Gender On Television: It's Like Feminism Never Happened

[Spartan Girl]

2 hours ago, Fool to cry said:

Dang, nobody wants him to at least have matured and acknowledged and regretted the ways he's been a douche in the past?

He had ample opportunities for that in the original run and he squandered every last one of them. He isn’t as popular a character as he used to be, so I think people will survive not having him back.  

[Fool to cry]

38 minutes ago, Spartan Girl said:

He had ample opportunities for that in the original run and he squandered every last one of them. He isn’t as popular a character as he used to be, so I think people will survive not having him back.  

He was supposed to be a teenager through most of that run. This is the problem of having actors pushing 30 playing teens. They look like adults acting immaturely when the characters are pretty much in line with the mentality of their age. 

Edited May 16 by Fool to cry

[Anduin]

3 hours ago, Fool to cry said:

Dang, nobody wants him to at least have matured and acknowledged and regretted the ways he's been a douche in the past? No points for the good moments like "You're my hero." talking DarkWillow down, and making Dawn feel better for not being a Slayer?

I figured out the problem is Xander was written like a sitcom character in a mostly dramatic show. Most sitcom characters are awful human beings but in their correct setting they're just harmless fools.

Given Nick Brendan's substance abuse and problems stemming from that, they'd have to recast him.

3 hours ago, Fool to cry said:

Dang, nobody wants him to at least have matured and acknowledged and regretted the ways he's been a douche in the past? No points for the good moments like "You're my hero." talking DarkWillow down, and making Dawn feel better for not being a Slayer?

I figured out the problem is Xander was written like a sitcom character in a mostly dramatic show. Most sitcom characters are awful human beings but in their correct setting they're just harmless fools.

Given Nick Brendan's substance abuse and problems stemming from that, they'd have to recast him.

[Fool to cry]

Also Xander is supposed to be mid 40s, but Brandon is 54 but looks 60 now.

[Spartan Girl]

1 hour ago, Fool to cry said:

He was supposed to be a teenager through most of that run. This is the problem of having actors pushing 30 playing teens. They look like adults acting immaturely when the characters are pretty much in line with the mentality of their age. 

The age of the actors is irrelevant. It’s the character development that counts. And as far as I could tell, Xander remained the same character he’s always been.

Anyway, my point is that it won’t be the end of the world if Xander isn’t there. It’s a good opportunity to focus more on the female characters and get away from the latent misogyny Whedon implemented.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

4 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

The age of the actors is irrelevant. It’s the character development that counts. And as far as I could tell, Xander remained the same character he’s always been.

Anyway, my point is that it won’t be the end of the world if Xander isn’t there. It’s a good opportunity to focus more on the female characters and get away from the latent misogyny Whedon implemented.

Allegedly, Whedon took Nicholas Brendon aside at some point during season four, or perhaps before that season began filming, and told him that the show was pretty much done with Xander as a character, that they were going to start focusing much less on him and more on Willow and Buffy. That he could either remain on the show with no real arc or he could take his chances getting cast somewhere else. I don't know how far back his issues with substance abuse go, if like the late Glenn Quinn he was already having problems staying away from such things. I'm loath to say that being pushed into the background may have exacerbated some things, but I'm not averse to the notion either.

[Spartan Girl]

10 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

Allegedly, Whedon took Nicholas Brendon aside at some point during season four, or perhaps before that season began filming, and told him that the show was pretty much done with Xander as a character, that they were going to start focusing much less on him and more on Willow and Buffy. That he could either remain on the show with no real arc or he could take his chances getting cast somewhere else. I don't know how far back his issues with substance abuse go, if like the late Glenn Quinn he was already having problems staying away from such things. I'm loath to say that being pushed into the background may have exacerbated some things, but I'm not averse to the notion either.

If this is true, I’m baffled that Whedon didn’t just let Nicholas/Xander go right then and there. Why give him a choice to stay at all? But knowing Whedon, he probably couldn’t let his self-insert go completely. Even if Xander wasn’t going to be a large part of that season 4, it’s like he felt compelled to keep the male normie sidekick around to moralize and keep Buffy in check, then justify it by calling Xander be the “heart” of the team. How feminist of him./s

Edited May 17 by Spartan Girl

[possibilities]

I don't get why vampire stories are so popular. I'm not saying it to be critical. I'm just saying I don't personally understand it. I knew people who were superfans of the Buffy series, and i tried to watch it, but it just never grabbed me. I also never found her asskicking scenes credible. She looked like she would break if she came into any resistance. And Willow's baby voice depresses me. 

As far as why people sometimes hate romance plots is concerned, I can't speak for other people, but for me, what I hate is the way they are written, not that there are relationships but the kind of relationships that are often used.

I love seeing adults having adult realationships. I even am okay with teens having what to me seem like interesting realtionships. What makes me gag and want to change the channel is the romatic tropes that rely on bad communication, endless longing because people are too weak and lazy to actually express their feelings in the oopen and risk getting real about it, or relationships thart reduce people to noting but chemistry robots. 

It seems to me that the romantic tropes depend on people being in a fog, not getting real. And delusion or fantasy only gets me so far. I like when people connect, but not when it makes them seem like idiots. 

I also really hate the sexism in how so many relationships are portrayed, and I hate love triangles, and I also don't enjoy seeing shitty characters be lusted after. Maybe in real life there are people who prefer unavailable or obnoxious people, but I find it draining. 

It seems like most tv writers don't know how to write a healthy relationship, and a lot of viewers don't even want to watch one. 

For me, there's nothing more inspiring than people who respect and love each other, and there is enough real life challenge to drive any plot. Relationships can sometimes be work, so I'm also not saying everything needs to be sunshine. But a lot of the shipping and relationship portrayals don't work for me because they seem to be founded on either nothing or things I don't enjoy or value in fiction or real life.

I don't think the aversion to shipping is because people hate relationships. I think it's because they find the kind of relationships championed to be boring or aversive.

[Anduin]

2 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

If this is true, I’m baffled that Whedon didn’t just let Nicholas/Xander go right then and there. Why give him a choice to stay at all? But knowing Whedon, he probably couldn’t let his self-insert go completely. Even if Xander wasn’t going to be a large part of that season 4, it’s like he felt compelled to keep the male normie sidekick around to moralize and keep Buffy in check, then justify it by calling Xander be the “heart” of the team. How feminist of him./s

And abandon him to his demons? Whedon probably thought that keeping Brendan on would stop him going too far off the rails or hoped that ongoing work would encourage him to shape up. Some situations, there's no right answer.

[Annber03]

2 hours ago, possibilities said:

It seems like most tv writers don't know how to write a healthy relationship, and a lot of viewers don't even want to watch one. 

I was going to say, I don't know that it's that writers don't know how to write healthy relationships much of the time, but more that they don't want to or aren't interested in doing so (or are mandated to do so by outside factors), in large part because, as you note with your comment about viewers, drama is what sells, and shipping drama especially gets the eyeballs and the fans talking and debating and gets the show all sorts of attention. 

I personally think a lot of the tropes you mention that you aren't personally a fan of can be done right/well, and if so, they can make for intriguing relatioship drama (I'm personally a sucker for people pining for each other from afar and struggling to admit their feelings for one reason or another, I think that's probably one of the more believabe and relatable scenarios for a lot of people to experience). 

But I also agree that more often than not a lot of those kinds of tropes aren't handled well on a lot of shows, and so it makes sense viewers like yourself will get frustrated as a result. I haven't seen "Buffy", so I can't speak to how that show handled relationship stuff, but yeah, I think a lot of how well or not romance is handled on TV shows depends on a variety of factors, some of which are within the writers' control, some of which are not. 

I also agree that, especially with m/f relationships, a lot of shows just slap any man and woman together and set up a relationship, instead of factoring in whether or not this particular man and woman would be the sort to actually be interested in each other, or tailoring the romance to this specific man and woman, instead of just throwing them in to stereotypical m/f relationship drama. 

Edited May 17 by Annber03

[JustHereForFood]

On 5/16/2025 at 7:08 PM, Spartan Girl said:

Getting back to the actual thread topic…

The new Buffy reboot has cast its lead. I wonder how much difference it’ll make now that new showrunners are in charge and thus the reek of Whedon misogyny will hopefully be eradicated. I honestly hope Sarah is the only legacy actor that shows up. Xander isn’t even mentioned, that’ll be aces, but if he’s killed offscreen, @Danny Franks, @Wiendish Fitchand I just might have to throw a parade. 😉

My minor nitpick - if it's a new slayer and Buffy shows up again, it isn't a reboot but a revival/continuation ...

I hope that at least Giles shows up and Buffy can have a chat with him about maturing to the mentor role herself, otherwise I'm afraid there's not much for me and I would rather rewatch my favorite episodes. I hope that Angel and Spike don't show up and not just because they would not look like they haven't aged. I prefer the vampires as soulless monsters, not romantic leads.

6 hours ago, possibilities said:

It seems like most tv writers don't know how to write a healthy relationship, and a lot of viewers don't even want to watch one. 

I think this is the main problem. But whether most viewers really don't want to see them or the writers/producers only assume that ... who knows.

[possibilities]

I think maybe part of it is that tv caters less to adults, because advertizers want young viewers. 

But I liked the marriage between the Taylors on Friday Night Lights, and I liked the marriage between Athena and Bobby on 911. Even on the teen show whose name I can't remember right now, I liked the marriage between Lena and Steph (the parents) more than the relationships the teens had with each other. Fire Country had a marriage between adults Vince and Sharon which was one of the best parts of the show, in my opinion.

But the shows often treat established couples who actually get along as background, or ones who have legitimate complicated issues to resolve as just bickering people who never actually resolve anything and you wonder why they don't get a divorce because all they do is pick at each other and usually the woman is portrayed at hateful and the man as either long-suffering or obnopxiously immature but somehow the woman stays with him and seems to think his obnoxiousness is cute.

The Office is a show that started off with a love triangle, but they made it obvious right away that one of the guys was awful and the other was Soul Mate, so there was a lot of shipping and no wars. And once they got Jim and Pam together, that relationship became much less the focus, but their storylines were genuine-- I liked them, they did have some things to work out and they did work them out. Why don't people want to see that, rather than couples who never get together or who get together and just bicker? 

I think some of this does have to do with gender politics, because we see lots of relationships where there is a terrible guy who the women want, or a nice guy who the women don't want. There are not nearly enough examples of same gender relationships over all, but at least the ones I can think of don't tend to follow that patterns as much. 

 

Edited May 17 by possibilities

[Kel Varnsen]

1 hour ago, JustHereForFood said:

My minor nitpick - if it's a new slayer and Buffy shows up again, it isn't a reboot but a revival/continuation ...

Except the show "Reboot" with Paul Reiser was about a TV writer and his daughter restarting a classic sitcom he created with the same cast, continuing their story. So I think reboot also works.

[Bastet]

1 hour ago, possibilities said:

Even on the teen show whose name I can't remember right now, I liked the marriage between Lena and Steph (the parents) more than the relationships the teens had with each other.

The Fosters.  Which I quickly found unwatchable due to it being a teen soap opera and that very much not being my genre, but I tried because of Lena and Steph (it was the first time I didn't dislike Teri Polo in something).

I often dislike romantic relationships on TV for the reasons you listed, especially how frequently sexist stereotypes a woman has never previously exhibited are suddenly foisted upon her because of a love interest.  They're not writing to the character, they're shoving the character into a narrow box that gets passed around from show to show, making it as boring as it is annoying.

[kathyk2]

2 hours ago, JustHereForFood said:

My minor nitpick - if it's a new slayer and Buffy shows up again, it isn't a reboot but a revival/continuation ...

I hope that at least Giles shows up and Buffy can have a chat with him about maturing to the mentor role herself, otherwise I'm afraid there's not much for me and I would rather rewatch my favorite episodes. I hope that Angel and Spike don't show up and not just because they would not look like they haven't aged. I prefer the vampires as soulless monsters, not romantic leads.

I think this is the main problem. But whether most viewers really don't want to see them or the writers/producers only assume that ... who knows.

I love watching healthy couples Janine and Gregory and Sam and Jay probably have some the best relationships on television. Grimm went downhill when the writers broke up Nick and Juliette. I think writers are addicted to drama and don't know what to do with stable couples.

[peachmangosteen]

2 hours ago, possibilities said:

I think maybe part of it is that tv caters less to adults, because advertizers want young viewers.

It seems a large subset of young viewers (well, ones that post on the internet at least) are actually way more into the things you're describing as liking. Younger viewers seem to like to act like people liking things they personally find 'problematic' means they're horrible people. It's the whole purity culture thing that's going on in fandom lately.

[possibilities]

19 hours ago, kathyk2 said:

I love watching healthy couples Janine and Gregory and Sam and Jay probably have some the best relationships on television. Grimm went downhill when the writers broke up Nick and Juliette. I think writers are addicted to drama and don't know what to do with stable couples.

Janine/Gregory (Abbott Elementary) and Sam/Jay (Ghosts) are good examples of what I like, too. And I also agree about Grimm. 

18 hours ago, peachmangosteen said:

It seems a large subset of young viewers (well, ones that post on the internet at least) are actually way more into the things you're describing as liking. Younger viewers seem to like to act like people liking things they personally find 'problematic' means they're horrible people. It's the whole purity culture thing that's going on in fandom lately.

I haven't noticed that being true of younger viewers in particular, but it might be that I don't know how old people are when they post things. I'm 59, for whatever that is worth.

[peachmangosteen]

A lot of online fandom seems to be pretty young. I think this particular forum probably skews older on average than Twitter/TikTok/Tumblr and probably even Reddit for a lot of shows. I’m 40. This place is basically mostly just us old remnants of TWOP, which we started on when we were younger and then we just never left lol.

Edited May 18 by peachmangosteen

[Affogato]

6 hours ago, peachmangosteen said:

A lot of online fandom seems to be pretty young. I think this particular forum probably skews older on average than Twitter/TikTok/Tumblr and probably even Reddit for a lot of shows. I’m 40. This place is basically mostly just us old remnants of TWOP, which we started on when we were younger and then we just never left lol.

‘Fandom’ in the fanfiction, Tumblr sense (because sometimes it means something less fraught) seems to me a lot of people being drawn to obsession by something because it touches something they don’t understand about themselves, so they work out problems by proxy.  I think people get pulled down rabbit holes and that is why fandoms break out into emotional disregulation with alarming frequency.  It is triggering. Mention the name of a character, trigger the reaction. And so it goes.

Anyway I think this is different than people who like science fiction books and discuss them, or detective tv shows and discuss them, or art house films and discuss them. 

[Affogato]

On 5/17/2025 at 5:50 PM, peachmangosteen said:

It seems a large subset of young viewers (well, ones that post on the internet at least) are actually way more into the things you're describing as liking. Younger viewers seem to like to act like people liking things they personally find 'problematic' means they're horrible people. It's the whole purity culture thing that's going on in fandom lately.

In fairness, people watch things to hone their judgements. I mean, sure, some people read philosophy, but most people hang on reality shows and find out what they believe by judging the people on the shows. True crime, what would I do, what should I do, how bad is this. It is a classroom for ethics, a classroom for how to act in a situation. People who are being overjudgemental about the problematic are trying to figure out for themselves what is problematic, and when they find something for a while they are going to see it everywhere. 

[Affogato]

On 5/16/2025 at 8:54 PM, Cobalt Stargazer said:

Allegedly, Whedon took Nicholas Brendon aside at some point during season four, or perhaps before that season began filming, and told him that the show was pretty much done with Xander as a character, that they were going to start focusing much less on him and more on Willow and Buffy. That he could either remain on the show with no real arc or he could take his chances getting cast somewhere else. I don't know how far back his issues with substance abuse go, if like the late Glenn Quinn he was already having problems staying away from such things. I'm loath to say that being pushed into the background may have exacerbated some things, but I'm not averse to the notion either.

And Xander really did end up getting a lot of development. I realize that a lot of people are hugely triggered to the point of angry incoherence by his very existence. Still, he had no special powers, but learned a skill that allowed him to support himself and be of help to the group; His trauma led him to run at the altar (and good on you if you have never been possessed by your personal lizard braink, because its weird) but he stayed around and continued to be a good friend and support to Anya. And other things. To paraphase Dune,  he showed he was a human. 

[kathyk2]

On 5/17/2025 at 4:50 PM, kathyk2 said:

I love watching healthy couples Janine and Gregory and Sam and Jay probably have some the best relationships on television. Grimm went downhill when the writers broke up Nick and Juliette. I think writers are addicted to drama and don't know what to do with stable couples.

Can writers stop killing off character's spouses? Criminal Minds and NCIS are the worst offenders. When Hailey died it was truly shocking now they killed Will and Krystal too. It's lazy writing.

[Ohiopirate02]

10 hours ago, kathyk2 said:

Can writers stop killing off character's spouses? Criminal Minds and NCIS are the worst offenders. When Hailey died it was truly shocking now they killed Will and Krystal too. It's lazy writing.

Serious question, how would you handle an actor leaving the show if you were a writer? A lot of times, a show killing off a character has more to do with the real world stuff than what the story needs. A contract is up, and the actor wants to move on to another project. Or, someone in a supporting role got offered the lead somewhere else. Or the network cut the budget. There's not a lot of options when a show needs to drop a supporting character like a spouse.

[Raja]

1 hour ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Serious question, how would you handle an actor leaving the show if you were a writer? A lot of times, a show killing off a character has more to do with the real world stuff than what the story needs. A contract is up, and the actor wants to move on to another project. Or, someone in a supporting role got offered the lead somewhere else. Or the network cut the budget. There's not a lot of options when a show needs to drop a supporting character like a spouse.

Maybe a more liberal use of "the role of Becky Connor is now being played by Sarah Chalke".  It may not be as common for long running primetime series as it is in soaps.

Edited May 19 by Raja

[DearEvette]

3 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Serious question, how would you handle an actor leaving the show if you were a writer? A lot of times, a show killing off a character has more to do with the real world stuff than what the story needs. A contract is up, and the actor wants to move on to another project. Or, someone in a supporting role got offered the lead somewhere else. Or the network cut the budget. There's not a lot of options when a show needs to drop a supporting character like a spouse.

I don't think the death of a character is a bad out for someone who unexpectedly leaves or is fired with very short lead time or between one season and the next.  That makes sense.  And I think people understand that.

But if the actor leaves because they got a new show or their contract is up... those are not last minute things.  TPTB are gonna know if someone is auditioning, or if contract negotiation is going pear shaped. It is no coincidence that so many of these deaths seem to happen at the end of the season.  They know something is up.  

I think the way Elsbeth is handling the character of Kaya is a textbook way to do this.  For whatever reason (still not sure why) the actress will no longer be a regular on the show, but the show laid the foundation for how to explain her reduced role.  They gave her a promotion that doesn't fit with how she slotted into the show initially.  The promotion makes a ton of sense for the character, but it is to the detriment of the formula that we've gotten used to.

So in a similar vein, shows can start planting  the seeds of that person possibly not being there next season...  put the marriage in trouble and escalate it so the audience can see it becoming untenable.  And have the spouse leave and show the remaining spouse being served.  A surgery or op that killed someone and it is entirely that character's fault... they have a crisis of confidence and conscience and decide to take a break and ... or maybe just set the seeds of extreme burnout or job dissatisfaction.... or maybe show the character planning their long delayed vacation via  a grand round the world trip and explain later they met someone in Tuscany and decided to live, love laugh their way through the rest of their life there...A lot of shows have characters with a lot of past trauma, have the trauma resurface and make them go away to take care of it or deal with it off screen and explain they got a job elsewhere...introduce a new character that will fulfill the job/role that person has and slowly dwindle their effectiveness and create a jealousy/resentment storyline that has the old character quit/leave in a flounce announcing they got a job elsewhere. Lots of possibility for drama without killing anyone off permanently.  And leaves the door open for a return.

2 hours ago, Raja said:

Maybe a more liberal use of "the role of Becky Connor is now being played by Sarah Chalke".  It may not be as common for long running primetime series as it is in soaps.

Yup.  Recast.

[kathyk2]

4 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Serious question, how would you handle an actor leaving the show if you were a writer? A lot of times, a show killing off a character has more to do with the real world stuff than what the story needs. A contract is up, and the actor wants to move on to another project. Or, someone in a supporting role got offered the lead somewhere else. Or the network cut the budget. There's not a lot of options when a show needs to drop a supporting character like a spouse.

If the character isn't needed right now don't mention them at all. They could start a new job or leave to care for their family. It's lazy writing when four characters on NCIS are all widowers.

[Irlandesa]

On 5/17/2025 at 1:15 PM, JustHereForFood said:

But whether most viewers really don't want to see them or the writers/producers only assume that ... who knows.

I've seen ages pointed out here.  People like drama.  It's not just younger fans.  @peachmangosteen is right to point out that a lot of younger fans are on this 'purity' fandom kick--although they're just as likely to excuse problematic crap in their couples if they already ship them than any other age group did in the past.  And the romance genre is still full of alpha males.  It's not just teens that make romance the best selling genre.

And this applies to TV writers too.  They like drama.  Many have come out and said that a lack of drama makes for boring TV.  The problem is that so many TV writers only know how to inject drama if it's life and death or relying on problematic tropes that takes a happy couple too close to toxic.  It's a lack of creativity.

1 hour ago, DearEvette said:

So in a similar vein, shows can start planting  the seeds of that person possibly not being there next season...  put the marriage in trouble and escalate it so the audience can see it becoming untenable.  And have the spouse leave and show the remaining spouse being served.

It depends on the kind of show it is.  In 911 Lone Star's last season, they couldn't reach an agreement with an actress who played a prominent character on the show so they said she went on a missionary trip.  The 911 universe is a life and death show where the characters are in danger all the time.  The fact that the character didn't show up for times when a spouse or mother or friend would normally show up made her look like a bad wife and mother and friend.  So she's alive but even doing it for one season damaged her character. 

 

 

[tearknee]

" The fact that the character didn't show up for times when a spouse or mother or friend would normally show up made her look like a bad wife and mother and friend. "

 

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EstrangedSoapFamily

[DearEvette]

17 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

In 911 Lone Star's last season, they couldn't reach an agreement with an actress who played a prominent character on the show so they said she went on a missionary trip.  The 911 universe is a life and death show where the characters are in danger all the time.  The fact that the character didn't show up for times when a spouse or mother or friend would normally show up made her look like a bad wife and mother and friend.  So she's alive but even doing it for one season damaged her character. 

Yeah, this is the case where the actresses negotiations fell apart off season. And frankly, this is a case where I think it would have been more merciful to the fans to kill her off.   The show was in a bit of a lose-lose situation there because Grace's character was really popular and she and Judd were a great draw as a strong ride-or-die couple with excellent chemistry.  But by the time the season came around they knew the actress wasn't coming back and the fans knew it too, so it was like an abrupt  death anyways.