Jean/Diane and Sidney: A Gen X/Millennial Love Story

The 2017 Netflix series "Gypsy" is a fascinating case study of how two women from different generations approach self-identity, sexuality and relationships. The woman of the "Gen X" generation (likely born in the late 1960's or early 1970's) is Jean Holloway (aka "Diane"), a successful therapist working in Manhattan and living in Fairfield County, Connecticut. She and her husband Michael, an attorney, have a nine year old daughter named Dolly.

Dr. Jean Holloway (played by Naomi Watts)

The woman of the “Millennial” generation is Sidney Pierce (likely born in the early 1990's), a barista chasing the dream of making it big with her band.

Sid Pierce (played by Sophie Cookson)

She is single, lives in Bushwick, and works at a coffee shop in lower Manhattan. 

Through information she garners during her therapy sessions, Jean/Diane becomes intrigued with a patient’s ex-girlfriend (who just happens to be Sid). She is so intrigued that she conspires to meet Sid at the coffee shop where she works, introducing herself as an alternate persona (“Diane”). A spark immediately ignites between them 🔥.

Jean/Diane visits Sid's coffee shop

Sid flirts with Jean/Diane

Much of the drama throughout the 10 episodes focuses on the clandestine relationship that evolves between Jean/Diane and Sid.

When You Were Born Makes All the Difference

As a Gen X’er, Jean/Diane grew up during the tumultuous 1970's and early 1980's, an era of much cultural and social upheaval. One of the most profound transformations of the era was the women’s liberation movement, as well as the related sexual revolution. With the advent of the birth control pill in the 1960's, women for the first time in history had access to birth control. This had a profound effect on women’s lives, as an aspect of personal agency. A symptom of the sexual revolution was an increase in the divorce rate, and thus children growing up in broken homes (often resulting in estrangement from the father). My own life is almost a clichéd characterization of Gen X; I was born in the fall of 1968; my parents divorced when I was 9. I was definitely a latchkey kid, and I was somewhat estranged from my father.

Gen X and Gay Liberation

My experience as a teenager and young adult of the Gen X generation was filtered through the cultural and societal norms of the time. Gay liberation was still a fledgling enterprise that hadn’t made dramatic inroads yet (no gays serving in the military legally, and certainly no gay marriage or even civil unions). Civil rights for the LGBT community were still caught in the awkward fits and starts of social progress. Though the queens of the Stonewall riots launched a revolution in 1969 to champion gay rights, it wasn’t until decades later that their personal courage manifested as cultural and legal acceptance for the LGBT community.

Queens at the Stonewall Riots of 1969, NYC

And of course, the AIDS crisis of the 1980's devastated the gay community, just as we were beginning to make progress on cultural and legal acceptance. For me personally, I was subject to the cultural taboo of gayness, which was deeply alienating and profoundly confusing for a girl quite certain that she is gay. Coming from a relatively conservative family (my parents were recovering Catholics from the mid-West), being gay wasn’t something that was “normal” or “accepted.” It was tainted with an “otherness” that colored my entire world view. It wasn’t until my college years in the late 1980's that I started reading feminist literature and truly got in touch, so to speak, with my lesbian identity (i.e., had my first girlfriend and bought my first pair of Docs).

Who Are You as a Gen X'er?

Jean/Diane is clearly a product of the Gen X generation. Growing up in the 1970's and early 1980's in upstate New York and Connecticut, where "normal" is the only acceptable avenue, she likely absorbed all the messaging of the time, in which gayness was on the margins of society. There were few images of lesbians or bisexual women in the media or in popular culture. Remember the era; this was before Melissa Etheridge released her not-so-subtle eponymous album about the trials of lesbian love (1986).

The cover of Melissa Etheridge's first album

This was before Ellen rocked the world by coming out on her TV show and then dishing to Oprah (1997); this was before Rosie O’Donnell came out (2002). And it was long before the L Word (2004), long before the emergence of Ruby Rose’s sexually fluid identity (2012), and long before Ellen Page came out (2014). This was also long before Lindsey Lohan declared, regarding her relationship with Samantha Ronson, “yeah, I like a girl; And?” (2009). This was also long before Miley Cyrus described herself as “pansexual” and had a casual dalliance with Victoria’s Secret model Stella Maxwell (2015).

And can you imagine, if in the early 1980's, a Hollywood "It girl" casually announced, during her opening monologue hosting Saturday Night Live, that she is "so gay"? And imagine that this same Hollywood star started dating a Victoria Secret's model named Stella Maxwell. Well, that's exactly what Hollywood "It girl" Kristen Stewart has done (in 2017, that is; not in the 1980's).

Kristen Stewart and Stella Maxwell

It’s difficult to characterize, but the lack of positive images of lesbians in the cultural milieu undoubtedly had a profound influence on Jean/Diane as she came of age. What we don’t know is the impact that Jean/Diane’s family may have had on her identity as she was growing up, though it seems likely that she was strongly influenced by a domineering mother and an absent father. It's difficult to overestimate how profoundly Jean/Diane was influenced by her family's values and the culture in which she was raised.

Jean/Diane's mom (played by Blythe Danner)

For Jean/Diane, she had chosen the traditional path of marriage to a man and family. In mid-life, she is finally embracing the idea of a sexually fluid identity. She struggles with the shame associated with her emerging feelings for another woman; the seeds of these struggles were likely sown when she was a girl. Sid awakens in her a deeply repressed sexuality that is bubbling beneath the surface, yearning to break through at the slightest provocation.

To cope with the insecurity about her feelings, she adopts an alternate persona and presents herself to Sid as “Diane,” a single woman working as a journalist. Jean/Diane is very self-conscious about public displays of affection with Sid. In a cafe one afternoon, Sid unsuccessfully tries to kiss Diane. Despite signals that she could be open to it, Diane hesitates and withdraws from Sid when she tries to kiss her. For a Gen X woman from a conservative family, the shame and insecurity is difficult to overcome. Even though Sid assures her that “we’re not doing anything wrong” and that “nobody gives a shit,” Diane wrestles with her feelings and struggles with the meaning of her desire for Sid.

Sid tries to steal a kiss at the cafe

Jean isn't comfortable with Sid's public display of affection

As their dalliance progresses, Diane’s struggles continue. She is compelled to seek out Sid at the rehearsal studio, but then when she sees her, she informs her that she “can’t do this anymore.”

She crashes Sid's rehearsal, but can't admit she wants to see her

Sid isn't sure what "this" is, because they haven't done much more than play an elaborate game of cat-and-mouse so far. She is frustrated by what she perceives as Diane’s lack of honesty about the obvious sexual tension between them.

Sid has just about had it with Jean/Diane's unwillingness to admit she's in to her

This is an example of their different approaches; while Diane is reticent in the face of such burgeoning sexual tension, and vacillates between being "all in" and escaping, Sid is bold and “goes after what she wants.”

As Jean/Diane grapples further with this push-pull force she feels towards Sid, she experiences glimpses of confidence. In fact it was Jean/Diane who kissed Sid first, randomly showing up outside the rehearsal studio and surprising Sid with a rather intimate kiss.

Jean/Diane boldly goes there

Afterwards, Sid is rather blown away by Jean/Diane's newfound boldness.

Sid is awestruck

As her trust grows, Jean/Diane feels more comfortable in revealing her feelings to Sid. Diane confides in her that growing up, she had never had any girl crushes. 

“It didn’t really work that way for me; I mean, yeah, I was always into men,” Jean/Diane tells Sid.

Jean/Diane confides in Sid as they toke it up (shotgun kiss coming!)

What isn’t clear is whether Jean/Diane never had any girl crushes because she was conditioned by her family and culture not to, or whether she genuinely just didn’t have those feelings. Jean/Diane herself is puzzled by this question, remarking, 

“I just think if you’re so focused on what you should feel, you don't really know what it is you do feel.”

Was Jean/Diane so influenced by familial and cultural conditioning to feel what she “should” feel that she deeply repressed her authentic sexual nature? It’s quite likely. What is evident is that Sid awakened an authentic force within Diane that had been repressed for decades, and thus the force was all the more ferocious and potent when it emerged.

Who Are You as a Millennial?

Sid’s attitudes and behaviors are clearly a product of the Millennial generation. She frequently declares the Millennial refrain "You only live once," and her devil-may-care attitude certainly reflects this approach to life. She has none of the emotional and psychological baggage that burdens Jean/Diane. Unlike Jean/Diane, Sid is comfortable with openly expressing her sexuality; it would be unnatural for her to dismiss her impulses. 

For Sid, it was perfectly natural to have a serious "madly in love" crush on a woman (specifically, on her 8^th grade social studies teacher). (The way Sid describes it, it sounds borderline obsessive.) Sid grew up in a much more progressive culture; one in which gayness is generally accepted, positive gay images are widespread, and marriage equality evolved to become the norm. (If you’d told me in 1990 that marriage equality would be the law of the land 25 years later, I would’ve responded with a resounding “no way!”)  Sid has the advantage of being more in touch with her feelings, desires and emotions, because she matured in an entirely different cultural milieu than Jean/Diane did. 

Sid’s sexual identity is fluid; she dates and has sex with men and women. Her gender expression, though predominately feminine, is also fluid, as she often wears classic lesbian fashion, and behaves in an aggressive manner (for example, telling her male colleague to “suck my dick” as an insult).

Sid even professes to have a thing for older women; this makes Jean/Diane quite appealing to her. (The fact that Jean/Diane is a "lesbian virgin" makes her even more appealing to Sid as a sexual conquest). At one point, Sid makes fun of their age difference, teasing Jean/Diane: 

“So have you always been into robbing the cradle?” 

Sid gives Jean/Diane a shotgun kiss

Sid has a sense of humor about sexuality, fostered by her openness and frankness about it. Jean/Diane finds her openness and frankness intriguing and appealing.

Though some critics have savaged the Jean/Diane character for being morally adrift, and perhaps even a sociopath, I completely disagree with this assessment. I have a deep sense of compassion for the Jean/Diane character. Her struggles with her burgeoning identity deserve our compassion rather than our judgment and scorn. In my mind, she is a product of a repressed coming of age. 

Jean/Diane is only able to tap into her genuine feelings through an unlikely alchemy of a particularly charismatic young woman and an evolved, more progressive, gay-friendly culture. And now that those feelings have been unleashed, there is no way for Jean/Diane to “go back” to the way she was before she met Sid. In episode 10, Jean/Diane finds herself in the unenviable position of having to reckon with both her infidelity, as well as her newly aroused sexual feelings for another woman. To the dismay of legions of LGBT Gypsy fans, she seems to be leaning towards reconciliation with her husband. 

In a bizarre twist, Sid and Jean/Diane crash Sid's ex-boyfriend's engagement party. At one point during her conversation with Sid, Jean/Diane suggests to Sid that she ought to consider reuniting with her ex-boyfriend Sam.

Jean/Diane retreats from Sid

Of course, Sid is aghast and utterly crestfallen by her suggestion and its implications. For Sid, her powerful feelings for Jean/Diane are all-encompassing; reuniting with Sam is not an option and should not be in the realm of the conversation. This is a serious red flag for Sid and causes her distress.

Sid can sense Jean/Diane's retreat and is devastated

This situation between Jean/Diane and Sid is an artifact of two different generations of women and their inherent attitudes, behaviors and baggage. For Jean/Diane, the crushing effect of sexual repression victimizes both herself and Sid, and threatens to destroy their fledgling relationship. 

Unfortunately, the story line between Jean/Diane and Sid will remain untold, unless Netflix decides to reverse its decision of cancelling the series (or, in an even more unlikely scenario, another streaming platform or cable channel picks it up). 

If you're interesting in how the story unfolds, there are avenues to make your voice heard:

• Login to IMDB and take this poll; vote for Gypsy!

• Use the tvtime app to increase the visibility of Gypsy.

• Sign this petition to Bring Back Gypsy.

• Call Netflix customer service at 1(866) 579-7172 and request season 2 of Gypsy.

• Go into the Netflix help center and click "Request TV shows or movies." Then, enter "Gypsy season 2" for all three titles and then click Submit Suggestion.

• Login to twitter and tweet to @netflix, @reedhastings (CEO of Netflix) and use the hashtags #renewGypsy #GypsyNetflix #BringBackGypsy

• Join this Facebook group

A Letter to Netflix CEO Reed Hastings

Mailed on September 7, 2017

Dear Mr. Hastings,

Allow me to introduce myself. I am a loyal Netflix subscriber and have been for many years. My partner Patricia used to work as a Sales manager for Pitney Bowes in the Bay Area in the late 1990s; she fondly remembers one of her early customers called Netflix, based in a small location in Los Gatos, that needed shipping equipment to send DVD envelopes to customers. When she told me about it, I remember thinking, “Geez, that seems wildly inefficient; what if we could watch movies over the Internet?” And indeed here we are some 20 years later! I have come to thoroughly enjoy Netflix and its eclectic offerings; from the documentaries to the sleeper movies to the BBC series to the Netflix originals.

The purpose of my letter, however, is to register my dissatisfaction regarding the decision to cancel the Netflix original series “Gypsy.” I understand that as an original content provider, you’ve got to make tough choices regarding where to invest. But in my mind, it’s a poor business decision to commit to a series and then pull the plug after only one season. It has alienated your loyal subscribers who truly found the series to be a compelling work with thematic and artistic merit. I imagine that you and the other decision makers were swayed by the negative reviews; but let me assure you that there is a broad and growing fan base of Gypsy that might surprise you.

I can only imagine the devastation that Lisa Rubin and the cast experienced with the cancellation.  It seems questionable to me that many other fledgling series were greenlit for additional seasons (for example, “Friends from College”), and yet Gypsy was yanked after only one. Often, artistic vision takes time to evolve and unfold gradually. I would strongly argue that the themes of Gypsy are contemporary and compelling and warrant further exploration. I say this especially as a woman and as a member of the LGBTQ community; we need to explore these ideas through our artistic expressions as an aspect of our culture and our shared humanity.

I am quite sure that there are many factors that must be considered when renewing a series for another season (factors that I can’t imagine). I would exhort you to strongly consider these factors within the context of a business decision. Yes, there is risk in greenlighting Gypsy for further development; but I can assure you that there also is upside. As an original content provider, I’m sure you are obsessed with the content funnel. Why dismiss Gypsy? Why not see it as a fledgling property that could be resuscitated with some competent script doctors? I believe strongly that the raw material for a compelling season 2 exists for Gypsy, and that it just needs an investment from the platform that launched it. Consider it a challenge to knock the critics on their respective asses by renewing Gypsy, investing it, and also promoting it. If you’re anything like other business people I know, you thrive on a challenge and are not one to shrink from unlikely odds.

Please, Mr. Hastings, consider your loyal subscriber base. And just as importantly, consider the careers of the creators and cast, knowing that many of these people are the fledgling talent that may someday fill your pipeline for future material. As a provider of original content, please don’t dismiss the talent at your disposal. Instead, offer young talent a platform for growth and evolution, all for the ultimate goal of broadening and deepening your original content portfolio.

Thank you for taking the time to read this letter, Mr. Hastings; and thank you for considering my plea. I’m quite sure that you’ll hear from other loyal subscribers with the same exhortation.

Sincerely,

Sarah Leritz-Higgins
Twitter: @sleritz

What Changes May Have Saved "Gypsy"?

Despite its abrupt cancellation only six weeks after the release of the first season, the original Netflix series “Gypsy” has garnered a burgeoning and dedicated fan base (I among them). The cancellation was undoubtedly the result of the legions of critics who savaged it mercilessly. Perhaps there was pre-release buzz of the negative reviews that led Netflix to scale back any pending promotion for the show. The lack of promotion, combined with a slew of poor reviews, led to its demise. At the end of the day, Netflix has to choose where to invest, and to the great disappointment of its fan base, Gypsy was unceremoniously axed.

Among the dedicated fan base, we might ponder; what changes could have been made to the show to improve its reception among critics?

The Show's Title

The title doesn’t accurately reflect the show and holds little intrigue to draw in an audience. Anecdotally, Lisa Rubin, the creator and lead writer, had heard Fleetwood Mac’s Gypsy on the radio as she was writing the script. It is a superb song, but its connection to Jean Holloway is tenuous and vague. Using a different title wouldn’t have to necessarily lead to using a different theme song.

Suggested change: 
Change the title to “Dr. Jean Holloway” (but keep the haunting new rendition of Stevie Nicks’ “Gypsy” as the theme song)

Cast

Naomi Watts

As she’s practically in every scene, the actor chosen to portray Jean Holloway has to do some very heavy lifting. Was Naomi Watts the best choice? In my mind, the answer is “Yes! Unequivocally!” I appreciate nuance and subtlety in a performance, and I thought Watts was outstanding. Her understated performance was brilliant. 

But clearly and unfortunately, many critics did not hold such appreciation for her performance. My only hesitation about Watts is that because she had to focus on perfecting an American accent (curling those bloody Rs), she may not have had the luxury to pursue instinctual adjustments to the script that could have benefited various scenes.

Suggested change:
Perhaps Maria Bello would’ve been a better fit for the role. Approximately the same age as Watts, equally gorgeous, and also a hugely gifted actor. (And, specifically, no struggle to perfect an American accent.)

Karl Glusman

As Sam, Sid’s jilted lover, I thought Karl Glusman was miscast. His performance was awkward and self-conscious. I was also unconvinced that Sid would’ve chosen Sam as a long-term boyfriend with co-dependent characteristics . In my mind, there’s simply not a chance that Sam was in Sid’s league.

Suggested change:
Perhaps Miles Teller (approximately same age as Glusman); more handsome, grittier, oozing charisma. Hugely talented actor. Would likely have been appealing to Sid.

Sophie Cookson

Bloody perfection.

There isn’t a soul on the planet who could’ve better portrayed Sid. I think we’ll see great things in the future from this remarkably talented triple threat. Hollywood, look out! Sophie Cookson’s in the house.

All the other members of the cast were superb or better.

P.S. Huge score to land Brenda Vaccaro and Blythe Danner!

Clichés in the Script

This one is the most painful to mention, because in my mind, it’s so easily rectified. Dialog with clichés such as “Mother knows best” and “Don’t judge a book by its cover” is lazy and unforgivable. If the production was rushed to meet a deadline, it ultimately proves that finishing by the deadline isn’t worth the shortcuts that led to a script that was still a work-in-progress.

Suggested change:
Hire a script doctor or two! If there wasn’t time, make time. Here’s where a fledgling series can really be its own worst enemy, by compromising the script just to meet a deadline.

Distracting Sub-plots

Let’s be frank; the driving force pushing the plot of “Gypsy” is Jean and her dalliance with Sid. The sub-plots (Allison and her crippling drug dependency, Claire and her distant daughter, and even the mysterious Melissa) are mere distractions that dilute the overarching plot and perhaps even damage Jean’s character as a therapist. There is more than enough substance in Jean’s mid-life crisis as she explores her sexual identity, struggles with monogamy, and wrestles with the top of Maslow’s hierarchy. These sub-plots don’t substantially contribute to the thematic or artistic merit of the show.

Suggested change:
Cut the sub-plots and focus solely on Jean’s mid-life identity crisis. Also, this would give more time to focus on Jean’s anxiety about her daughter’s gender dysphoria (though in my day, we simply called such girls “tom boys”). Also, by removing the sub-plots, it may have addressed many critics’ complaints about the show's slow pacing.

Jean’s Relationship with Her Mother

There aren’t enough scenes between Jean and her mother to illuminate Jean’s character or offer insights into her motivation.

Suggested change:
More scenes between Jean and her mom! Blythe Danner is perfect in her role as Jean’s mom; this role should have been leveraged much more substantially. Also, by including more scenes with Jean and her mom, we may have learned about Jean’s father and how he fit into the picture.

Michael’s Piousness

I just wasn’t convinced that a drunk Michael, alone with Alexis in a hotel room, would’ve resisted her advances. And the fact that he did contrasts unflatteringly with Jean and her lapses.

Suggested change:
At least have Michael and Alexis make out a bit before Michael puts the kibosh on it.

Sid and Jean: Talking During Sex

Overall, I have no real complaints about the sex scenes between Sid and Diane; I thought the scenes were tastefully done and mostly authentic. The only complaint I have is that they shared so little dialog during sexual interludes (and what they did share was a bit awkward).

Suggested change:
This is a tough one; I can imagine that there’s really no way to shoot sex scenes that aren’t at least somewhat awkward. But perhaps a bit more dialog would’ve added another dimension to the authenticity. Perhaps if Sid and Jean didn’t take it so seriously and were less “deep”; if they’d shared more humor, it would’ve fostered intimacy and added another layer of earnestness and authenticity.

What NOT to Change

Don’t get me wrong; the suggested changes I’ve listed in no way diminish the overall artistic and thematic merit of the show; I’m a huge fan. There are many things about the show that I wouldn’t change at all:

Music

There are many cool tunes throughout the show, not the least of which were performances by the “Vagabonds.” In fact, more Vagabonds would’ve been better.

Shooting on Location

I think it was brilliant to shoot in NYC and Fairfield County. I’m sure it increased the cost of the production, but I think it was well worth it.

Sets

The Rabbit Hole, the pop-up party in Bushwick, the rooftop showing of The Lady Eve, Sid’s apartment, the house in Darien, the rehearsal studio, Jean’s office, Michael’s office, the list goes on; all superb.

Jean’s Wardrobe

Brilliant; perfect for mid-life professional mom living in conservative Fairfield County.

Sid’s Wardrobe

Also brilliant for the role; funky, bold, irreverent, sexy; what else would a Bushwick rock star wear?

Lisa Rubin’s Cameo at the Rabbit Hole in Episode One

A must; brilliant!

Drinkin' & Smokin'

The fact that the ladies are smoking and enjoying bourbon.

Fantasy Versus "Reality"
Jean’s fantasy of encountering Sid at the bar, versus the “real” encounter. This exemplifies Jean’s humanity.

Gypsy's Jean Holloway at the Top of Maslow's Hierarchy

“All drama is conflict; without conflict, you have no action. Without action, you have no character. Without character, you have no story. And without story, you have no screenplay.” 
~Syd Field, Screenplay: The Foundations of Screenwriting

The new Netflix 10-episode series “Gypsy,” released on June 30th, has been widely panned, though some reviews have exhibited mercy and a few have even been relatively positive. Like any movie or TV series, it’s only as good as the script. Many critics have savaged the show for its snail pace (with one critic suggesting that you need only watch episodes 1, 7 and 10 to get the full picture, and another critic suggesting that half-hour episodes would've been more palatable). But I think the pace is just fine. When the story-telling is slower and more deliberate, you feel more like you’re a fly-on-the-wall, silently observing the characters, discerning subtle character insights. This is especially true when the characters are engaging and compelling, and you have a keen interest in how they live and what choices they make. When you’re a fly-on-wall, there are mundane actions and boring dialog to endure, but that’s part of what makes the tone feel more realistic.

What’s unforgivable, though, are the clichés in the script. Phrases like “mother knows best” and “you can’t judge a book by its cover” are cringe-inducing, especially when said phrases are exchanged between the two female lead characters as they engage in flirtatious behavior. If ever a script could have benefited from a script doctor, this is a shining example. That's the extent of my negative criticism, though. Despite the clichés in some of the dialog, the show has artistic and thematic merit, particularly because it ruminates on the two key common afflictions of modern day life in first world countries.

A script does more than set the pace and define the dialog. The other key function of the script is to lay out the character trajectory (or, as Christopher Moltisanti of The Sopranos so endearingly refers to it with his New Jersey accent, the “arc”). The lead character’s arc is alluring as an anti-hero model. Jean Holloway, a therapist based in Manhattan, is enduring a typical mid-life crisis made worse by her impulsiveness and her ethical lapses. 

What’s evident in the beginning is that Jean’s arc is of the “first world problems” genre. Initially, on the surface, there doesn’t seem to be any obvious conflict for Jean to resolve, other than a somewhat prickly (and arguably typical) relationship with her mother. Her husband Michael, a successful attorney, is devoted and genuine; their sex life (always a good barometer of a relationship) is robust and thriving. She and Michael have a darling nine-year daughter named Dolly with tom boy-like characteristics. They live in a splendid home in Fairfield County, Connecticut, one of the wealthiest suburbs in the U.S., enjoying lives among the 1% (even if it does involve obligatory social engagements with narrow-minded neighbors).  

Conflict Driven by Affliction

Jean’s primary conflict is slowly bubbling under the surface. She suffers from the two key components of any modern-day mid-life crisis in developed countries:

• Mid-life reflection on significant life choices and the resulting trajectory of one’s life
• Boredom with a settled, routine life (the Jack Nicholson “what if this is as good as it gets?” question)

These afflictions are atop Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, characterized as “self-actualization.” All of Jean’s fundamental needs are taken care of; she is wrestling with the pinnacle of the hierarchy, self-actualization. Who am I, how did I get here, and how should I act now?

At the top of the pyramid, self-actualization is comprised of the following characteristics:

• Morality
• Creativity
• Spontaneity
• Problem solving
• Lack of prejudice
• Acceptance of facts

Morality and Problem Solving

Jean engages in highly questionable behaviors as a therapist; chief among them, violating personal boundaries in the context of a professional relationship with her clients. In one case, she casually befriends the daughter of a client at a beauty salon. Both the client and her daughter are completely oblivious that Jean has covertly inserted herself into these women’s lives; it’s highly unethical behavior. 

From Jean’s perspective, she is engaged in problem solving; the mother and daughter are at an impasse in their relationship, and Jean is frustrated by the lack of significant progress. Jean exploits the insight gained during therapy sessions to directly influence the trajectory of these women’s lives. This exploitation clearly exhibits Jean’s sociopathic tendencies, and yet there’s an angle that she’s not really breaking the rules, she’s simply “just trying to help.”  But there’s a reason why professionals are trained to respect the confidentiality of their sessions with clients. By not doing so, Jean is living by her own set of rules, pushing the boundaries of the end justifying the means.

Spontaneity and Creativity

The most profound blurring of boundaries occurs with Jean’s client named Sam. Sam is a young man struggling with the effects of a difficult break-up with a young woman named Sidney. Throughout multiple therapy sessions, it emerges that Sam has had a highly co-dependent and combustible relationship with Sidney (involving matching tattoos, no less). 

Jean seems unable to maintain a healthy professional distance between herself and Sam’s descriptions of his relationship with Sidney. The more Sam reveals, the more intrigued Jean becomes; she eventually commits another egregious ethical lapse and introduces herself to Sidney at her workplace (a local coffee shop called “The Rabbit Hole”). She introduces herself to Sidney with a false name, setting the stage to interact with Sidney as an alternate persona, thus laying the foundation for a mountain of lies.

From the initial meeting at the coffee shop, the primary trajectory of Jean’s character is established. “Diane” (Jean’s alter-ego) and Sidney play a highly flirtatious game of cat-and-mouse throughout the first six episodes, mired in a “will they or won’t they?” framework, until episode seven’s consummation. There's fierce anticipation mixed in with subtle nervousness, as Sidney takes Jean by the hand as they abruptly leave the bar for her apartment. 

The pre-coital game of "Truth or Dare" is a potentially disturbing foreshadow of season two, as Sidney asks an exceedingly dark question, "If you were going to kill someone, how would you do it?" Jean's answer is not grisly but is disturbing none-the-less; she doesn't flinch at the question and recounts how she would exploit the victim's weakness by getting to know them. After "Truth or Dare," a bit of dancing to this superb groove, some toking and the requisite pizza and licorice, it's time for bed. 

The sex scenes in "Gypsy" aren’t gratuitous. The evening at Sidney's apartment is a manifestation of Sidney’s successful seduction of “Diane,” and of Jean’s roguish deception. Jean even has the audacity to tell Sidney that the reason she "broke up" with Michael was because of Sidney (or, because of what Sidney represents). The fabricated tales just keep getting spun, burying unsuspecting Sidney in a trough of lies. Perhaps Jean's story portends an ominous event later.

Sidney's lust shines through the entire interaction. Is Sidney's lust for Jean largely driven by the mystery that she has not yet untangled (but longs to)? Or is the sexual attraction more layered than that? Like any fledgling sexual relationship, it's nuanced and complex for both parties. Jean studies herself in the mirror the following morning and doesn't seem to like what she sees. Though we don't know what she's thinking, it's likely that the weight of her deception is starting to intrude on the ecstasy of the fantasy.

Jean’s relationship with Sidney is spontaneous, precisely in contrast with the established routine of her daily life. It provides her with a new layer of sexual experimentation and excitement, not only because Sidney is strikingly gorgeous and charismatic (and 20 years her junior), but because Sidney is a woman. A sexual relationship with a woman is exactly the kind of spice that Jean thinks she needs to abate the monotony of her marriage. But Sidney is alluring to her for other reasons; Jean sees characteristics of herself in Sidney, such as a devil-may-care attitude, a defiance of societal norms and an enviable lust for life. Jean is also intrigued by Sidney’s creativity as a singer in a local indie band. 

In Sidney, Jean is able to assuage the longing for an alternate life she may have had, had she chosen to forgo the traditional trajectory of career and family. At the same time, Jean chides Sidney for failing to create a “back-up plan" and become “an adult” with “responsibilities.” This chiding secretly comforts Jean for choosing the traditional path (though Sidney is none the wiser, because of course she doesn’t know the real Jean). Sidney, poor darling, perceives Jean as “unencumbered” and can’t understand why Jean is concerned with the traditional trappings of career and family.  

The grand irony is that Jean pursues Sidney in an attempt to escape from her encumbrances.  

Acceptance of Facts

Jean is not able to accept the facts of her circumstances, and therein lies her core conflict. Instead of accepting the fact that even the most fortunate among us suffer periods of boredom with routine, she remains unsatisfied. She indulges her impulse to retreat into sexual fantasy, setting up a dangerous artifice of lies as an alternate persona. Jean is in a place in life where she doesn't want to accept the facts as they are; and maybe that's ok. Maybe she is rebelling against all of the facts she has earnestly accepted all of her adult life. 

Without any kind of visible moral quandary, she engages Sidney in a relationship and doesn’t seem to consider the consequences that will likely crush Sidney when the artifice collapses. Or, instead of crushing Sidney, perhaps the revelation will only further compel Sidney to up the ante and engage deeper with Jean. 

It's not at all clear how Sidney will react when the facts do eventually emerge. We don’t yet know the price that Jean will pay for failing to accept the facts; season two will illuminate the situation. At this stage of the story, Jean has a long way to go to reach self-actualization, and there's a strong possibility that she'll leave a trail of heartache in her wake. There is a fierce strand of irony throughout Jean's engagement with Sidney; while she is presenting a false narrative to Sidney, she is simultaneously wrestling with true and very potent feelings that are driving her to explore her suppressed sexuality. 

What will be the cost of her identity exploration? Will she lose her husband? Will she disengage from her family? Will she further delve into her sexual relationship with Sidney? How does an intense extra-marital sexual relationship fit within Jean's personal and public persona? What is Jean's "plan" for her engagement with Sidney; is it deeper than infatuation and experimentation? What constitutes a fulfilling and satisfying sexual relationship and how does it contribute to identity? We NEED SEASON TWO to further explore these real questions of mid-life female identity in the public and private domain.

Note: On August 11, Netflix announced it was cancelling Gypsy after one season.

The “Radical” Notion that Women Are People: Feminism and the Exuberant Fan Base of the Portland Thorns

The Portland Thorns continue to rock the sports world by drawing thousands of exuberant fans to its cathedral of soccer, Providence Park. Every match draws a packed house of rabid enthusiasts from all walks of life. There have been ruminations in the national press about why the Portland Thorns have such a dedicated following. A recent article in Washington Post hits several key points about Portland’s rich soccer tradition, its historic urban venue, and its first class organization.

Fans begin filing into Providence Park for a Portland Thorns match, 2017.

(photo: S. Leritz-Higgins)

Fans like No Other Place in the World

Beyond the region’s soccer tradition, its desirable urban venue, and its top-quality organization, why are the Thorns so popular? There are two key constituencies that comprise the incomparable fan base:

• Young female athletes (and their families)
• The LGBTQ community (and their families)

Young girls are able to attend a match and envision themselves on the pitch, fostering dreams that earlier generations couldn’t even conceive of. Young boys have always had role models in professional team sports, but only recently have role models emerged for young girls. But other NWSL cities with larger populations undoubtedly have young female athletes, but don’t have anything comparable to the Thorns fan base.

The other key constituency is the LGBTQ community. Portland is widely regarded as one of the nation’s most progressive cities; it has a substantial LGBTQ community, many of whom are loyal die-hard sports fans, particularly for women’s team sports. So while you are guaranteed to see young children and teenagers at Thorns matches, you are equally guaranteed to see LGBTQ community members and their families, fostering the varied party-like atmosphere at Providence Park. For the LGBTQ community, Thorns matches give a voice to a historically marginalized community, and provide the community with a vibrant public sphere of positive expression.

The Radical Notion that Women Are People

Feminism broadly defines the core values of the Portland Thorns fan base. Why feminism? The term has baggage, and its definition is fraught with generational differences and a range of personal experiences. My interpretation of feminism is the idea of equal personhood for women and girls; that women and girls should have equal access to opportunity and to pursuing their dreams, and that this opportunity and dream-seeking can result in a viable career. It’s a cliché, but the simple bumper-sticker definition of feminism is spot-on: Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.

What would that mean in the soccer world, if women are people? It would manifest as the Portland Thorns.

Title IX: Where’ve You Been All My Life?

When I was growing up in Spokane, Washington in the 1970s, soccer was emerging as a popular sport. Even though the historic Education Amendments of 1972 had included Title IX (a portion of the law that was designed to prohibit gender discrimination in public schools), girls did not immediately get equal opportunity to participate in organized sports. As recently as 2014 and 2016, here in the Portland Metro area, there are alleged violations of public schools not abiding by the letter or the spirit of the law. 

Recollections of Playing Soccer as a Young Girl

When I was in elementary school, I’d wanted to play soccer. The school didn’t have any organized sports. The only recreational league I could join was co-ed. And so I joined a U9 co-ed team. I loved the sky blue jerseys and the feeling of booting the ball. I loved waking up on Saturday morning looking forward to a match. I loved beating another girl to the ball. I loved my black-and-white Puma cleats so much that I wore them to school (ill-advised, but I wasn’t taking them off; it was undoubtedly a fetching look, me in my skirt, knee-high socks and cleats). I loved my Hungarian soccer coach. I can’t remember his name, but I can see him in my mind; a towering lanky figure, his thick accent, his thinning sandy blonde hair, his bellowing but hoarse voice. His daughter was my age and was also on the team. She was, however, preoccupied by her nail polish, her pony tail, and ensuring that her socks were adequately pulled up; she couldn’t give a whiff about playing soccer.

The coach’s daughter and I were among the few girls on the team. I was not a particularly talented athlete, but I so thoroughly enjoyed running around on the pitch and soaking up the energy of the game. Despite my lack of athletic prowess, I do have one cherished memory of playing soccer as a girl; it’s one of my most vivid childhood memories. I usually played fullback, but during this one particular match in which we were leading by several goals, the coach put me in as a striker. I was disoriented at first but was eager to give it a try. I can recall the memory in slow motion, as I was served the ball close to the near post and then punched it in the back of the net (and somehow was not called off sides). I turned to the sidelines to see my coach erupt in joy. He motioned me over to the sidelines and I ran towards him. When I reached him, he put his arm around my shoulder and bent down to my ear and kept saying something over and over, though I don’t recall what. I do recall his sparkling eyes and his irrepressible grin with a missing front tooth. My mother was on the sidelines too, jumping up and down and yelping in hysteria. It is not hyperbole to say that this is one of the most thrilling moments I can remember as a young girl. There is a certain matchless thrill in the game of soccer when the ball hits the back of the net (as long as it’s your team scoring).

What’s Feminism Got to Do With It?

When I reflect back on my experiences as a young soccer player in the 1970s, I think of a lot of untapped potential for me and many other girls of my generation, a lot of “what ifs?” What if I’d been able to train with the same dedicated coach every year? (I’d had the Hungarian coach for only one remarkable season, and subsequently had several rather dismal coaches that sapped my enthusiasm.)  What if I’d had role models to admire and idolize? What if I’d been able to see women play professionally at a local stadium? What if girls had all the same opportunities to play soccer as the boys? What if young girls believed that they could pursue soccer as a profession?

The Portland Thorns are a manifestation of the feminist ideal: that women are people and ought to have the same opportunities to thrive and earn a living in a dynamic professional sports league with a lively and dedicated fan base. The NWSL is now in its fifth year and has surpassed all other attempts of a viable women’s professional soccer league. It is a testament to the profound effect of title IX (even though it’s taken decades to come to fruition, and the Portland Thorns organization is thus far an anomalous manifestation compared to other teams in the league).

Of course, as far as we’ve come since the 1970s, there are still substantial inequalities and barriers that inhibit full personhood for women on the pitch. Though I don’t know the specific numbers, I imagine that the salaries for players and staff in the NWSL are substantially lower than those in the MLS. We know that the USWNT recently put up a fight to get closer to the USMNT’s compensation framework. There have also been controversies about women being forced to play on substandard artificial turf, while men are not subjected to such conditions and instead enjoy real grass on the pitch. While a handful of NWSL superstars likely have fat endorsement contracts, the majority likely do not (and even for the ones who do, the contracts likely pale in comparison to their male counterparts).

Speaking as a season ticket holder since the inaugural season, I can vouch for the unique and committed ideal held by Portland Thorns fans: that we are feminists in the true sense of the word. We are thrilled to see women living up to their potential, and will continue to wholeheartedly support them, the coaching staff, the broader organization, and the NWSL. We’re also looking forward to seeing the other NWSL cities catch up, and for the league to continue to thrive and expand. Whatever the fate of the NWSL, we should all appreciate the Portland Thorns as THE football club that gave women the opportunity to truly tap their potential on the pitch. The fans are RCTID (Rose City ‘til I Die), though in this particular context, the Thorns are emblematic of the Rose City. 

Not one to shrink from a contest, midfielder Lindsey Horan goes up against three opponents in a 2016 match. (photo: S. Leritz-Higgins)

Ever the dominant striker, Nadia Nadim threatens to stride right past the goal keeper in a 2016 match. (photo: S. Leritz-Higgins)

Celeste Boureille surveys the pitch and finds an option during a match in 2016. (photo: S. Leritz-Higgins)

French superstar Amandine Henry stakes her position and surveys the pitch during a match in 2016. (photo: S. Leritz-Higgins)