Gender On Television: It's Like Feminism Never Happened

[Wiendish Fitch]

I can't tell you how relieved I am that I never got into Once Upon a Time. I'd have yanked all my hair out. 

BTW, I still hate Catra. I don't care what that says about me. 

[JustHereForFood]

18 hours ago, Affogato said:

Anout the gender thing the question is why are people so focused and defensive about rhe guys on the show? There was a largely female cast and some of their characters did bad things.  

They all took responsibility for their actions and were called out on them when appropriate. The show was actually pretty good IMO for showing how female characters can also make mistakes and learn from them.

(Anya being the exception, but that is often pointed out, at least here.)

[Affogato]

2 minutes ago, JustHereForFood said:

They all took responsibility for their actions and were called out on them when appropriate. The show was actually pretty good IMO for showing how female characters can also make mistakes and learn from them.

(Anya being the exception, but that is often pointed out, at least here.)

I would also say this was true of the male characters. So the question remains. 
 

I haven’t time to write a really good answer. I think that fans often react with systemic sexism, racism, social expectations.  A lot of splitting goes on in any online fandom, including political, tv, movies. I think, though, that a lot of the buffy arguments come from back when teens werr using the show and each other as a sounding board to figure out how they felt about things. 
 

 

[tearknee]

[stream of consciousness in wrong thread --still working my way around this confusing maze of forums]

Edited Saturday at 08:15 PM by tearknee

[kathyk2]

CNN has a new series about controversial tv episodes. This episode featured Murphy Brown and the Dan Quayle controversy. Dan Quayle never realized that Murphy did tell Avery's father about her pregnancy but he chose to abandon them. It was great to see Candice Bergen again. I've never understood why single moms are bad but single dads are fine.

[Annber03]

Yeah, talk about a SUPER timely subject for a series to cover. It was really well done, though, especially in terms of setting the episode and its controversy within the context of the time. 

[Raja]

1 hour ago, kathyk2 said:

CNN has a new series about controversial tv episodes. This episode featured Murphy Brown and the Dan Quayle controversy. Dan Quayle never realized that Murphy did tell Avery's father about her pregnancy but he chose to abandon them. It was great to see Candice Bergen again. I've never understood why single moms are bad but single dads are fine.

Maybe it has happened recently that a man chose to try to become a  single parent but back then the child was often deposited on the last family member, that man to raise. I thus the heroic portrayal. 

Sometimes I think all the 60s TV dad's, even back to the 50s with The Rifleman were in that position and only Mike Brady finally went out to marry again to form a nuclear family with The Brady Bunch. 

[kathyk2]

1 hour ago, Raja said:

Maybe it has happened recently that a man chose to try to become a  single parent but back then the child was often deposited on the last family member, that man to raise. I thus the heroic portrayal. 

Sometimes I think all the 60s TV dad's, even back to the 50s with The Rifleman were in that position and only Mike Brady finally went out to marry again to form a nuclear family with The Brady Bunch. 

Men were writing the scripts in the early days of television so it makes sense that there were more single dads than moms. I think this trope is still over used. Blue Bloods has three generations of widowers and NCIS has several characters with dead wives and mothers.

[possibilities]

Everything men do is heroic. Even criminality is rootable. You can have a schlubby guy if he's also considered lovable and undivorcible.

Everything women do is either tragic, evil, subservient, cute, and/or sexually convenient for a man. 

[Danielg342]

3 hours ago, kathyk2 said:

Men were writing the scripts in the early days of television so it makes sense that there were more single dads than moms. I think this trope is still over used. Blue Bloods has three generations of widowers and NCIS has several characters with dead wives and mothers.

Now you get two different types of single parents. If you have a character whose children are infants or pre-teens, that character will likely be a single mother. If you have a character whose children are teens or even adults, that character will be a single father.

I think of this as having the hallmarks of being the product of having too many male writers and creators, because the gender stereotypes are still very strong. Women are allowed to be playful and silly- childlike, you could say- so they can be seen with babies and pre-teens, plus women are always seen as better than men at things like changing diapers.

Men, on the other hand, while they can be nurturers too, their nurturing is typically portrayed as the "noble teacher" type, the one that gives "sage advice" and imparts "hard life lessons". Your father is supposed to be the one that teaches you how to drive a car or tells you "the importance of hard work"- and not be the type that goes down the Slip 'N' Slide with you.

This also explains the divergence in the "single parent" storylines. Men, apparently, are supposed to be able to be at peace with themselves with being alone, and male characters who steel themselves and project an outer strength despite hidden struggles and weaknesses plays up to ideas of "honour" and "valour" that are stereotypical male traits.

Which is why, usually, a single dad storyline almost always begins with the man adjusting to being alone and raising his teenage daughter (they almost always have teenage daughters) while he broods over the death of his wife (and single dads are almost always widowers). He's "not ready" to date yet because he's "not yet over his wife" and it's almost always a storyline in of itself for the dad to develop the courage to date again.

Meanwhile, women are supposed to be so spooked at being single that almost immediately single moms will start dating again, even though they're not "over" their ex (and single mothers are almost always divorced). Her beginning storyline is almost always about trying to find a babysitter and having dating mishaps because she "rushed into dating too soon". She might even eventually find someone she thinks is "the one" but, because she's "not yet over her ex", the relationship ultimately falters. Only then does she learn she has to properly grieve her loss before she can go back out there again.

Sometimes you might get variations, but it's almost always the single dad is divorced from a woman that, once we meet her, is so downright nasty we wonder how the two even fell in love in the first place. The idea that people simply just "fall apart" is foreign to Hollywood, at least on the male side of things.

As is the idea that women can get comfortable being alone and may not rush to date again (if they ever even decide to do it again), or that men can absolutely hate being lonely and have dating mishaps because of it.

I lost my mother nine years ago, and my dad is as "anti-Hollywood" here as you can get. Immediately he went back into dating because he just couldn't stand the thought of being alone. He wound up with a string of dating mishaps because he just wasn't ready to date again, because he didn't properly grieve. Barely a year after my mother's death he finds a woman who sticks with him, because I think she, too, was tired of being lonely (she was also a widower). She's also a pushover and he's a control freak, so I guess they fit. They did marry and, to their credit, they're still together.

Anyway, I won't bore anyone else anymore over my personal life, but I always think of how my dad behaved and how it's just so different from the typical portrayals of single fathers in Hollywood.

On 9/11/2024 at 9:55 PM, possibilities said:

It also annoys me that if a female character is strong, tough, resiliant, and unapologetic about it, she's considered unlikable. Male characters like that are badasses.

Women are also considered "too perfect" if they don't fuck up in major ways, while male characters like that are, you guessed it, geniuses! Badasses! Heroes!

I find that women in Hollywood- who are at least not intended to be plot devices for male characters (which they'll almost inevitably become anyway)- tend to be written one of two ways:

• She's super smart, super proficient and excels at just about everything, and everyone is in visible awe at her accomplishments. Her struggles are superficial, if she ever really has any, and the people who view her negatively are almost always people the audience are supposed to dislike- the sympathetic characters are all tripping over themselves with praise of her.
• She has one hundred million flaws, so much so that you question her overall competency. She's behind on her rent with excuses that get more extravagant, she's reckless with her money, she'll eat just about anything (but not gain any weight, apparently) and she'll wear the most ragged, plain clothing you can find, usually soiled because she can't bother with laundry. If she dates, she'll never commit to anyone, because she's so far depressed that she'll engage with anyone who will fill her "physical void", if you know what I mean. She'll be played by an actress who many would consider absolutely beautiful, because this character "could be beautiful if she tried", which she invariably does not.

The first one usually has a beauty component to it as well, but not always- sometimes that role will be male, and if the role is male, expect the male to be a minority (unless he's Black, in which case he'll just adopt Black stereotypes) or to be an "awkward" guy who struggles to talk to women and isn't as "manly" as the other men in the cast.

Why this happens is because I think there are far too few writers in Hollywood who seek to genuinely explore female characters, who are almost always "tack on" characters to a cast so that the show can claim a diversity it really does not represent. The writers here simply want a character who can be "instantly" likeable or relatable, without actually putting in the work to make them at all likeable or relatable.

The result are characters who may look deep and developed but are really flat and shallow upon further analysis. Everything they'll do on the show will be superficial, and they'll continue on the show until the actress tires of playing a role without depth or the writers "find something to do" for the character, which almost always turns them into some kind of plot device for another character, usually one of the featured main male characters.

The characterizations come about because I believe execs and writers misunderstand the common complaint about female characters in the past- the lack of "strong female characters". They interpret this to mean creating characters who will give the appearance of some kind of strength or inspire some kind of strength- inner or outer strength- when the complaint really calls for the opposite.

From my vantage point, it's all about not creating superficial characters, of any kind. It's about having characters- male or female- that are fundamentally sound, characters who have storylines and ambitions and struggles and conflicts that are entirely their own, or at least can stand on their own even when they interact with other characters.

It's not about having a woman who's so good that she has 50 PhDs, or a woman who is so bad that she gets so hungover that she's constantly late for work and behind on 50 different bills and her rent because of it.

It's about Alice, who lives in a small town and runs the local bakery out of her house. She struggles with rent because the town isn't very big so her clientele is not large. Her parents give her money to stay afloat but secretly she resents it because Alice hates receiving handouts. She pines for Bob, one of her regular customers, but her attraction to him is only a part of her story. Alice has many dreams- moving to the city, expanding the bakery, or maybe saving enough money so she can go back to school and follow another one of her passions- but, for now, she's got to sort out her life and gain some more stability because only then will she be able to more seriously think about her other goals.

Something like that.

I thought of that off the top of my head, and it amazes me how simple it can be but Hollywood writers never seem to think of that. Some of, supposedly, the best writers in the world and yet we routinely get stuck with scripts I doubt a high school teacher would accept.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

On 9/20/2024 at 2:14 PM, Affogato said:

About Spike’s attempted rape of Buffy it is not that she used him for sex, although she had been using him. It is that she acted the same way she did and he had every reason to assume that if she really meant it she would fight him off.  When he found out he was wrong he was remorseful and he went out and got a soul.
 

Even there, the argument can be made that Spike's the one who opened the door for that. In the show's universe, Buffy could hardly be held responsible for him becoming so obsessed with her that he custom-ordered a sexbot that looked just like her, because at the time he couldn't have the real Buffy, who rightly wanted nothing to do with him.

I was one of many viewers who were around for the show's first run, watching the show unfold in real time, and I would note that for the first five seasons, Buffy could do no wrong as far as the fans were concerned. It was only when Spike "fell in love" with her that the tone changed and she was considered a terrible person because she was hurting the soulless murderer's (alleged) feelings. Like Regina Mills much later, Spike pretty much remained awful, and that Buffy becomes the vessel of his "redemption" because he frigging tried to rape her is just the icing on a crappy cake. Because a good portion of the viewership, both old and new, is still whistling right past it because of reasons.

[tearknee]

The kind of people that post here are not ordinary people of the general public, though and do not want from visual and aural media what they do. We -- and I readily include myself in this -- are outliers, not average, ordinary people.

The knowledgeable elite is as much an elite when compared to the general public as the monied "1%" elite are. 

 

[Affogato]

54 minutes ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

Even there, the argument can be made that Spike's the one who opened the door for that. In the show's universe, Buffy could hardly be held responsible for him becoming so obsessed with her that he custom-ordered a sexbot that looked just like her, because at the time he couldn't have the real Buffy, who rightly wanted nothing to do with him.

I was one of many viewers who were around for the show's first run, watching the show unfold in real time, and I would note that for the first five seasons, Buffy could do no wrong as far as the fans were concerned. It was only when Spike "fell in love" with her that the tone changed and she was considered a terrible person because she was hurting the soulless murderer's (alleged) feelings. Like Regina Mills much later, Spike pretty much remained awful, and that Buffy becomes the vessel of his "redemption" because he frigging tried to rape her is just the icing on a crappy cake. Because a good portion of the viewership, both old and new, is still whistling right past it because of reasons.

As one of the many viewers, like myself, that watched BTVS from the beginning, you likely realized that part of the reason Buffy worked was that it used and averted what we call tropes.  So Buffy is the hero, but she is a small blond teenaged girl from a broken home, who has aspirations to be  a popular cheerleader. Her heroes journey is to figure out to live and decide what she wants, instead of being driven by what outside forces want from her. She has given up societie’s cheerleader idea, something choses her. What does she choose. She really struggles in some later seasons, but she is never without her human flaws.
 

 So, Spike’s rape motivates him, not her. It is an aversion of a common trope. 

Dn’t like Spike? Good for you. I hate these guys as chstismatic and romantic guys. Spike is the emotionally immature, sociopathic /abusive outsider who is so popular in teen stories. He probably was the same when he was human. ‘fans” really love these guys, especially the hurt comfort fans, I think. He does have a redemption arc, which is part of the trope. At the time I was pissed that his reaction made him better than Angel, but by my moral lights, yeah, he earned that soul. …and there is something very attractive in general about the idea that abusers can be fixed if you love them enough.
 

In real life this is not true, but it kept me in a trauma bond way too long. Your mileage may vary. 

[possibilities]

I never watched Buffy when it was airing, but I knew people who were major fans of it, so at some point I tried watching some episodes in repeats.

I never fully understood the world or the characters (because I was watching random episodes long after the fact and didn't have the backstories), and I never got interested enough to start from the beginning and figure it out.

But from what I heard from the fans I knew, it seems like at the time it was rare for there to be a female superhero equivalent, and that the show turned some stereotypes on their heads. Plus, there was an audience for the extremely rare lesbian representation (Willow/Tara was considered a breakthrough as I recall, when such portrayals Did Not Happen Anywhere).

It reminds me of how the Lynda Carter Wonder Woman was a hit when it first aired. But now, her costume alone would be enough to get her chased off the screen by anyone who actually wants to see good female representation. 

 

[Affogato]

1 hour ago, possibilities said:

 

It reminds me of how the Lynda Carter Wonder Woman was a hit when it first aired. But now, her costume alone would be enough to get her chased off the screen by anyone who actually wants to see good female representation. 

 

The costume wasn’t that bad, assuming the skies were full of costumed heroes in that world. It was functional.  You would want to go eith the flow a bit, and have some recognition value—in world and as a showrunner. This is another thing I haven’t watched in too long and can’t really hold a discussion about, but I bet it holds up for the most part. Lynda Carter certainly does. 
 

Buffy does as well. They are real people. Granted you wouldn’t kill Tara today, but that doesn’t make it a bad story or an offensive one. Whedon may have been an abusive bastard during his run on the show, but be also held the rein of something special. 
 

also the world has not hugely advanced since the 2000 in its treatment of women and minorities of all sorts. Disney’s female lead movies are not Disney’s most popular, and it isn’t for lack of talent. 

[Wiendish Fitch]

Way back in 1998 or so, there was a Time magazine cover story asking "Is Feminism Dead?", that showed black and white photos of noted feminists... and then Calista Flockhart as Ally McBeal. 

Now, I never liked Ally McBeal (the character or the show), still don't, but in hindsight, this is tied with Dan Quayle condemning Murphy Brown as a rather silly, alarmist reaction. Ms. Flockhart has even pointed out how unfair it was, given that the men on Ally McBeal were hardly dignified or admirable, but the onus was on her to be a role model to all. 

Do I like positive female role models? Absolutely, but variety is the spice of life as well as fiction, and depending on the story you're telling, said female character might work better riddled with flaws. 

[Raja]

17 minutes ago, Affogato said:

The costume wasn’t that bad, assuming the skies were full of costumed heroes in that world. It was functional.  You would want to go eith the flow a bit, and have some recognition value—in world and as a showrunner. This is another thing I haven’t watched in too long and can’t really hold a discussion about, but I bet it holds up for the most part. Lynda Carter certainly does. 
 

Buffy does as well. They are real people. Granted you wouldn’t kill Tara today, but that doesn’t make it a bad story or an offensive one. Whedon may have been an abusive bastard during his run on the show, but be also held the rein of something special. 
 

also the world has not hugely advanced since the 2000 in its treatment of women and minorities of all sorts. Disney’s female lead movies are not Disney’s most popular, and it isn’t for lack of talent. 

I can't recall any Justice Society on the TV Wonder Woman. Most of the superheroes of her era were the singular superhero of the world. The 60s Batman villains being the outlying show. I know that with every reboot attempt there was always the worry about how the voluptuous superheroes from the comics would play.

[tearknee]

The whole 'sisterhood' crap solely enables the Diane Downs and Kimberly Dawn Trenors'--and indeed, Jeanette McCurdy and my mothers who for a start, decided we should be child models and actors because of their own failed dream. Regardless of what we, their daughters, wanted.

[Affogato]

Apparently wonder woman on TV had boots that were flat when she ran and high heeled when she didn’t. 

3 minutes ago, tearknee said:

The whole 'sisterhood' crap solely enables the Diane Downs and Kimberly Dawn Trenors'--and indeed, Jeanette McCurdy and my mothers who for a start, decided we should be child models and actors because of their own failed dream. Regardless of what we, their daughters, wanted.

I’m sorry. It is pretty common. 
 

women have always had to support each other, though. That is what the term sisterhood meant, I think. 

[tearknee]

6 minutes ago, Affogato said:

Apparently wonder woman on TV had boots that were flat when she ran and high heeled when she didn’t. 

I’m sorry. It is pretty common. 
 

women have always had to support each other, though. That is what the term sisterhood meant, I think. 

Isn't it 'funny' how bad actors even within the marginalized take something positive and use it until it no longer does anything good? *sadness and despair in these words*.

[apocryphal] Hitler: "How many now remember the Armenians?"

Me: "How many now remember Downs or Trenor?"

[Raja]

12 minutes ago, Affogato said:

Apparently wonder woman on TV had boots that were flat when she ran and high heeled when she didn’t. 

I’m sorry. It is pretty common. 
 

women have always had to support each other, though. That is what the term sisterhood meant, I think. 

That was common I remember a costume designer stunt woman making a video saying that the wedges heroes are put in to hide the heels like Gal Gadot's costume are the absolute worse shoe. 

I remember Fiona of Burn Notice once wore flats to jump a fence instead of her iconic platforms 

[dalek]

On the running in high heels thing - here's one of my favorite comdey clips on the subject: Jurassic Park High Heels Edition