can be seen as unrealistic because obviously there are gay people in the world, and if a soap opera is supposed to portray a real “slice of life” then they should include gay people in it. Marxist feminists believe that the reason for this is because homosexuality threatens the bourgeois ideal of a nuclear family with two parents and their children living together, which is more effective and efficient for the ruling class. This means that the father and provider has the responsibility of his family and is not likely to “ step out of line” in terms of going against the grain and feeling any revolutionary desires because he cannot afford to lose his job. This is the way that Marxist feminists believe the programme makers (who are part of this powerful ruling class) feel and so they influence their audience by not acknowledging or advocating homosexuality because it isn’t productive in terms of the non-threatening work force.It can be argued that this isn’t the case and gay people have appeared in soap operas, this is true, but these characters are not simply gay people getting on with their lives as productive and valuable members of society. It is always a big storyline and ratings puller when the audience knows that a character is going to announce their sexuality. Then after the “outing” there would be lots of attention dedicated to their problems because of their sexuality and soon after, they inevitably disappear. This is probably the programme – makers answer to the criticism that they ignore homosexuality. Now they include it but dwell on its disruptiveness in the community.This isn’t to say that the programme makers demonstrate how a typical nuclear family live in constant harmony, “ It is important to recognise that soap operas serve to affirm the primacy of the family not by presenting an ideal family, but by portraying a family in constant turmoil and appealing ...
