My Big Fat Gypsie Wedding: Creating a moral and cultural opposition
- Travis Maxwell
- Jul 9
- 20 min read
Updated: Jul 12
In the summer of 2008 in Naples, Italy, a photograph would emerge depicting two drowned Roma girls laying on the sand, covered by beach towels; meanwhile, Italians just feet away enjoyed a picnic and were on their phones. The photograph’s juxtaposition would shock Catholic Italy and those who viewed it, as the locals shown in the image appeared to be unphased by the deceased in the three-hour period it took for the ambulance to arrive on the scene, but why did such indifference occur? In Italy, campaigns targeted the illegal immigration of Eastern European Roma and the perceived increase in crime associated with Romani Gypsies. Posters widely visible within the city depicted women as kidnappers and men as sex offenders. Meanwhile, the destruction of Roma camps occurred throughout the 2010-12 period; newspapers would show poverty-stricken families under duress. Coverage of Roma communities focused on their “illegal” settlements and lawlessness. Thus, this conjured up the image of the stereotypical lawless nomad commonly associated with gypsies and resulted in the increased negativity and persecution of Roma in Europe (Pusca, p.327). However, this negative “Gypsy archetype” is not a new development in media; in 1971, musician Cher topped the charts with her song “Gypsy’s, Tramps, & Thieves.” The song pertains to a nomadic 16-year-old Gypsy girl and her family, referencing the girls “deflowering,” prostitution, and swindling, and was performed wearing ethnic clothing. In 2017, Cher apologised on X (formerly Twitter) after facing criticism for her usage of traditional garb (see figures) (Schneeweis, Foss, p.1146; Piraccini).
In contemporary media, television remains a dominant tool for learning, yet perpetuates negative stereotypes. Therefore, Gypsy Wedding’s embracement of Traveller and Gypsy culture proving inaccurate may come as unsurprising (Schneeweis, Foss, p.1147). Furthermore, reality TV is significant due to its ability to succeed as a top-rated television genre, whereas before factual programming failed (Biressi, Nunn, p.2). Reality TV, since its influx of popularity in the 1990s, has proved adept at connecting the working class, the media, and celebrity culture (Tremlett, p.316). John Corner coined the term ‘post-documentary’ as a way of describing reality TV’s radically altered culture and economic setting, which values playfulness and the erosion between the private and public spheres, the ordinary and the celebrity, the media and social space. Reality TV altered the terrain of factual programming, contributing to changes in priorities and working practices and instilling new expectations in viewers. The success of reality television arguably hinges upon the appearance of the ordinary citizen, the increased audibility of their voices, and the promise of “social mobility” that comes with their presence (2). The supporters of reality television believe it works against the elitist notions of celebrity and democratises the term ‘celebrity’ (316). Whereas critics believe new-school celebrities tend to appear loquacious, uneducated, and representative of reality television’s shallow values and vulgarity (2). Author Graeme Turner is one of these critics. Turner proposed the concept of the ‘demotic turn’ in his 2004 book Understanding Celebrity as a means of describing the increasing visibility of the “ordinary person” (West, 2012, p.83). Turner argues that the idea of ‘demotic’ (in relation to ordinary people) as synonymous with “mundane” and “every day” is inaccurate. Further arguing that reality television is produced by an “industry that treats cultural identities as commodities” loosely related to the social conditions from which they arise (316-7). Nevertheless, cultural politics are not as simple as these two imposing beliefs suggest, as there exist additional complexities when attempting to portray the “reality” of real lives (2). As such, this essay will engage with complex issues textually, para-textually, and extra-textually in My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding (the programme, marketing, and related message boards). The main focus of this essay is misrepresentation, orientalism, class discourse, and how Gypsie Wedding creates a moral and cultural opposition.
My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding
My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding aired as a one-episode programme on Channel 4’s cutting edge; after achieving marginal success, Channel 4 commissioned a six-part series in 2011. The show regularly aired to over 8 million people and delivered ratings rare in contemporary television (Jensen, Ringrose, p.369; Tremlett, p.317). Gypsy Wedding garnered mass appeal for its access to and showcasing of marginalised Traveller communities. The programme drew attention on social media platforms like X, as #bigfatgypsyweddings trended nationally; moreover, it garnered attention in newspapers, programme reviews, and through word of mouth. Media theorists Anita Biressi and Heather Nunn propose that contemporary reality television can be thought of as “event TV,” a programme that is both high-concept and multimedia. To elaborate, Gypsy Wedding is disseminated via weekly episodes but also features on Channel 4’s website, with extra content like interviews and highlights. These multi-media channels comprise “event TV” and is the method whereby it enters the public sphere and becomes a popular talking point; drama on the show is then contextualised and amplified by commentary, interviews, tabloids, and the circulation of photographs (369-70). The show itself (Gypsy Wedding), true to its namesake, follows Irish and English Traveller families as they celebrate their weddings and holy communions (Pusca, p.337). Channel 4’s marketing gimmick was their unique access to and exposure of marginalised Gypsy and Traveller communities. To which, Tremlett argues that it “appears to assert the demotic” through expanding the range of individuals who appear on TV, but rather than the “ordinary” being a part of this demotic, rather it focuses on the captivating lives of Travellers/Gypsies. However, the appearance of Gypsies and Travellers is not unique to Gypsy Wedding. Rather, there exist many reality television shows about Roma and other racialised celebrities in post-socialist New European nations, like Hungary’s Gyõzike show (317-8; Imre; p.103). Furthermore, the access in Gypsy Wedding is carefully controlled; for example, many men choose to blur their faces to avoid identification, which could affect their business or personal lives. Thus, the programme’s intrusive gaze is positioned on the brides-to-be, young girls, and their mothers. Although you never learn people’s full names, venue locations, or the cost of weddings within the show, despite the illusion of increased invisibility, a lot remains hidden (Pusca, 337). Furthermore, Jensen and Ringrose assert that post-documentary television is connected by its creation of moral and cultural opposition, uninterested in socio-political analysis but instead sensationalism and voyeurism. Inviting the audience to engage in conflating and contradictory extra-textual debates. They further argue that Gypsy Wedding borrows “documentary authority” and “field naturalism” while using non-documentary techniques, engaging audiences in often volatile ways (audience engagement is explored later in this essay) (369-70).
Gypsy Wedding: History, labelling, and Paratextual analysis
This section explores the history of the Irish Traveller and Romani Gypsy communities and the issues that come with labelling these groups. Irish Travellers exist as Ireland’s only indigenous minority, officially recognised by the Irish government in 2017. They make up around 0.6% of the population (29,500), according to the 2011 census (Phelan). Whereas Romani Gypsies originate from around 12th century Northern India, according to linguistic analysis, migrating from continental Europe and settling in Britain in 1515 (The Traveller Movement). The term “Gypsy” is controversial, as it is an incorrect label given to the Romani people in the 16th century, as the settled populations believed they were Egyptian due to their darker complexions (The Traveller Movement; Pappas). Additionally, the usage of terms like “Traveller” and “Gypsy” can be perceived as emotive and controversial, due to their ability to be used prejudicially (alongside brazenly racist versions like “pikey” and “gypo”). In academic literature, ‘Roma’ is often used as an umbrella term for all Traveller groups, but it garners controversy as many perceive it as an ethnonym that applies to only certain groups, ergo the collective representation of Travellers is challenging (Tremlett, pp. 318-9). In the UK, labelling terms like “Gypsy” and “Traveller” remain just as complex and problematic. Solidified by Gypsy Wedding’s marketing campaign, which saw the usage of the “Bigger. Fatter. Gypsier.” The advertisements used in this campaign show an aggressive-looking boy, while another ad included an underage girl (15 years old) in a revealing outfit and showcasing part of her bra. The posters would on occasion be vandalised with the words “MORE RACIST” and saw protests in London from Traveller communities (see figures) (319; Sweney; Reily). The made-up word “Gypsier” was seen as provocative, playing with the ambiguity of offensive, and seen as pejorative by members of the “London Gypsy and Traveller Unit.” The backlash prompted 370 complaints to the ‘Advertising Standards and Authority’ (ASA) and legal action on behalf of Irish Travellers, resulting in the banning of the ads. This essay acknowledges history, the etymology of words, and the controversy that comes with them. Nevertheless, this essay does use terms like “Traveller” and “Gypsy,” similarly to Channel 4’s Gypsy Wedding, but with acknowledgement of how these labels fall short of representing varied backgrounds and cultures of the minority Traveller communities (319).
The framing and stereotyping of Gypsy Wedding
This section will showcase how the programme is framed through picture, narration, and story, and how it preys upon stereotypes and misrepresentation. The programme is framed with “intentional repetition.” The opening typically showcases horse-drawn carriages, caravans, and the sewing of dresses, all reminiscent of stereotypical portrayals of Traveller and Gypsy culture. The narration tells the audience of “extravagant ancient traditions,” while soft and evocative music, akin to the tune played from an old-fashioned music box, chimes in the background. The programme derives influence from early Gypsy representation, like romantic art and literature, popularised in the 19th and early 20th centuries. However, these representations are less connected to Gypsy culture but rather to the artistic and political climate of the period. This romanticised portrayal is then juxtaposed when the narrator mentions the “21st century.” From traditional shots, we transition to puffy dresses, modern vehicles, and scantily clad women in eccentric attire, imitating popstars like Shakira and Beyonce under disco lighting. Symbolising the change of pace is the music, as its methodical melody transitions to a more dance-esk tune, as if to indicate a more liberated subtext, as we are removed from stereotypical Gypsy representation and constraints (My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding; OMG Wedding; Tremlett, p.322). Despite the aforementioned curated lens through which we see the show. The show makes efforts to illustrate the modern lives of the Gypsy communities. Showcasing how many now live in houses or are settled despite living in caravans, proven to blend into wider communities, use social media, and engage in “modern” recreational activities (however, flattened via deeper texts of gendered and cultural oppression) (Pusca, pp.337-8). Furthermore, depictions of Gypsy and Traveller culture within the show are framed and “contextualised” by dress-maker Thelma Madine (the main narrator); Madine’s business, Nico, has run for over a decade and caters to the local Gypsy and Traveller communities. Madine, known for her elaborate dresses, like her 250-metre dress made from hair extensions (offered to popstar Lady Gaga) functions as the “Traveller Expert” of the show (337; 322). However, Madine, in her book Tales of the Gypsy Dressmaker, writes, “I could never claim to know everything about gypsies and I’m not a spokesperson for Travellers” (Madine, p.13). This perhaps explains, but not excuses, the reason for one of the main criticisms of the programme, which is that her narration throughout the programme reinforces Gypsy stereotypes. For example, Madine states, “They don’t like anybody knowing anything about them at all; they even have their own language.” This language serves to group all Gypsies and harkens back to portrayals of the late 19th century vagabond who is exotic, unfamiliar, and secretive (OMG Weddings; Tremlett, p.323; Tremlett, p.325). Another example of harmful stereotyping comes via the episode “Life on the Run.” Irish Traveller Jimmy is bartering for a quad bike, and the narration states, “… it’s always with Travellers like Jimmy; a lengthy negotiation process is necessary” and the shop owner Nigel states that gypsies need to have “one over on you.” The show negatively depicts gypsies as frugal and conjures up images of the stereotypical Gypsy beggar, an image that incites hatred, as shown in the Sun newspaper. Citing “Labour Research,” the article showed that being rid of “Gypsy beggars and refugees” was the third highest priority in Britain after healthcare and education (Cheal, 2012, p.2; OMG Weddings, 2023). The reproduction of negative stereotypes also extends to the visuals, as we see a large armed police presence, as bold text across the screen says, “I fought the law.” Reinforcing the belief perpetuated in media that gypsies are lawless (OMG Weddings; Schneeweis, Foss, p.1163).
Further stereotypes and the conflation of culture and tradition
Stereotyping is not the only criticism levied at the show; the show garnered negative press for its conflation of multiple different cultures, traditions, and identities. Gypsy Wedding attaches an ethnonym to those who are depicted to note whether they are English (Romani) or Irish Travellers, but only when introducing them, and then it devolves into generic terms like Traveller and Gypsy, which does not distinguish between Romani and Irish Travellers. For example, groom-to-be Swanley is introduced to the audience as an ‘English Traveller’, but when describing tradition regarding the children’s attendance at the wedding, the show states, “As is tradition in the Traveller community, the children make their own way to church complete with a bottle of fake champagne.” The language strips Swanley of his identity as an ‘English Traveller; instead, their traditions are conflated within the wider context of Traveller traditions. Additionally, the narration has the effect of arguably reinforcing Gypsy stereotypes regarding negligent parenting and irresponsible partying (Tremlett, 323; 325; OMG Weddings). Another Traveller, Lizzie, is introduced as an ‘Irish Traveller.’ After being married, she is reduced to merely Gypsy in the voiceover, as it states, “Now a Gypsy housewife, Lizzie has her own caravan to look after.” Serving as another stereotypical representation of Gypsies, as adherent to the patriarchy, which oppresses women under traditional gender roles. The language used serves to conflate different cultures and individual identities into a single “Gypsy archetype” (Tremlett, p.323; Tremlett, p.325). Furthermore, Gypsy Wedding contrasts the Gypsy woman’s “modern lives” with greater texts of gendered oppression; for example, present in the show is the theme of women dropping out of education to tend to their siblings or the Gypsy bride’s subservience to their husband within marriage. These issues are framed as a matter of tradition and culture within the show, reverting from socio-political analysis (Pusca, p.338; Jensen, Ringrose, p.370).
The Male Gaze and Orientalism through sexualisation
As demonstrated above, Gypsy Wedding reinforces a plethora of harmful stereotypes and myths surrounding Irish Traveller and Romani Gypsy culture, encouraging a reading of which sees the culture as “exotic,” “erotic,” “opaque,” and “uneducated” (Ostapyk, p.91). Gypsy Wedding’s perspective on said cultures is orientalist, failing in accuracy, and serving to maintain the dominant hegemony (UK citizens). Additionally, Gypsy Wedding orients cultures via sexualisation; orientalist texts commonly focus on mere sexuality as a method of objectifying and asserting dominance over the oriented (Ostapyk, pp. 84-5). Sexualisation is commonly shown through the cameras lingering on the midriffs, bare skin, and miniskirts of young women. The camera serves to appeal to the male gaze, a process whereby women are sexualised and reduced to props of visual pleasure (Vanbuskirk; Jensen, Ringrose, p.376) The footage shares themes of sexpose ́, inciting moral panic, and class-based outrage. However, the show deliberately juxtaposes such sexuality with chastity (Ostapyk, p.88; 376). Exemplified in the episode “Born to be Wed,” wherein Madine narrates that there is “definitely, definitely no sex before marriage.” Explaining traditions which see women chaperoned on dates (even once engaged) and being unable to approach men in “courtship rituals.” However, this is juxtaposed by provocative dress, presenting an emphasised yet unexplained contradiction, creating “purposeful dissonance” (Ostapyk, p.90). Gypsy Wedding also steers the narrative towards sexualisation; in one episode, they outright ask a twelve-year-old girl trying on her communion dress would she “wear that to church?” and remark that it is “quite short,” overtly sexualising her from behind the camera. The events depicted in Gypsy Wedding are not portrayed as special community occasions but rather sexualised playing, dancing, and glamour for the purposes of moral-based scrutiny (88). Ultimately, the contradictions confuse viewers, and present Travellers as ignorant and inferior to non-Traveller viewers and grant an open invitation to ridicule their “paradoxical” and “hypocritical” culture (91).
Further Orientalism: “Chavs” & “Pikeys”
In addition to exotification in Gypsy Wedding, there exist greater narratives of class disgust bestowed upon “chav-like gypsies” (Taylor, Hinks, p.643). The word “chav” is used to represent a stigmatised socio-symbolic group and was (controversially) named word of the year in 2004 by the Oxford Dictionary (Jensen, Ringrose, p.373; OxfordLanguages). The term, linked to the uneducated, impoverished, (white) “under-class” (the lumpenproletariat) became emblematic in social discourse, as the belief Britain was overrun with “chavs” gained momentum (373; 643). Etymological studies locate chav to be of Romani origin, stemming from “chavvy” meaning child. Apart from a vernacular link, Ridley and Rooke discovered that phrases like “chav town” denoted places lacking a perceived “white respectability.” Comprised of second and third generation Travellers, and not uncommonly, non-Travellers married into Traveller families (21; 26; 373). Furthermore, in the mid-1990s, websites like “chav scum” and “chav town” would position working-class whites as racially other (Ridley, Rooke, p.19). A process which underscores how whiteness is used as a tool for classifying and racializing social dynamics, wherein poorer segments of society find themselves inhabiting borders of whiteness, labelled “white trash” or “not-quite-white.” Critical whiteness studies explore how these nuanced distinctions across contemporary class and racial intersections, and the cultural figurations of Travellers, perpetuate symbolic hierarchies. Such representations become convenient methods to deny structural obstacles, institutional racism, and prejudice. Instead, placing blame upon Travellers themselves for their “poor decisions,” leading to poor health and education outcomes. Jessica and Ringrose observe that in the prevailing meritocratic view, disadvantage is commonly misconstrued as failing to adopt modern practices, proposing that those at the bottom stay there due to their own resistance to modernity (373). Further, Jensen and Ringrose contend that Gypsy Wedding undermines Romani and Irish Travellers hard-fought battle for legal protection under legislation, which safeguards them from discrimination. Gypsy Wedding features mostly Irish Travellers, yet in the title and voiceover, refers to them as “gypsies,” by doing so, collapsing distinctions. Which fuels online debates and the further collapsing and carving out of distinctions, regarding the symbolic ambiguities between, chavs, gypsies, Travellers, and other non-white communities (374). Gypsy Wedding depicts social class dynamics, but also conflates ethnic identities, between “real Gypsies” and Travellers. In the UK both Romani and Irish Travellers are under legal protection, with non-legally protected non-ethnic Travellers including showmen and other Nomadic groups. Audience members embody the confusions created by the show, which can carry sociopolitical consequences, like destabilising legal categories or determining what is perceived as racist. For example, on forums, audience members wrote, “More like My Big Fat Pikey, Chav Trash Wedding…” or questioned their heritage as “true Gypsies” or whether they were really “Romani.” These audience debates on social media, go beyond text, as a form of extra-textual inscription, a process dubbed “making through making.” Wherein, identities are categorised and linked to specific classifications, like chav, Gypsy, and Traveller. However, the labelling of Gypsies on the show as not “true Gypsies” allows and incites racist remarks towards legally protected communities, similarly to the preface of “I’m not racist, but…” precedes racist rhetoric (374).
Post-feminism: Victimised women and piggish men
This section will cover post-feminism and how the women in Gypsy Wedding work against post-feminist notions of femininity. Post-feminism is a term that refers to a feminism after the second wave of feminism. The term is nebulous, possessing no agreed-upon meaning, but generally accepted is that the prefix ‘post’ assumes to move on, and it is the assumption that feminism has achieved its goals of full equality amongst the sexes (Mambrol). Popular feminist Rosalind Gill categorises post-feminist media as an “entanglement of feminist and anti-feminist narratives.” Post-feminist media possesses the belief that femininity is bodily property. It focuses on a shift from objectification to subjectification, an emphasis upon self-surveillance, monitoring, discipline, individualism, and empowerment, but contradictory a resurgence in the ideas of inherent sexual difference, the sexualisation of culture, and the transformation of diversity into a commodity. However, these beliefs coexist with and are moulded by continued inequality and exclusions relating to race, class, gender, etc. (149). Gypsy Wedding imprints Traveller culture as backwards, the women working against post-feminist narratives of the “aspiring career woman.” The image of the immobile Gypsy girl, victim to oppressive culture, is seen in the episode “Boys will be Boys” (Jensen, Ringrose, p.378). The episode tells audiences of the so-called tradition “grabbing,” which sees young women coerced when reluctant to give a kiss to young men. However, the “secret courting ritual,” as newspapers described it, saw outrage from Travellers. Brigid in the Guardian newspaper stated, “Grabbing has never happened to me or any of my friends, and the first time I ever saw it was on the telly” and added that it was “… make believe.” Additionally, the Traveller Times wrote, “We’ve never heard of “grabbing,” yet apparently, it’s a time-honoured tradition of ours to allow young men to sexually assault young Gypsy women in car parks” (Travellers Times; Julie Bendel). Whilst Travellers took to newspapers, audience members took to message boards to scream their vitriol, expressing their horror and shock and comparing “grabbing” to a plethora of practices, from sexual slavery to foot-binding to female circumcision. Through this, psychological splitting occurs, in which the Gypsy girl is a victim entrenched in an oppressive culture. Meanwhile, non-Gypsy women are made opposite, embodying liberty and equality, by which hatred for Travellers is “justified” as a celebration of the worried UK populace. Consequently, making invisible issues in the region, like low rape convictions, normalised sexism, and the pay gap. Jensen and Ringrose further ask how and if “grabbing” differs from the common schoolyard activities that see boys sexually harassing girls in UK schools. Is it different from the proven sexual violence, harassment, and bullying that is present in UK schools and beyond? More importantly, are these just truly matters of “cultural difference,” as the show suggests? (379; Maxwell et al.). Current academic, political, and public discourse attributes the divide between the wealthy and the poor as a result cultural factors, steering away from theories centred upon material and structural inequalities. Cultural explanations place the responsibility for the economic disparities and social immobility upon the lifestyle and culture of the impacted communities. Jensen and Ringrose argue that the show steers away from tackling difficult subjects, painting inequalities as cultural consequences. The handful of women who are portrayed as having sought education, deferred marriage, or divorced are painted as anomalies, depicting a narrative of gendered sexism. The Gypsy woman is almost universally portrayed as a passive, ignorant, and a complacent victim of oppressive males, worthy of “at best” sympathy. Comments on forums embody a post-feminist perspective on femininity, a woman who has an array of dating, education, and career opportunities. In one episode, the voiceover states that “The girls are taken out of school at an early age, so they aren’t corrupted by outside influences.” In response, one commentor writes, “… Those lovely girls have no idea what they are missing, careers, holidays, fun. How vulnerable they are not being able to read or write properly” and adding “Corruptive influences? Feminism?” This narrative assumes that feminism is an aligning principle in UK school systems, which, given the prominence of sexual harassment, is debatable (see Maxwell et al). Another commentator states, “I’d rather be a slut that chooses than a doormat Gypsy” hereby implying Gypsies are oppressed and unable to assert their own sexual agency. The Gypsy victim is contrasted within these comments with a falsified economically, intellectual, and sexually empowered non-Gypsy woman, depicted as a self-aware and logical decision-maker. There is also the narrative that embracing sexual proclivities is the true measurement of feminism and that the Gypsy girl is not “genuine,” she dresses as a slut, but cannot embrace it as empowerment, unlike the post-feminist woman, who can, and is supposedly able to move beyond class, racial, and societal borders to achieve empowerment (380-1). These messages ultimately serve to demonstrate how the show constructs Gypsy culture as sexist to serve classist and racist narratives and incite hatred.
Conclusion
This essay began by exploring the power of the media and its ability to shift public perception and incite hatred in Italy. We then showcased “faux post-feminism,” the show’s positioning of Gypsy culture as misogynist to embolden racist and classist narratives on online forums (Jensen, Ringrose, p.381). In the wider context of Gypsy Media literature (which there is not much), this essay contributes not only to post-feminist dialogue, but also to dialogues of misrepresentation, race, and gender within Gypsy Wedding. Additionally, in terms of the “demotic turn.” It can be criticised using this essay, as the increased visibility of Gypsies was used to create cultural and moral opposition rather than expose social inequalities or engage in sociopolitical analysis, it commodified Gypsy Culture, and as illustrated by this essay reinforced a negative reading of Gypsies via its text and Paratext, which was embodied on forums. This puts into question whether you can democratise television without addressing the inequalities first (Tremlett, p.329). Additionally, this essay hopes to educate non-Travellers on a complex and diverse culture by outlining the history and showing the distinctions between their historical roots. Lastly, there is room to explore and debate the subjects within this essay further, as they are often complex and esoteric.
Figures
Works Cited
1. Adina Schneeweis, Katherine A. Foss. "“Gypsies, Tramps & Thieves”: Examining Representations of Roma Culture in 70 Years of American Television." Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly (2017): 1146-7. Online Journal.
2. —. "“Gypsies, Tramps & Thieves”: Examining Representations of Roma Culture in 70 Years of American Television." Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly (2017): 1163. Online Journal.
3. Anita Biressi, Heather Nunn. "Introduction." Anita Biressi, Heather Nunn. Reality TV: Realism and Revelation. New York, Chichester, West Sussex: Columbia University Press, 2005. 2. Book.
4. BBC. Why is 'chav' still controversial? 3 6 2011. Website. 2 1 2024.
5. Becky Taylor, Jim Hinks. "What field? Where? Bringing Gypsy, Roma and History into View." Cultural and Social History (2021): 643. Online Journal.
6. Cheal, Yvonne. Beyond the Stereotypes: A review of Gypsies/Roma/Travellers and the Arts in Wales. 8 2012. Website. 2 1 2024.
7. Claire Maxwell, Elaine Chase, Ian Warwick, Peter Aggleton, Hannah Wharf. Preventing violence, promoting equality: a whole-school approach. Proposal. London: University of London, IOE, Woman Kind, 2010. Online Report.
8. Dr. B. Gidley, Dr. Alison Rooke. "Asdatown: The intersections of classed places and identities." Dept of Sociology (2009): 21. Online Journal.
9. —. "Asdatown: The intersections of classed places and identities." Dept of Sociology (2009): 26. Online Journal.
10. —. "Asdatown: The intersections of classed places and identities." Dept of Sociology (2009): 19. Online Journal.
11. Gill, Rosalind. "Postfeminist media culture: Elements of a sensibility ." European Journal of Cultural Studies (2007): 149. Online Journal.
12. Imre, Anikó. "Love to Hate: National Celebrity and Racial Intimacy on Reality TV in the New Europe." Television & New Media (2015): 103. Online Journal.
13. Madine, Thelma. "Prologue: The Pineapple and the Palm Tree." Madine, Thelma. Tales of the Gypsy Dressmaker. London: HarperCollinsPublishers, 2012. 13. Book.
14. Mambrol, Nasrullah. Post-Feminism: An Essay. 25 10 2017. Website. 3 1 2024.
15. My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding. (2016, August 2). [Documentary]. Channel 4. https://learningonscreen.ac.uk/ondemand/index.php/prog/014395D2?bcast=122864233
16. OMG Weddings. Getting Married After 4 Months! | Big Fat Gypsy Weddings | FULL EPISODE | OMG. 7 8 2022. Online Video. 31 12 2023.
17. OMG Weddings. Pregnant With a Gypsy Baby at 19 | My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding | FULL EPISODE | OMG. 19 2 2023. Online Video. 31 12 2023.
18. OMG Weddings. The 15 Year Old Gypsy Bride | My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding | FULL EPISODE | OMG. 13 11 2022. Website. 4 1 2024.
19. Ostapyk, Solomiya. "Representing Romani and Travellers: Sexualized “Gypsy” Women and (Self-)Orientalism in My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding and Gadjo Dilo." (2020): 84-5. Online Journal.
20. —."Representing Romani and Travellers: Sexualized “Gypsy” Women and (Self-)Orientalism in My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding and Gadjo Dilo." (2020): 88. Online Journal.
21. —."Representing Romani and Travellers: Sexualized “Gypsy” Women and (Self-)Orientalism in My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding and Gadjo Dilo." (2020): 90-1. Online Journal.
22. OxfordLanguages. Oxford Word of the Year. 2023. Website. 2 1 2024.
23. Pappas, Stephanie. Origin of the Romani People Pinned Down. 6 12 2012. Website. 6 1 2024.
24. Phelan, Kate. A Brief History of Irish Travellers, Ireland’s Only Indigenous Minority. 16 3 2017. Website. 6 1 2024.
25. Piraccini, Marco. CHER: "Gypsys, Tramps and Thieves" live in las Vegas - Classic Cher. 26 11 2017. Online Video. 6 1 2024.
26. Pusca, Anca. "Representing Romani Gypsies and Travelers: Performing Identity from Early Photography to Reality Television." International Studies Perspectives (2015): 337. Online Journal.
27. —. "Representing Romani Gypsies and Travelers: Performing Identity from Early Photography to Reality Television." International Studies Perspectives (2015): 327-8. Online Journal.
28. Reilly, Jill. 'Bigger. Fatter. Gypsier' advertising campaign used by Channel 4 for its wedding series to be investigated for 'racism'. 30 5 2012. Website. 6 1 2024.
29. Sweney, Mark. Big Fat Gypsy Weddings poster 'endorsed negative stereotypes'. 3 10 2012. Website. 6 1 2024.
30. The Traveller Movement. Gypsy Roma and Traveller History and Culture. n.d. Website. 5 1 2024.
31. Tracey Jensen, Jessica Ringrose. "SLUTS THAT CHOOSE VS DOORMAT GYPSIES." Feminist Media Studies (2014): 369-70. Online Journal.
32. —. "SLUTS THAT CHOOSE VS DOORMAT GYPSIES." Feminist Media Studies (2014): 373-374. Online Journal.
33. —. "SLUTS THAT CHOOSE VS DOORMAT GYPSIES." Feminist Media Studies (2009): 367. Online Journal.
34. —. "SLUTS THAT CHOOSE VS DOORMAT GYPSIES." Feminist Media Studies (2014): 379. Online Journal.
35. —."SLUTS THAT CHOOSE VS DOORMAT GYPSIES." Feminist Media Studies (2014): 380-1. Online Journal.
36. Tremlett, Annabel. "Demotic or demonic? Race, class and gender in ‘Gypsy’ reality TV." The Sociological Review (2014): 322-3. Online Journal.
37. —. "Demotic or demonic? Race, class and gender in ‘Gypsy’ reality TV." The Sociological Review (2014): 325. Online Journal.
38. —. "Demotic or demonic? Race, class and gender in ‘Gypsy’ reality TV." The Sociological Review (2014): 316-9. Online Journal.
39. —."Demotic or demonic? Race, class andgender in ‘Gypsy’ reality TV." The Sociological Review (2014): 329. Online Journal.
40. West, Amy. "Ordinary People and the Media: the Demotic Turn." Screen (2012): 83. Online Journal.
Comments