Shoresy Season Two Could Be The Hockey Story We Need

From toxic to timely, an opportunity to show change

Let’s call season one, BHC, Before Hockey Canada. Let’s call season two, AHC, After Hockey Canada. Although hockey’s toxic culture has been present for half a century, a true reckoning and acknowledgement of the need for change have occurred this year.

Season one of Shoresy was the toxic hockey story we did not need, but perhaps, season two of the Hulu series can mimic the real-life evolution the sport is undergoing and become the hockey story we desperately need. It would involve creativity, and comedic writing that goes beyond Shoresy’s recurring catchphrases and running jokes, but if the show actually is a commentary on the sport, which fans claim it is, then the opportunity exists to show how hockey culture is changing.

How could this be adopted? Here are a few ideas, and I’d love to hear yours in the comments.

Performances Beyond Performative

In the NHL, we often call certain surface-level special nights, and social media campaigns “performative,” but on screen, a demonstration of inclusion, for example, of the Sudbury Bulldogs hosting a Pride Night would be a powerful statement. Seeing the cast of Shoresy using Pride Tape and donning Pride uniforms, free of accompanied homophobic jokes related to the team asserting their heterosexuality, would be important. Why?

First, Sudbury has a lurid history of transphobia and homophobia. Members of Fierté Sudbury Pride reported increasing and ongoing harassment and hate in 2020.

It involved direct, physical threats and intimidation to Sudbury’s trans and non-binary community. The history of harassment against members of Fierté Sudbury Pride is well documented in Sudbury.

Local government has acknowledged the issue. As Sudbury MPP Jamie West said of ongoing incidents in 2020, “This isn’t a reflection of the Sudbury I know. Eight months ago together we enjoyed Sudbury Pride, not even a block from here … and eight months later we have members of our community who don’t feel safe.”

Shoresy would need to shift along with that display, demonstrating less heteronormativity and healthier relationships between members of the Bulldogs moving beyond homophobic “bromance” scenarios. Within navigating the shift from what was, to what could be, there would certainly be ample opportunity for humour.

As researchers have found, “television plays a vital role in shaping opinions about sexual and ethnic minorities,” and subsequently, that “exposure to a positive image of diversity on television could promote positive diversity attitudes among viewers.”

Therefore, Shoresy actively combatting homophobic and transphobic ideology, showing that a “Sudbury Saturday Pride Night” is safe for all, would be a tremendous shift.

If I were directing the show, I’d be doing everything possible to feature this issue as a subplot to the on-ice action, and I’d be working with Sudbury native, and hockey’s preeminent LGBTQ+ activist and former professional hockey netminder Brock McGillis on how to frame this aspect of the show…and who knows, maybe he’d make a guest appearance?

Tackle Abuse and Misogyny Head On

People don’t change overnight, especially a character like Shoresy who’s been bathed in hockey culture, albeit fictional, his entire life. There is no reason, however, the show itself can’t involve an epiphany moment featuring a parallel to Hockey Canada’s issues. While the show itself is a comedy, there are opportunities for more heartfelt moments, and to intersperse important messages.

Season one showed a few sentimental scenes; whether it was Shoresy’s love interest and interactions with Laura Mohr, Nat’s nostalgia for her mother as she sees the crowd enjoying Bulldogs hockey in the final moments of the season, or the team finally embracing Michaels.

While the moments existed in season one, using them to address issues within the game would be an effective acknowledgement that while season one was written before Hockey Canada’s reckoning, what comes next is not.

If the characters in this show are believed to be former professional and junior hockey players, odds are someone on the team would have endured abuse, and humanizing that issue, watching members of the team address the topics in a meaningful way through actual dialogue, and looking at how it has shaped their characters and the harm caused, could provide a teachable moment.

Another opportunity for evolution is within the depiction of players’ sexual relationships. With Hockey Canada’s scandals related to alleged gang sexual violence, as well as prominent players including Reid Boucher, Logan Mailloux, and Jake Virtanen recently facing charges and allegations of sexual violence, the time to address this issue is now.

In a season two scene, seeing a hockey player ask for consent within their relationship, modelling this behaviour, would normalize and promote this action with younger hockey fans and players. It’s a minor addition with a major consequence.

As scholars have found, “men are more likely than women on television to be the perpetrators of physical aggression… verbal aggression, bullying, and dominance... Sexual harassment of women by men is depicted on television, as well, largely through demeaning and objectifying language.”

Overall, as researchers state, this leads to an “endorsement” of these narrow views of masculinity, misogyny, and the associated harmful behaviours. Shorsey has an opportunity to observe men portraying healthy versions of masculinity and communication. And yes, it can be done with humour as these men, who were taught one thing their entire lives, attempt to navigate a new path.

Even if the show took a step to acknowledge the issues, perhaps by opening with a screen of text identifying the need to combat hockey’s culture of abuse, sexual violence, misogyny, and homophobia, and that the show, through comedy, aims to highlight these issues in hopes of change, it would be a step in the right direction. A disclaimer is not a popular suggestion, but it’s better than the actions within the show being understood as gospel for what it means to be a hockey player and man.

Take A Lesson From Lasso

No fictional sports show has received more acclaim and experienced more success recently than Ted Lasso. There’s a reason for that. Ted Lasso melds comedy and sentimentality with nuanced characters, who are more than they appear on the surface. Roy Kent was built to be a member of the Sudbury Bulldogs, but the development of his character shows that beyond his gruff exterior, he’s struggling to come to terms with his identity and navigate relationships in a healthier way. It’s a human struggle that connects with many, as is Lasso’s own experiences with mental health and the dissolution of his marriage.

The show worked. Although no one would, or could expect Shoresy to morph into Ted Lasso, the latter serves as an example of healthier depictions of masculinity in sport.

It’s why Ted Lasso was lauded by the Peabody Awards for “offering the perfect counter to the enduring prevalence of toxic masculinity.”

Similar to Ted Lasso, the characters and casting of Shoresy have immense potential. The team itself includes Black and Indigenous hockey players; the ownership, like in Ted Lasso, is a woman; and the management of the team is a pair of Indigenous women.

The representation itself is important and gives the show enormous potential to address social issues and combat stereotypes.

Shoresy is a deeply flawed show in relation to how it portrays and glamourizes serious social issues. The show, however, has a vast following, and the benefit of timely issues making headlines within the sport to draw from to effectively achieve satire.

Satire is defined as “writing that exposes or ridicules conduct, doctrines, or institutions either by direct criticism or more often through irony, parody, or caricature.”

The problem with Shoresy is, there is no direct criticism, and it’s not ironic. It does at times use elements of parody and caricature, but then again, the show’s own director stated it’s not satire, and not a criticism.

“It’s not a satire. I don’t think it’s meant as a thesis or a criticism, either. I think it’s observational,” director Jacob Tierney claimed.

If it’s not satire, it’s toxic, and a harmful endorsement of behaviour masked in comedy. If it is attempting to be satire, it’s failing to show any form of criticism or critique of the culture and behaviours the series portrays.

Regardless, the show has an entertainment value that captivates viewers, even if they’re watching in a state of cognitive dissonance. Shoresy, through this popularity, has the opportunity to shift culture, to become a sign that the game can change, and to demonstrate that where we are in hockey, where season one was in Shoresy, does not need to be where we end.