Gender On Television: It's Like Feminism Never Happened

[Bastet]

This is the place to analyze the presentation of gender on television as a whole. 

[Bastet]

I haven't had a chance to watch this yet, but the LA Times' most recent segment of Talking TV is about depictions of rape on television.

[flyngzebra]

I liked where the conversation went at the end. Many shows begin the death of a young woman.

[ElleryAnne]

Sorry, but I need to rant. 

 

Why is there such a double-standard concerning the way people talk about men vs. women on TV?  I'm referring specifically to the way that, when a female personality/reality contestant/whatever is disliked, people insult her looks.  This doesn't seem to happen to men nearly as often.  When men are disliked, they're insulted, yes.  But the insults will be about their behaviors or attitudes.  With women, it tends to be her looks, or occasionally her "sexual" behavior.  It can happen both within the show and among its viewers.  I've seen people dislike men on TV and yet still remember their names, while women in the same category are labeled or dismissed. I've seen people get upset when men are labeled in certain ways (i.e. Big if they're obese), yet there's a double-standard that allows women to be made fun of with labels that target her physical features. 

 

All of which makes me wonder how we can expect TV to portray women well, when Hollywood knows that society still judges men by what they do and women by how they look.

 

Ok, rant over.

[scarynikki12]

Case in point: Jessica Pare from Mad Men and her teeth, which seem to offend far more than what she does with the character of Megan.

[lucindabelle]

I think people would forgive Megan if we weren't constantly having her looks commented on and remarked on by everyone in the Mad Men world. I take that as character disconnect as much as criticism of the actress.

[mightycrone]

The only women who look even remotely like me on television are in the "before" pictures!  (Before Nutri-System, Lifestyle Lift, etc.)  Is it a surprise that I don't watch much TV?  As far as feminism goes, you are right.  In fact, I recently became aware (reading another thread) that stripping was considered a "feminist act."  My brain is still reeling from that one.  If the "f" word is even used at all, it is to deny it "I'm not one," or to defend it erroneously "Strippers are great-- but then again, I'm a feminist."

 

I'm too damn old to fight anymore, so I turn the TV off.  And I cannot, for the life of me, bring myself to read so-called fashion magazines (but then again, I never could).

 

ElleryAnne-- please do not apologize for the rant.  I gobbled up every tidbit greedily. 

[ElleryAnne]

Case in point: Jessica Pare from Mad Men and her teeth, which seem to offend far more than what she does with the character of Megan.

 

 

Perfect example.  And unfortunately there are many more.  When people criticize women (on TV and when talking about TV personalities), it dissolves into calling her Big Teeth or Big Nose or Big Head.  Or a number of other, more vulgar things that I won't post here.  It's frustrating.  And much of the time it's women who feed that double-standard, and women who shame other women.  I really don't understand it.  

 

I don't even dare get started on the stripper thing.  The rant would go on for pages.

 

 

ElleryAnne-- please do not apologize for the rant.  I gobbled up every tidbit greedily.

 

 

Thank you.  :)

[selkie]

I've tried to come up with a list of size 10 white actresses* who get regular work, and get as far as 1) Merritt Wever and 2) Lena Dunham before drawing a total blank on who else to include. There's a whole spectrum of women between size 0 and Melissa McCarthy, and you'd never know it from American television

 

* Black actresses are allowed to have more than one body type it seems, even if outside of Shondaland, anyone who is bigger gets shoved into the 'sassy' or comedic sidekick roles.

[Tunia]

I've tried to come up with a list of size 10 white actresses* who get regular work, and get as far as 1) Merritt Wever and 2) Lena Dunham before drawing a total blank on who else to include. There's a whole spectrum of women between size 0 and Melissa McCarthy, and you'd never know it from American television

 

* Black actresses are allowed to have more than one body type it seems, even if outside of Shondaland, anyone who is bigger gets shoved into the 'sassy' or comedic sidekick roles.

 

Marcia Gay Harden?  Or is she smaller than that?  She seems to fluctuate.   http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001315/

[Aquarius]

* Black actresses are allowed to have more than one body type it seems, even if outside of Shondaland, anyone who is bigger gets shoved into the 'sassy' or comedic sidekick roles.

 

This is true of the white actresses, too.  There are less of them though.

[mightycrone]

I think the anemic response (in numbers, I mean, not in the quality of the posts) says a lot.  I can't quite figure out if other women feel the same, and are just too timid to say/write anything; or, if they just don't care; or, if they are actually misogynists themselves and feel that these (fat, ugly, old, bitter, short, . . .) women are getting just what "they" deserve.

 

I used to post on the shopping channel thread because it helped me overcome a shopping habit turned addiction (not severe, thank heavens). Many of the posters were like me and objected to the phony, dishonest, pushy, over-the-top performances (because that's what they are, performances) of the hosts.  And I'll admit it-- the snarking was fun and many of the posters are witty, insightful and funny as hell.

 

But the reason I left was that more than a few were/are there to pick on physical appearances. . . weight, age, body type. . .  of WOMEN more than they were to poke fun of the product.  More, even than criticizing an outfit or accessories. (I am guilty of this myself-- I once said it was nice for Lori Grenier-- QVC-- to drop in on her way to a Heart concert).  Normally, men are my usual suspects for this type of head-to-toe physical assessment-- trained as they are by TV that any female who isn't instant eye candy (CNBC et al) is an easy target, and possibly an instant "click" to another channel.  But women?  Shouldn't we want to see a more accurate reflection of our real-life diversity (like men get) and not just supermodels in different shades?  

 

As I've stated before, I am not an avid TV watcher.  I know that sounds self-congratulatory, but it's not intended to.  It's just the truth.  Outside of a few series (Mad Men, Downton Abbey) that I watch on DVD-- I just can't stomach it for many reasons, so I'm not really qualified to go in depth about this series or that in the way that someone who watches more than I do could.  But I see enough (too much?) to know that I'm making the right decision for me.  

[Aquarius]

The funny thing is, I find men in real life are far more accepting of diversity in women than women seem to be. On television, yes, you get the idea that any woman who isn't certifiable eye candy is completely disregarded by men. But in the real world I find men are far less critical of a woman's looks than women are.

I don't understand why women are so apt to judge each other that way. Competition? Conditioning? Deflection? It is a mystery to me.

[Bastet]

I think the anemic response (in numbers, I mean, not in the quality of the posts) says a lot.

 

I believe one factor is the number of posters coming here from TWoP, where discussion of fan reaction to things seen on television - rather than strictly things seen on television - was verboten.

 

One of my biggest irritants is use of the word "bitch" as if its definition is "any woman who does something one does not like."  Casual use of that particular gender slur on television doesn't sit well with me, either, but sometimes it seems ubiquitous.

Edited June 13, 2014 by Bastet

[ElleryAnne]

women are getting just what "they" deserve

 

 

And that's what has me upset.  I keep seeing instances where a guy on a TV show does something that generates dislike, and the general response seems to be to refer to him by name and hate him.  Okay, that's fine, that's normal enough.  But a woman on a TV show does something that generates dislike, and the response is to target whatever physical imperfection she may possess and to constantly refer to those imperfections when talking about whatever it is she did that generated the dislike.  I don't know if it's that people really feel she deserves it, and if society thinks it's acceptable, or if it's just so commonplace that no one cares, or whatever else may be at work.  Malicious cracks against women pass for "snarky" in a way they don't for men.  

 

I was beginning to think I was crazy for being upset by it, so I'm glad to see that at least a few other people see it as a problem, too.  

 

Incidentally, I don't even count attacking what a person wears as the kind of problem.  Women are critical of other women for fashion choices in a way that's over-the-top, but what upsets me is when it's an attack on a woman just for not being physically perfect - if the shape of her eyes or nose or smile aren't perfect, or if she's not thin enough or tall enough, or if her hair is coarse or gray.  I just really don't understand it.

 

Shouldn't we want to see a more accurate reflection of our real-life diversity (like men get) and not just supermodels in different shades?

 

 

I would think so.  But how would Hollywood go about it, when any time a woman (character, actress, reality contestant, whatever) is not universally loved, the criticisms invariably include whatever is physically less than ideal about her?  At least if they keep casting perfect beauties they know they're pleasing one segment of the audience.  But if they aim for a diverse cast, and any negative reaction about a female includes the nasty remarks about her height/weight/nose/eyes/hair/teeth/hands/feet/legs/etc., then what message is Hollywood receiving?  And who's responsible for that message?

[DangerousMinds]

For some reason, I really cringe at the use of "females" instead of "women." It feels disrespectful somehow.

[galax-arena]

For some reason, I really cringe at the use of "females" instead of "women." It feels disrespectful somehow.

I think it's because when I see someone making heavy use of "females" instead of "women" - obviously we're talking about nouns and not adjectives - it's usually been from MRA-type assholes. They refer to men as men, but women are "females." The word's been tainted because it so often comes with a heaping bowl of sexist condescension.

 

It's sort of like how I now associate fedoras with "Nice Guy" douchebags. The fedora was actually popularized as women's fashion, but damn if it hasn't been completely co-opted and taken over by the Nice Guy contingent.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

 

Case in point: Jessica Pare from Mad Men and her teeth, which seem to offend far more than what she does with the character of Megan.

Personally, I think Jessica Pare is very beautiful. I never noticed that her teeth were supposedly weird until everybody and their dog started talking about them. I don't think Megan is the best character on Mad Men, but Jessica is very attractive IMO.

 

I think there's a bit of ageism involved as well. I read online reviews of things sometimes, usually in preparation for buying a Complete Whatever of a series, because box sets are expensive. My last purchase was the complete series of Prime Suspect, but I noted that there were complaints about the nudity therein, specifically referring to Helen Mirren taking her clothes off by saying that a woman in her fifties getting naked was really something the reviewer had no wish to see. Obviously what's attractive is extremely subjective, and if you asked ten random people who they thought was beautiful/sexy, none of them would give the same answer, but why make a point of bringing age into it? Again, I'm biased, because I think Mirren is *gorgeous*, but I wanted to chip in with my two cents.

[mightycrone]

 

One of my biggest irritants is use of the word "bitch" as if its definition is "any woman who does something one does not like."  Casual use of that particular gender slur on television doesn't sit well with me, either, but sometimes it seems ubiquitous.

 

 

Or, just being synonymous with woman/girl.  Can you imagine if women did that to men, but, say substituted the word "prick" or "asshole?"  You the hottest prick in this place!

 

 

It's sort of like how I now associate fedoras with "Nice Guy" douchebags. The fedora was actually popularized as women's fashion, but damn if it hasn't been completely co-opted and taken over by the Nice Guy contingent.

 

 

I didn't even know this was a thing!!! 

And consider, if you will, the term "douchebag!"

[ElleryAnne]

For some reason, I really cringe at the use of "females" instead of "women." It feels disrespectful somehow.

 

 

I never considered it that way myself, probably because I'm used to using Male and Female as medical terms.  But I can understand what you mean.  A couple of weeks ago one of the guys on Hell's Kitchen was angry at his team of men, and IIRC the "insult" he used to describe them was to call them a bunch of females. Which shouldn't actually sound like an insult, except it does due to the obvious implication that it's a lesser thing to be a woman than it is to be a man.  (FWIW, neither the men nor the women on Hell's Kitchen have much to recommend them as representatives for their genders.)

 

MRA-type assholes

 

 

I'm sure I should know this, but what is MRA?  

Edited June 14, 2014 by ElleryAnne

[Cobalt Stargazer]

At first I misread it and thought it said *NRA*, but according to Urban Dictionary MRA stands for Men's Rights Activists, which I had never heard of. The definition goes on to enlighten me by calling MRA's a "bunch of whiny, pedantic morons that think there is some vast Illuminati feminist conspiracy while seemingly ignoring the fact that their own gender runs the majority of the world." Personally, I would like to think that I am not that extreme, but I've never been overly political, even when I was in my twenties.

[ElleryAnne]

Thanks, Cobalt Stargazer.  That's the first I've heard of them, too.

[Bastet]

For some reason, I really cringe at the use of "females" instead of "women." It feels disrespectful somehow.

 

I find "female" used as a noun rather than an adjective offensive, because the  characters/personalities I've heard referring to a woman that way have done so in a context clearly indicating they regard women as little more than a collection of body parts.

[DangerousMinds]

I think it's because when I see someone making heavy use of "females" instead of "women" - obviously we're talking about nouns and not adjectives - it's usually been from MRA-type assholes. They refer to men as men, but women are "females." The word's been tainted because it so often comes with a heaping bowl of sexist condescension.

 

It's sort of like how I now associate fedoras with "Nice Guy" douchebags. The fedora was actually popularized as women's fashion, but damn if it hasn't been completely co-opted and taken over by the Nice Guy contingent.

I thought Duran Duran wore the fedoras well in the 80's though! LOL.

[galax-arena]

I'm sure I should know this, but what is MRA?  

Men's Rights Activists. They believe that misandry is a serious problem, and that men are truly the more oppressed/subjugated gender compared to women. They claim that all they care about are promoting issues that concern men, but cloak everything in a heavy dose of anti-feminism. If you get into a conversation with an MRA, mentioning an issue concerning women will be sure to get a cry of, "But what about the men??"  If you're concerned with racial issues, it's sort of the equivalent of when white people ask why there isn't a White History Month.

 

Consider yourself lucky if you've never encountered one lol.

 

 

And consider, if you will, the term "douchebag!"

Hah. I don't have a problem with that one, because a douche is bad for you, anyway. (Although that's probably not why the word was coined; I'm sure it was because of the girly associations.) Calling someone a pussy, though... 

Edited June 14, 2014 by galax-arena

[Wax Lion]

 

I'm sure I should know this, but what is MRA?

 

Generally, the thing to know about Men's Rights Activists is that they mistake misogyny's effects on men as misandry. I used to listen to that crap when I was a teen, but I eventually came to realize that a lot of their complaints (things like family courts having a bias for giving custody to mothers, erasure of male rape or domestic violence victims) are a result of the same fucked-up views on gender.

 

There' s also the screaming of "double standards" that ignore male privilege and societal context. For example, it's pretty common to see those guys show up where men are gazed sexually to scream about double standards. One recent MRA complaint I've run into is that Orphan Black is misandrist because it played Alison torturing her husband for laughs and you couldn't do the opposite.

 

Oh, and doofus husband characters in sitcoms are far more damaging than those doofus husbands having a wife that's prettier, smarter, more competent and patient enough to deal with his bullshit because he remembers to do something sweet by the end of the episode.

[Aquarius]

I think I dislike the use of "females" for "women" because I don't see males used the same way for men.  And I guess it does go to some misguided PC thing.  Like there is baggage attached to "woman" (I mean mostly societal roles) that is not attached to "female."  But it is doing women a disservice by substituting a term instead of reclaiming the use of the other. 

[kathyk24]

Why can't Melissa McCarthy play someone likable in her movies? I'm seeing ads for Tammy all over tv and I have no desire to see it. John Candy and Chris Farley always played nice guys in their films.Is it because their aren't enough women in power to object to how she is portrayed?

[Wax Lion]

I actually think her movie roles look a lot more likable than Chris Farely's roles (I've only seen Bridesmaids, so I'm judging on TV ads for those movies).

 

On the other hand, there's a strong contrast between her TV and movie roles. On TV, she's typically cast playing the super sweet best pal. I have no idea what that says.

[Dejana]

While it's probably incredibly easy for studio execs to be on board with Melissa McCarthy playing someone obnoxious and unglamorous, after seeing multiple SNL stints and reading some of her interviews, I've come to wonder if her tastes simply lean more to those sorts of roles. She comes from an improv background where loud/abrasive characters are often the standouts. Jenny McCarthy's her first cousin. Not that we're all exactly like our first cousins but maybe a taste for crassness runs in the family.

Edited June 23, 2014 by Dejana

[Cobalt Stargazer]

 

Why can't Melissa McCarthy play someone likable in her movies?

I might or might not see Tammy, but I liked McCarthy in Bridesmaids and The Heat. As @Dejana says, she seems to prefer portraying loud characters that aren't polished, but what she does, IMO she does well.

Edited June 23, 2014 by Cobalt Stargazer

[possibilities]

McCarthy's character in Bridesmaids is the thing I loved most about that movie. I thought that was a feminist character.

 

I also liked her in The Heat. She was pushy and uncompromising and sometimes gross. But I'll take that over these prissy glam or shy bumbling femmy characters who solve mysteries by fucking or flirting their way or being mentored by a Successful Daddy Figure. There have been a lot of male cops and detectives who were worse slobs or more brash, and her subverting the feminine imperative gets her points from me.

 

On Mike and Molly, she is the lead, with a happy marriage, and she is often the sanest person in the family-- though not always. I don't love that show, but I do think they try to balance the lunacy and the normal, and her character is not targeted as less desireable or more wacky than anyone else. I'd say Molly is her most "normal" role, other than her stint as the "best friend" on Gilmore Girls.

 

Her SNL appearances are far less easy for me to defend. Some of the sketches she did there struck me as funny, or like they were imperfectly developed glimmers of genius that didn't quite work out, but sometimes I'm just kind of embarrassed for her and wondering why that show in particular seems to cause her to abandon her self-respect.

 

I don't know about the Tammy movie yet. the commercials give me pause, but then sometimes promos are not really reliable for what a film is actually about. I haven't read any actual reviews.

Edited June 25, 2014 by possibilities

[Sweet Tee]

I thought her character in Identity Thief was unlike able through most of it, but that was kind of the point. I liked her a lot in The Heat and Bridesmaids. And I think her character on Gilmore Girls was more than the "the best friend." Sookie had her own life and we saw her build a relationship with a great guy until they married and had a family of their own. I don't remember her ever being portrayed as somehow less desirable than Lorelai.

[possibilities]

I concede about Sookie. I only watched GG intermittently and mostly near the end, and didn't see Sookie's story featured very much. People seem to always refer to her as a "best friend" fat girl cliche, but I would be very happy to hear that's not the case, and I'm totally willing to believe it.

 

I forgot about (and didn't see) Identity Thief. But in principle I think it's okay to have women play unlikable characters, as long as it's not "typical sexist stereotype of why all women are inferior" or something like that.

[BoogieBurns]

How I Met Your Mother went backwards on their feminist character. Robin in the first season was focused on her career, intelligent, independent, feminine, and not super interested in settling down. In real life, these people exist. I'm one of them. But in the later seasons, the show decides that Robin could only be that way because of something in her past. They justify Robin's interests by saying her dad raised her as a boy until she was 16. She had short hair, played hockey on a boys team, and her dad refers to her as "son". 

 

Obviously only men can be career driven and independent. The only way a woman can be that way is if she is basically a dude. 

[Cobalt Stargazer]

I admit that I had to give up on HIMYM because I developed an irrational dislike of Barney, so I'm not familiar with Robin's supposed regression. Was the show implying that her upbringing was traumatic, that if her father hadn't called her "son", etc, she'd have been okay? It does happen that some girls are encouraged to explore their own interests rather than be shoehorned into a more traditionally "feminine" role. Not every little girl becomes Betty Francis of their own choosing. :-)

[BoogieBurns]

Was the show implying that her upbringing was traumatic, that if her father hadn't called her "son", etc, she'd have been okay?

 

I think they make it pretty traumatic for a sitcom. Her dad wanted her to be a boy, and when she wasn't, he still treated her like one. Maybe I misread the relationship with her father in Season 8, but it seemed unpleasant. 

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Her dad wanted her to be a boy, and when she wasn't, he still treated her like one.

 

I can concede that calling her son is a bit odd, but other than that, I'm not sure what it means for him to have treated her like a boy. Girls *do* play sports, and while it's not usually on an official team with guys, its not as if it's bizarre or anything. Unless he was literally mistaking her for a boy, I'm not sure how its a regression for it to turn out that she had a non-traditional role as a child.

 

To give a similar example, on Modern Family it's Claire who was athletic as a kid and Mitchell who wasn't, and because of that Claire had more in common with their father Jay when they were growing up. That doesn't mean that Jay raised her to be the son he always wanted and never got, just that that was how it turned out. Granted, Mitchell is fussy and anal-retentive and Claire can be a bossy control freak, but that's not gender-specific.

[Wax Lion]

One thing I initially liked about Robin was that she was feminine but she had bro-y interests, like hanging out with the guys while smoking cigars or at strip clubs. There could have been an interesting story when it turned out that she was cool with her friend Barney going to strip clubs but not so much with her boyfriend Barney going to strip clubs. Unfortunately, they turned it into a story about the cool pal turning into a nagging, unreasonable girlfriend.

[BoogieBurns]

I can concede that calling her son is a bit odd, but other than that, I'm not sure what it means for him to have treated her like a boy. Girls *do* play sports, and while it's not usually on an official team with guys, its not as if it's bizarre or anything. Unless he was literally mistaking her for a boy, I'm not sure how its a regression for it to turn out that she had a non-traditional role as a child.

 

Of course girls play sports and several times she was mistaken for a boy. I'm just saying that Robin was a normal girl who accomplished a lot. Then in the later seasons they explain it away by saying she was basically a boy.  I just personally would have liked a richer back-story for a strong woman character. The lazy writing is what turned Robin into a trope.  

[Cobalt Stargazer]

To slightly change the subject, what makes a "strong woman character"? I see it talked about in various places, and I've asked the question before, but it seems to be subjective. Is it a character with no flaws, or one with flaws that are so slight that they're negligible?

[Sweet Tee]

When I think of a strong female character, I think of strong in the sense that she's a well defined, well rounded character. So, she should have flaws. For example, the ladies on Arrested Development are just as flawed and horrible as the men but everyone is still their own unique person.

[BoogieBurns]

Strong Female Characters can come in a lot of forms. They aren't always bossypants lawyers or whatever. Totally agree with Sweet Tea about them being well rounded. They have to be good to their friends and they need to have layers. It's best when they have just as much substance as the male characters. 

 

I guess I know it when I see it. 

 

Cobalt Stargazer, they have to have flaws. It is 100% subjective.

Edited June 25, 2014 by BoogieBurns

[ElleryAnne]

A character with no flaws tends to end up being more of a Mary Sue, imo.  A strong woman character would still have flaws, same as any other interesting character. 

 

In general, for me a strong female character would be one who:

1 - Doesn't always end up needing to be saved, or is unable to fend for herself;

2 - Isn't constantly emotionally needy, easily used, or incomplete without a man;

3 - Knows how to be assertive without being snide or nasty, and can take charge when needed;

4 - Faces the consequences of her choices and actions as an adult;

5 - Doesn't give up being caring, warm, and accepting of others as part of being "strong", and still tries to be a good spouse/friend/relative;

6 - Has interests/skills/talents/etc beyond just work or home.

 

It's rare for anyone to hit all of those points, but I think a strong woman possesses more than half of them.  For the most part, the same qualities that make a strong man make a strong woman.  

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Thank you for your comments, everyone, that was interesting. I myself think of strong characters of either gender as being flawed but also someone I can relate to. I've been on a Criminal Minds kick lately, and since A & E has been airing the early episodes, my appreciation of Elle Greenaway has been renewed. She was only on the show for a season and a half, and then the actress left the role because she wanted to get back to the East Coast, but in contrast to the blandly perfect JJ Jareau who IMO is still a cipher despite having been around since the beginning, Elle leaves an impression.

 

On a related note, does "strong" equal "good"? I think even ambiguous characters can be strong, and while it will be a peeve of mine until the end of time when evil characters stick around for ages due to their popularity, normal morality isn't a prerequisite for me to like a character or think they have strength. It's when the writing turns all the other characters into pretzels to shoehorn in the Bad Boy/Bad Girl Woobie that cheeses me off.

[ElleryAnne]

blandly perfect

 

 

Heh.  "Blandly perfect" is my least favorite kind of character.  Unrealistic and inevitably annoying.

 

 

On a related note, does "strong" equal "good"? I think even ambiguous characters can be strong, and while it will be a peeve of mine until the end of time when evil characters stick around for ages due to their popularity, normal morality isn't a prerequisite for me to like a character or think they have strength. It's when the writing turns all the other characters into pretzels to shoehorn in the Bad Boy/Bad Girl Woobie that cheeses me off.

 

 

For me, strong and good are independent of each other as far as characters go.  A character can be both, neither, or either one.  I tend to favor characters that are morally ambiguous on TV.  (I'm also fond of dark and brooding, but that's another conversation.)  Unfortunately,  I think some show creators and writers have a hard time creating female characters that are both strong and good without also making them either boring or unrealistic.

[Athena]

I do not need to relate to characters to enjoy them. I think a lot of the show I watch have characters who I probably couldn't be friends with or be around. I do need to find them interesting or fascinating in some way usually a mix of the acting and the writing brings it for me. For example, I find a lot of the characters in Mad Men interesting, but a lot of them are assholes too. Then again, I can see why they developed that way and could be a product of their times and environment.

[Irlandesa]

Was the show implying that her upbringing was traumatic, that if her father hadn't called her "son", etc, she'd have been okay?

 

I know we've moved a little away from HIMYM but I would like to go back to Robin because one thing I really identified with was the fact that she didn't want children.  She was a smart, funny, ambitious and warm character who just simply had no desire to be a mother.  As someone for whom parenthood holds little appeal, I found it so refreshing.

 

It started going downhill for me with her when, during a lull in her career, she was playing with a baby bootie which had the unfortunate result of linking her choice to be childless to the state of her career.  It became more about not thinking she could have it all than being a woman who had no desire for children even if her career stunk.  To make matters worse, they then essentially robbed her of her choice not to have children by having a doctor tell her that she was incapable of having biological children. (In the craziest, most unrealistically revealing blood test yet.) And we had to have episodes where she was bummed over this.

 

I know, in theory, that being told that being upset over not being able to have kids even when one doesn't want kids is realistic but at that point I didn't care.  Robin was refreshing as a television character when she was a happy young woman choosing not to have kids just because. They slowly robbed her of that freshness and by the end they turned her into someone who essentially seemed to put her life on hold until the man who she rejected numerous times while they were dating became  a widow.

 

On a related note, does "strong" equal "good"?

 

No.  A character who is a strong woman is its own thing.  You can have a character who is a "strong woman" but they may not be very well developed characters.

 

A strong character is a well defined character whose decisions are based on their character and not solely in service of plot.  That can be good things or bad things but its their thing.  That doesn't mean they can't do things that service the plot but is there follow through with the character?  Do we see what reasoning led up to the choice?  Do we see that character deal with the repercussions of their decision?

 

True Detective was always a problematic series for me in terms of female characters.  They were either dead, prostitutes or served at the pleasure of men.  It did many things well but female characters was not one of them.  I got into debates about whether or not Michelle Monaghan's character filled the bill for a "strong character."  My problem with her was that she was mostly defined in relation to the man in her life.  There was confusion as to whether or not she was a doctor a nurse.  And the one powerful act she took as vengeance never seemed to me to be about that character.  It was about explaining why these two main characters ended up estranged for so many years.  They didn't do much to explain why she felt this was her only choice nor did they show us the character living with her decision.  That's why she doesn't pass the muster for me. 

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Perhaps 'relatable' was the wrong word to use. 'Compelling' might be a better one. In the case of a show like Mad Men, where almost everyone is at least a little bit of a prick, IMO it's a case of it being the era and the upbringing of the characters. I certainly wouldn't want to know many of them personally, with the *possible* exception of Pete, and even that's mostly because I'd follow Vincent Kartheiser to any project than because of any love for Pete himself. But I digress.

 

 

I know we've moved a little away from HIMYM but I would like to go back to Robin because one thing I really identified with was the fact that she didn't

want children.  She was a smart, funny, ambitious and warm character who just simply had no desire to be a mother.  As someone for whom parenthood holds little appeal, I found it so refreshing.

@Irlandesa, thank you for your belated comment. As I said upthread, I had to stop watching HIMYM because I couldn't stand Barney, so I'm not completely familiar with Robin's character progression/regression/what have you. The implication I was getting was that her relationship with her father had damaged her somehow, that if he hadn't "raised her like a boy", a concept I still don't quite grasp, she'd have been all right. Unfortunately, it's realistic that some fathers don't know how to interact with daughters. Not that they don't *want* to be fathers or that they love their daughters any less tan whatever sons they might have, but being able to relate to someone isn't the same thing as loving them. Just putting some food for thought on the table. :-)

 

As for her decision not to have children, would it have been more palatable if the writers had just had her change her mind and decide she'd like a baby after all? Or would that have been problematic in a different way? No, not every woman wants children, nor does she have to, but *some* women do change their minds. I'm not in the entertainment industry, but I write creatively as a hobby, and if characters aren't allowed to change or grow, they stagnate. Not that I don't think baby storylines are boring and hella overdone, and I've never quite understood the fixation on making babies that infects most young women on soaps, the dreaded "baby rabies", but done *properly*, it wouldn't have to be excruciating.

[Snowprince]

As the father of an adult daughter, this has been bugging me for a while now. She's currently in young career woman mode and enjoying it immensley, but has expressed a desire to have children later. Just not now. I get that there are women (and men) who don't want kids, and that's fine. But, what of those who do? Are motherhood and being "strong, intelligent, and independent" mutually exclusive? Maybe I'm way off base and reading the tea leaves wrong, but that's the vibe I'm picking up. 

 

Please enlighten me. As a man I can't see the issue through a woman's eyes.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Snowprince