 0:35 AM, dee123 said:

I honestly feel one of the reasons is they have all these characters hooking up with each other and if you have a gay character that takes one out of the equation and you know, that actually requires more writing than say the bare minimum where if they don't know what to do with a couple of characters, they just put them together.

If that's the reason, then it's a damning indictment of the writing team. Neighbours has proven time and time again over the last few years that it's perfectly possible to integrate regular gay characters into the show, without in any way impeding the rest of the cast's interminable merry-go-round of love triangles. That show's depictions of gay characters aren't perfect, but they have been a massive step forward.

As far as Home & Away is concerned, I suspect this has hardly anything to do with the day-to-day writing team, and far more to do with the abject terror and/or prejudice of whoever is calling the shots on this issue from on high. I would pay good money to see the relevant documentation, because there must surely be some. Either that or it's a policy operated on a nod and a wink.

A particularly pertinent question to my mind is that, if somebody really has laid down a law about this post-2009, how did the storyline about Spencer and his cyber-stalker slip through the net? Presumably because it featured a highly negative depiction of homosexuality, and was therefore perceived as somehow more palatable?

I'd argue that this goes beyond backward - it's downright deplorable. This is a show that continues to count teens as one of its key target demographics - what sort of message is this policy sending to an entire generation of young people, for many of whom seeing positive depictions of alternative sexualities in the media is an invaluable part of coming to terms with their identities? 

[dee123]

6 hours ago, atrus said:

If that's the reason, then it's a damning indictment of the writing team. Neighbours has proven time and time again over the last few years that it's perfectly possible to integrate regular gay characters into the show, without in any way impeding the rest of the cast's interminable merry-go-round of love triangles. That show's depictions of gay characters aren't perfect, but they have been a massive step forward.

As far as Home & Away is concerned, I suspect this has hardly anything to do with the day-to-day writing team, and far more to do with the abject terror and/or prejudice of whoever is calling the shots on this issue from on high. I would pay good money to see the relevant documentation, because there must surely be some. Either that or it's a policy operated on a nod and a wink.

A particularly pertinent question to my mind is that, if somebody really has laid down a law about this post-2009, how did the storyline about Spencer and his cyber-stalker slip through the net? Presumably because it featured a highly negative depiction of homosexuality, and was therefore perceived as somehow more palatable?

I'd argue that this goes beyond backward - it's downright deplorable. This is a show that continues to count teens as one of its key target demographics - what sort of message is this policy sending to an entire generation of young people, for many of whom seeing positive depictions of alternative sexualities in the media is an invaluable part of coming to terms with their identities? 

This is the show that had THREE killer psycho lesbians...

[Blaxland 89]

Who are they? Zoe obviously. Who are the other two? 

[dee123]

1 hour ago, Blaxland 89 said:

Who are they? Zoe obviously. Who are the other two? 

Her girlfriend Tracey Thompson who was a cop but actually working along side Zoe all along. And before Tracey, Sarah Lewis was her girlfriend. I guess Sarah was bisexual, plus seeing she was addicted to drugs it's perhaps not fair to call her a psycho like the other two were.

Still, all said and done not exactly glowing representations.

[Matt]

10 hours ago, dee123 said:

This is the show that had THREE killer psycho lesbians...

I'd also like to just point out that the last three finales have involved female teachers who have gone crazy and killed people... How does that portray female teachers? I don't think that's just a sexuality issue...

[Red Ranger 1]

To be fair, of the three "psycho lesbians", one was probably straight pretending to be gay(Sarah seemed to just be lying to Zoe/Eve so she'd help her escape), one was probably bisexual (since Zoe/Eve was dating Kim and seemed to be genuine about it) and one you'd only know was a lesbian if you read the interviews because there was absolutely nothing on screen to suggest it (Tracey, where queries as to why the heck she was helping Zoe/Eve were met with "Oh, they were a couple, we just didn't mention it in the show").So I doubt anyone but the most devoted noticed.

[Blaxland 89]

There was also Shaunas old flat mate that stalked her not long after she came to the bay! 

[dee123]

15 hours ago, Matt said:

I'd also like to just point out that the last three finales have involved female teachers who have gone crazy and killed people... How does that portray female teachers? I don't think that's just a sexuality issue...

LOL. I didn't even realize this until you pointed it out. This show really is something else.