Rizzoli & Isles' Gay Panic

Chelsea Gibbs
CTCS 412
11/15/13

(How a Gay Panic Turned an Ostensibly Feminist Show into a Misogynistic Mess)

What do you propose to argue in this paper?
What is the major pitfall of having one of your main characters be “a strong woman”? Someone might interpret her as gay, which according to some demographics, is the most horrible thing that could ever be said about a fictional character. When Rizzoli & Isles premiered in 2010, a predominantly-lesbian audience popped up in light of the show’s hot-n-heavy subtext. It immediately became a focus in interviews regarding the show, where it has been insistently shot down by the actresses, showrunner, and (in online comments) the show’s target audience of middle-aged women in middle America. Since this fallout during the first season, it would seem that several steps have been taken to “de-gay” the show. In doing this, what started as a feminist text has devolved into exactly the opposite. I suppose in addition to arguing this theory (gay panic→misogyny), I’d like to question a show’s obligation to educate or indulge its fans.

How will your argument proceed? Main structural steps?
-examples of shows which have been influenced by outspoken fans (Glee, Xena). wink/nudge cs. condescension (advertising for Rizzoli & Isles is shamelessly dripping with queerbait, but the episodes themselves try to distance the characters from that as much as possible)
-audience response: gay!
-alternative audience response: not gay!/how dare you
-show's response to the responses/interviews
-how the gay panic is reflected on the show.

Methodology: the show itself, interviews with actresses Sasha Alexander and Angie Harmon (Conan O'Brian, The Advocate, Jimmy Kimmel, TV guide), comment boards/facebook page, articles waiting to be discovered

What is the projected conclusion/outcome? How will this paper contribute to large discussions in the fields of media, gender, sexuality and feminism?
The projected conclusion is that misogyny is preferred over “a-woman-don’t-need-no-man” mentality but also over just implied homosexuality. In its four-season run, the show has gotten increasingly silly, the tone has gotten increasingly sexist, and the relationship between the title characters has become increasingly shallow. In a broader sense, I hope this addresses the issue of ethics in programming: isn’t it bad enough to lure in a minority demographic with false advertising? Do we have to then also go the extra step and rob these characters not only of their closeness, but of their respectability as well? In doing this, the show only works to reinforce the condescending notion that all women want (even “strong” ones) is a man to worry over or solve their problems—all while hiding under the guise of a feminist text, which makes it all the more insidious.