Popular Culture Review Vol. 13, No. 1, January 2002 | Page 31

“The Whole World^s Gone Gay!’’

27

ready for its first lesbian in a lead role on television? It was admittedly a precarious
situation for a major network. Apparently, ABC wanted to test the waters, which is
probably why the coming out of Ellen progressed so slowly. However, it was soon
apparent that network executives were willing to risk the show (and by extension
the career of DeGeneres) by allowing Ellen to become “a testcase for the nation’s
tolerance” (Cagle 28). Initially it seemed that the risk would pay off, and that the
nation was ready for such overt representation. On the heels of a great deal of
media attention, the infamous ‘'coming out” episode of Ellen aired on April 30,
1997, and it garnered a healthy 36.2 million viewers (Cagle 28). However, in its
subsequent season, the show was quickly criticized for being “too gay” and didactic.
During the season, the show averaged only 12.4 million viewers and, amid some
very public squabbling between DeGeneres and ABC executives, was soon
cancelled (Cagle 28).
In light of the rather rapid demise of Ellen once DeGeneres came out
publicly, I think it important to examine why it seemed so likely at that time to
finally have gay character in a lead role on television, and why the response was
initially so positive. As noted before, prime time television is currently “awash in
gay supporting roles” (Jacobs 21). Ellen DeGeneres was a logical choice for the
transition to a gay lead role and ideal for making homosexuality acceptable to the
public at large because she was seen as “non-threatening” to mainstream audiences.
In part, DeGeneres was less threatening because Ellen was a situation comedy and
DeGeneres herself is a lesbian. As A. J. Jacobs succinctly put it: “she’d be a lesbian
instead of a gay man, which, like it or not, makes her more palatable” (23). The
gay kiss on Roseanne, for example, was also “palatable” because it was both on a
sitcom and between two women. As is well known, our culture more readily accepts
close female relationships; emotional intimacy is perceived to more easily slip
into physical intimacy among women. The so-called “straight” pom industry, for
example, is filled with gayness in the form of lesbianism. However, the sexual
interaction of women in these movies is filtered through the male gaze and perceived
to be part o f a straight male fantasy; this effectively erases the “taint” of
homosexuality and the threat it poses to masculinity. But unrestrained female
(homo)sexuality, overtly put forth and not confmed by the male perspective, as
was the case with Ellen, is seen as threatening and must be contained. Stiaight,
white men, who still hold the majority of power and control in the media, are more
often than not still unwilling to offer representations of homosexual relationships—
female or male—in the mainstream.
This fact, alongside Jacobs’ astute observation that gay men are less
“palatable” to mainstream America than gay women, should then force us to
question the overt homophobia directed at gay males in American culture. Gay
males are still widely considered social and commercial anathema. It is no surprise