Gender On Television: It's Like Feminism Never Happened

[memememe76]

When did Mcdreamy die? I don't watch GA.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

I think for the most part people see conspiracy theories where there are none. There are more female characters in lead rolls and supporting rolls every day and so done of them will get brutaly murdered especially on violent shows. There is a bit of a game I like to play. Let's say I want to write a tv show with lead characters. By the end of the first season 8 of them will be dead. So I don't offend or anger anyone do I make all the characters white men or do I include women, gays, and POC knowing that I will eventually kill them all.

 

I think there's no right answer to this. If you cast all white men, the folks who want more women and people of color in starring roles yell about sexism, but if you cast people who are not white men and kill them off, then many of the same people yell because the white guys didn't die. Which I guess would....be the preferred scenario? I don't know.

 

 

When was the last time a male co-lead of a show got killed off?

 

Ned Stark? 'Course, he was played by Sean Bean, and the law of averages says that all characters played by Sean Bean die sooner or later, so that might not actually prove anything. Or maybe he's the exact example that makes it not a conspiracy, that his characters always end up biting the dust.

[Rick Kitchen]

When was the last time a male co-lead of a show got killed off?

 

Kuttner from House.

George from Grey's Anatomy

Will from The Good Wife

[maraleia]

Kuttner from House.

George from Grey's Anatomy

Will from The Good Wife

They weren't co-leads like on Sleepy Hollow.

[Swansong]

 

Let's say I want to write a tv show with lead characters. By the end of the first season 8 of them will be dead. So I don't offend or anger anyone do I make all the characters white men or do I include women, gays, and POC knowing that I will eventually kill them all.

Decades of obvious imbalances and biases are bound to make people sensitive and while things have improved somewhat they're still pretty bad for certain groups.So saying you won't include women, non-whites or gays in your shows just because people might be concerned how they get treated in relations to their white male counterparts would just seem disingenuous to me. It's not as if those things are even remotely equal so why try and act like we're talking about a level playing field when it comes to killing off characters? I mean people get upset when you kill off their favourite characters regardless of their colour or gender, but it's not that surprising it stands out more if that character is also part of the minority. Instead of getting defensive over people possibly being upset about them killing off the relatively few, usually one (fill in the blanks) characters they bother to write in in the first place I'd much rather showrunners think a bit more about why when they're creating shows they overwhelmingly feel the need to default to white males when casting leads and main characters of their show.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Due respect, and someone who isn't me pointed this out in the LGBT Themes thread, unless you're planning to grant immortality to all characters, there are going to be times when some of them get killed off. What strikes me as disingenuous is when people offer examples of male characters being killed off, and the response is to shrug and say, "Well, they weren't leads or co-leads and so their deaths don't count." Because the supporting cast doesn't matter, only the stars of the show. Or something.

[Trini]

They don't count for the specific question I asked. In the overall issue of deaths on TV, of course.

 

McDreamy counts. (He got 11 seasons out of 12, though.) So that's one.

Edited April 17, 2016 by Trini

[Swansong]

But if you have ten white male characters in the cast and say one gay character and one poc and you kill off two white characters and the one poc and the one gay character those things aren't necessarily going to have the same impact. My issue isn't don't kill off female or non-white/hetero characters ever it's why is the only time writers insist on treating all these various character types as having equal value and weight to white male characters is when it comes to killing them off? I just don't see the same type of thought or need for "equal" treatment being considered necessary when it comes to creating these types of characters in the first place.  

Edited April 17, 2016 by Swansong

[Chaos Theory]

They don't count for the specific question I asked. In the overall issue of deaths on TV, of course.

McDreamy counts. (He got 11 seasons out of 12, though.) So that's one.

Spartacus.. Breaking Bad.

Although Spartacus is a show I use for my above post. By the end of the show it killed almost everyone including a score of females a lot of POC and several gays. But it also killed a lot of white men....including Spartacus.

Also Sons of Anarchy.

<---misspelled Spartacus

Edited April 18, 2016 by Chaos Theory

[Irlandesa]

I think for the most part people see conspiracy theories where there are none. There are more female characters in lead rolls and supporting rolls every day and so done of them will get brutaly murdered especially on violent shows. There is a bit of a game I like to play. Let's say I want to write a tv show with lead characters. By the end of the first season 8 of them will be dead. So I don't offend or anger anyone do I make all the characters white men or do I include women, gays, and POC knowing that I will eventually kill them all.

It's not about conspiracy theories.  I don't think show runners are getting together and saying "let's kill off the chicks."  But I do think it's part of a larger problem of who show runners see as expendable, how (not) careful show runners are with balance and what roles minority characters (minority in terms of a show's makeup so this includes POC, LGBTQ and women) are meant to play. 

 

If you look at the raw numbers, there are more women on TV but I think a large part of that is because there is more TV.  If you look at the percentages, however, women with speaking parts haven't really increased that significantly.  The problem is that when a woman or POC is killed off, that death might mean the representation is down to one or zero characters.  And these characters are often killed off to give story the male lead.  (Rape is often used in a similar fashion.  Let's rape a woman and see how it impacts our male lead.)  And then there instances with shows like The Walking Dead and The 100, I think. I don't watch either show but I know that with TWD, for instance, it seemed just as a new POC was brought on, it'd result in the death of the current cast member of color. 

 

It's not that women or POC or even LGBTQ characters can't be killed off.  It's just that I think shows do need to be careful about it.  They do need to reconsider it.  There are shows that have managed to pull it off and escape some of the heat even in this latest round.  Either it's because the cast member they killed off had a respectful arc where it has felt inevitable for a long time (The Americans) or because representation isn't a problem (Underground.)

 

So a solution to this is equal opportunity.  Instead of having your cast be 6-2 men to women, aim for something more equal.  Same with white vs. POC.  Be willing to kill white characters, male characters and POC characters in a way that doesn't leave representation hanging by a thread. And for goodness sake, when it comes to the horrible trend of LGBTQ characters dying historically in TV and films, just find a way to avoid it.  Don't be better by coming up with a better arc.  Be better by realizing that there's just some weird trend there that isn't your fault and it might handcuff you a bit creatively but it's a story that has been overrepresented in fiction.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Irlandesa

[SmithW6079]

Due respect, and someone who isn't me pointed this out in the LGBT Themes thread, unless you're planning to grant immortality to all characters, there are going to be times when some of them get killed off. What strikes me as disingenuous is when people offer examples of male characters being killed off, and the response is to shrug and say, "Well, they weren't leads or co-leads and so their deaths don't count." Because the supporting cast doesn't matter, only the stars of the show. Or something.

Shhh. Stop trying to be rational. The only thing that matters is the feels. Edited April 18, 2016 by SmithW6079

[vibeology]

No, it's not about the feels; it comes down to who does the character's death serve and how has the character been treated overall. I can think of many times when a show has killed off a minority character and it made perfect sense and belonged in the story. The problem comes when characters are just there to prop up another (typically white male) character and their death is all about that character.

 

I'm going back in time here to a few seasons back on The Walking Dead but I think it serves well to explain how I understand the difference between a well-written death and a crappy one. I was not a Beth person on the Walking Dead, but what came after her death was kind of awful. We saw Daryl grieve more for Beth than Maggie, her own sister. That makes no sense and tells me the death was about shock factor and giving fan-favourite Daryl something to be broody about. Add in how Beth died (trying to take out a bad guy with the smallest scissors you've ever seen) and it said to me the show didn't even want to give Beth a moment to go out like a champ. Compared to that, when I look at Lori's death, yes it hit Rick and Carl the hardest, but that makes sense within the story because those were her strongest relationships. I expect a husband to grieve for his wife, even if they're estranged. Plus Lori went out fighting for her family, something we had seen was important to her over and over during the show. So I think Beth's death and aftermath was poorly written and Lori's mostly well-done.

 

My issue with the number of women and other minorities dying on TV this season is that the deaths seem to have very little to do with them. It isn't a culmination of their choices coming to bite them in the ass or them choosing to take a huge risk for something they believe in; they are just dying to create tweet-able moments and give mostly male characters something to be sad or angry about.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

They don't count for the specific question I asked. In the overall issue of deaths on TV, of course.

 

McDreamy counts. (He got 11 seasons out of 12, though.) So that's one.

 

 

Shhh. Stop trying to be rational. The only that matters is the feels.

 

I would like the second post five hundred times if I could.

 

It's not that I don't understand, because I do. No one likes it when their favorite character gets killed, no matter the show or the genre, and when your programs of choice are set in violent worlds (The Walking Dead, Game of Thrones, Sons of Anarchy, even Deadwood) the body count will probably eventually be pretty high. And that means that literally no one should be safe. Unless you're planning to throw a Cloak of Everlasting Life over them as protection, they're vulnerable. I'm sorry, but they are.

 

To go back in time a bit more, I would have given just about anything to see Spike on BTVS be violently dispatched, preferably in the worst way possible. White? Check. Male? Check. But sadly it didn't happen, and when it did happen, he got a hero's end that he didn't deserve. I'm still convinced that Whedon was pandering to the character's female-heavy fanbase, not to mention the shippers. So the easy thing is to say that its Joss' "fault", but aren't the viewers complicit?

 

Also? Fair enough to ask the question about whether or not any white male leads have been killed off, but when the examples of such usually get brushed off as irrelevant, IMO it seems as if the "discussion" is being loaded in favor of those who simply want to vent. And again, I understand venting. But if you're asking me something you already know the answer to, then there's no way I can answer you, which is what would actually make this a discussion as opposed to some never--ending jam session about how white dudes ought to be soft, strong, and disposableClue.

 

To take a half-step backwards to the subject of viewer complicity, I'd say there are pretty good odds that most male characters have many, many, many female fans. Like, to the point that showrunners shit their pants at just the thought of killing them off because they're afraid of the reaction they'd get. Or is that not supposed to enter into the equation either, that fans of both genders are contributing to the issue? I would really like an answer to that one, BTW. Because nothing happens in a vacuum, especially modern television. Between focus groups, online polls, Twitter accounts, and very vocal fanbases, people BTS know more than ever about their viewers' opinions as to what they like and don't like. Granted, I'm sure they cull the answers they want to hear and take a lot of salt with what they don't want to hear, but I don't think they're as deaf as is often presumed.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Cobalt Stargazer

[maraleia]

I think we might be adding another female co-lead character to the death list. http://www.ew.com/article/2016/04/14/blacklist-liz-keen-death-spader-spoilers

[galax-arena]

Due respect, and someone who isn't me pointed this out in the LGBT Themes thread, unless you're planning to grant immortality to all characters, there are going to be times when some of them get killed off.

I said that. I also said in that thread that this necessitates having more than just a token* LGBT character on the show and making sure that the character's death isn't disrespectful. You also have to give them character development and not simply make them an extension of the straight characters' story (e.g. don't just put in a gay male character to have them be the sassy BFF to the straight girl). The equivalent holds true for POC and female characters. No one posting in this thread is insisting that female characters should be immortal. 

 

* Of course, when it comes to gender, very few shows have literally only one token female regular character. But there's still often a lopsided balance in favor of the men. And even if the cast numbers are technically equal (or close to it), often the male characters receive the lion's share of character development. 

 

Huh. After typing this, I realized that as much as I love the show, the only regular female character on Elementary is Lucy Liu as Joan Watson. I think that's why a lot of fans rallied around Kitty when she appeared the first half of season 3. I love Joan's dynamic with Sherlock (duh), Marcus, and Gregson, but it was just so nice having another regular female character around for Joan to interact with. (And look! Elementary managed to send off Kitty without killing her!)

Edited April 18, 2016 by galax-arena

[proserpina65]

When did Mcdreamy die? I don't watch GA.

Derek was killed on Grey's Anatomy last season.  Before that it was McSteamy after the plane crash and George being hit by a bus.  Contrasted with Lexie dying as a result of the plane crash, Mousy the intern being electrocuted, and Adele dying after emergency surgery (although she wasn't really a main character, more of a recurring guest star).  Oh, and both Charles and Reed both being killed by the hospital shooter.  So on GA at least, being a white male is at least as dangerous as not being one.

They weren't co-leads like on Sleepy Hollow.

George was.  His character was one of the main core of 5 interns around whom the show revolved.

Edited April 18, 2016 by proserpina65

[maraleia]

Derek was killed on Grey's Anatomy last season.  Before that it was McSteamy after the plane crash and George being hit by a bus.  Contrasted with Lexie dying as a result of the plane crash, Mousy the intern being electrocuted, and Adele dying after emergency surgery (although she wasn't really a main character, more of a recurring guest star).  Oh, and both Charles and Reed both being killed by the hospital shooter.  So on GA at least, being a white male is at least as dangerous as not being one.

George was.  His character was one of the main core of 5 interns around whom the show revolved.

Actually, Meredith was the lead character from what I remember.

[Demented Daisy]

I think we might be adding another female co-lead character to the death list. http://www.ew.com/article/2016/04/14/blacklist-liz-keen-death-spader-spoilers

 

Not necessarily.  A lot of us believe this is a misdirect because the actress was pregnant.  We believe that her "death" is merely a way for the actress to take maternity leave.  Especially because the co-lead character specifically requested she not be taken to the morgue and that his people take care of her.

[Irlandesa]

Also? Fair enough to ask the question about whether or not any white male leads have been killed off, but when the examples of such usually get brushed off as irrelevant, IMO it seems as if the "discussion" is being loaded in favor of those who simply want to vent.

I don't brush them off.  Except Walter White.  Because the whole story was built up to his death and despite all the crap he pulled, he got to die on his own terms.

 

I would consider George a supporting character.  And Kutner a supporting character who is also a POC.  Will, while I'd still consider him supporting, he's the closest to a lead character.  And no one is saying that white male characters don't die on TV.  Of course they do.  It's just that when they die, the representation of white males on the show is still pretty strong.  And when they're killed off, they still, like many women who get killed, are done to give story to the white male lead.  It's rare for it to work the other way.  Will and Derek are the best examples of the 'shoe is on the other foot.'  So yes, it does happen that male characters are occasionally sacrificed to create story for women.  But in a general sense?  It's rare. 

 

It isn't about feels. It's about equal treatment.  No one is saying "never" (I came the closest with LGBTQ characters) but definitely be better. 

[proserpina65]

Actually, Meredith was the lead character from what I remember.

Although she was the TITLE character, the way the first few seasons played out, at least, she was more of a co-lead with the other 4 interns.  They all had simultaneous storylines going on at any given point which I consider to be main storylines.

 

I would consider George a supporting character.

 

I wouldn't.

Edited April 18, 2016 by proserpina65

[Irlandesa]

Although she was the TITLE character, the way the first few seasons played out, at least, she was more of a co-lead with the other 4 interns.  They all had simultaneous storylines going on at any given point which I consider to be main storylines.

 

I wouldn't.

I guess it depends on how you define lead. I think shows typically only have room for one or two lead characters which is reflective in who gets put where in the Emmy categories.  TR Knight was always submitted in supporting.  In addition, weren't there periods where George disappeared or didn't have much story? 

[proserpina65]

I guess it depends on how you define lead. I think shows typically only have room for one or two lead characters which is reflective in who gets put where in the Emmy categories.  TR Knight was always submitted in supporting.  In addition, weren't there periods where George disappeared or didn't have much story? 

I don't go by Emmy submission.  Yeah, George did kind of disappear a bit in the season which ended with his death, but up until then, he got a good share of the storylines.  Grey's is more of an ensemble drama, rather than one with a lead or two and a bunch of supporting characters.

 

(Side note: as much as I tend to dislike Shonda Rhimes' shows, she does create ones with meaty roles for women and other minorities.)

Edited April 18, 2016 by proserpina65

[DearEvette]

It's not that I don't understand, because I do. No one likes it when their favorite character gets killed, no matter the show or the genre, and when your programs of choice are set in violent worlds (The Walking Dead, Game of Thrones, Sons of Anarchy, even Deadwood) the body count will probably eventually be pretty high. And that means that literally no one should be safe. Unless you're planning to throw a Cloak of Everlasting Life over them as protection, they're vulnerable. I'm sorry, but they are.

 

You're right, In a general sense no one should be safe especially in these shows that exist in violent worlds. But in reality, you can't divorce tv from its need to maintain an audience and the expectations the medium has built up for that viewing audience over years.  The truth is there are some characters who are more invulnerable than others.  It is very, very rare for an actual lead or hero of a show to be killed off and for the show to continue undamaged for much longer.  There is a reason there is a trope called Plot Armor.  It is there to protect the protagonist of the show.  Because in most cases, an audience will not stay if the titular hero is gone  We've been brainwashed for years about the hero's journey in narrative storytelling and we aren't emotionally satisfied unless the hero triumphs.

 

Even a character like Walter White, whom most would argue is not a hero, was still central to his story and even though many disliked him, the story still had to make him triumph. 

Him killing the neo-Nazi's and setting Jessie free  before his own death was that triumph.  It satisfied those who rooted for him. And his death satisfied those who rooted against him.  Of course he died in the finale, so the need to keep him alive was no longer there.

 

When Person of Interest was teasing the major death in Season 3, most people thought it was going to be Fusco.  Nobody seriously entertained the idea that it would be Reese or Finch.  After they did kill Carter off, the showrunners made all these statements  about how no one on the show was ever safe, anybody could have been killed at any time.  Sure.  I'm sure CBS would have been A-OK with them killing off Reese or Finch.  And guess what?  All the main characters on that show are still alive and kicking.... except the black woman.

Edited April 18, 2016 by DearEvette

[galax-arena]

Thought this was apropos considering all the discussion of female leads: ‘Castle’ Shocker: Star Stana Katic Out For Season 9; Tamala Jones Gone Too

While the studio started making overtures to Fillion for a new deal months ago and has been in on- and off- talks with him since the beginning of the year, I hear Katic was never approached to re-up her contract and was not offered an opportunity to continue on the show. Instead, I hear she, as well as Jones, were informed late last week that for budgetary reasons, they won’t be asked to come back for Season 9.

[Irlandesa]

Yeah.  I was just going to post that. I don't know if it should be spoiled or not but I always knew the co-lead might not return but I thought it would be on her terms.  But not only was she not approached, they're getting rid of another female, WOC (BTW) who has been there since its debut? 

[Ms Blue Jay]

If an actor or actress wants to leave a show, or is pushed out or whatever, or commits drunk driving offenses like half the cast of LOST - ok.  It's a writing thing the writers can't work around. But why does the character have to be killed?  The answer is they don't .  

 

I can understand a show like The Walking Dead having cast deaths.  A lot of these other shows, killing off characters seems like a totally uncreative, and almost audience-punishing way to get shock value - much like gratuitous suicide attempts, masturbation scenes, and vomit scenes IMO.  When LOST got towards the 5th, 6th season, the writers had totally ran out of gas and were trying anything to make the audience engaged.  Suddenly, character deaths or near-deaths were being written into the show at every turn - shock value for the sake of shock - not creativity, NOT to push the mythology or the show's plot forward - seriously, all for shock value, to the point where I felt punished as a viewer and as a fan who had grown to love these characters over seasons of amazing and in-depth quality television.

 

That's why a poster describes the way these women and minority characters are treated as 'expendable'.  Because that's how it seems.  There are "important" characters to the show and then there's characters that are seen by the writers as ones that CAN be killed. (Good Wife Spoiler) Archie Panjabi was written off The Good Wife in its last season -- thank goodness they didn't kill her.

 

Obviously female and minority members of the audience are going to latch onto female and minority characters on television to relate to, to grow to love.  And obviously if these characters which are deemed 'important' by these factions of the audience are killed off, you are going to get a negative reaction from those fans.  We are so desperate for people who look like us / act like us / live like us on screen.  When there are so few already, of course we're going to be upset when they are killed off / seen as expendable / seen as unimportant on the show (just like minorities and women might feel like in some aspects of life.)

 

 

An article about Lifetime being a great network for women in the business:

 

https://www.buzzfeed.com/lauragoode/the-lifetime-television-renaissance?utm_term=.ycYa3k6qV#.njvJbo1jB

 

Shhh. Stop trying to be rational. The only thing that matters is the feels.

 

One side of a debate is "rational", and the other side of a debate is just using their "emotions".  Where have I heard that argument before?  

Edited April 21, 2016 by Ms Blue Jay
removed unnecessary spoiler tags

[JBC344]

Yeah.  I was just going to post that. I don't know if it should be spoiled or not but I always knew the co-lead might not return but I thought it would be on her terms.  But not only was she not approached, they're getting rid of another female, WOC (BTW) who has been there since its debut? 

Speaking of Tamala Jones. 

 

http://www.justjared.com/2016/04/20/castles-tamala-jones-talks-about-her-exit-from-the-show/

[topanga]

Speaking of Tamala Jones. 

 

http://www.justjared.com/2016/04/20/castles-tamala-jones-talks-about-her-exit-from-the-show/

What a classy and gracious response. I remember on the DVD commentary from early seasons, Tamala would remark that she never expected to remain on the show for as long as she was. 

[SmithW6079]

One side of a debate is "rational", and the other side of a debate is just using their "emotions".  Where have I heard that argument before?  

Thanks for the meeting invite, but I decline to accept your agenda.

 

If an actor or actress wants to leave a show, or is pushed out or whatever, or commits drunk driving offenses like half the cast of LOST - ok.  It's a writing thing the writers can't work around. But why does the character have to be killed?  The answer is they don't .

 

The answer is that it is up to the writers and creators to decide what happens to their characters. I find it chilling that people are trying to dictate artistic expression because something makes them feel bad or doesn't meet with their approval. Censorship, whether practiced by government or social justice warriors is equally unacceptable. 

[galax-arena]

I find it chilling that people are trying to dictate artistic expression because something makes them feel bad or doesn't meet with their approval.

Oh, please. The movie studio is perfectly free to make whatever movie they want, and the rest of us are perfectly free to criticize their choices. Freedom of speech/expression goes both ways. Artists are not exempt from criticism; their artpop ain't sacred. 

Edited April 20, 2016 by galax-arena

[Actionmage]

I find it chilling that people are trying to dictate artistic expression because something makes them feel bad or doesn't meet with their approval.

 

For me? All I want is something other than character death for every exit.  That isn't "dictating artistic expression", it is a wish for less cheapening of on-screen death.

[Jack Shaftoe]

 

The answer is that it is up to the writers and creators to decide what happens to their characters. I find it chilling that people are trying to dictate artistic expression because something makes them feel bad or doesn't meet with their approval. Censorship, whether practiced by government or social justice warriors is equally unacceptable.

 

Viewers who dislike writing choices proceed to complain on the internet? News at 11! Censorship is upon us!

 

Seriously, most TV writers pander heavily to their audience. When it comes to killing characters, they aren't really at liberty of killing the characters who are perceived as cash cows. Making noise on the internet is (in addition to venting frustration, of course) is an attempt to basically say "pander to me, not to them". Sometimes it's combined with loftier goals but censorship it is not. Nobody is stopping the shows which receive the most backlash from what you called "social justice warriors" from continuing to do exactly the same. That is unless the people who give the money decide they stand to make more money if they listen to the "social justice warriors"... which is exactly what they do in regards to the opinions of every other group of fans.

 

 

If an actor or actress wants to leave a show, or is pushed out or whatever, or commits drunk driving offenses like half the cast of LOST - ok.  It's a writing thing the writers can't work around. But why does the character have to be killed?  The answer is they don't .

 

Seems like quite a few writers kill characters just to prove their grimdark street credit which I find extremely irritating.

[Ms Blue Jay]

I find it chilling that people are trying to dictate artistic expression because something makes them feel bad or doesn't meet with their approval. Censorship, whether practiced by government or social justice warriors is equally unacceptable.

 

There are actual women and minorities out there who want equal representation on television.   Invoking the "social justice warrior" ad hominem attack is hilarious but a nonsensical way to try and dismiss a real argument.  

 

It has nothing to do with dictating artistic expression.  It's wanting an equal / diverse representation of artists.  

 

Calling bemoaning certain characters dying on a television show 'censorship' is a far reach.

Edited April 21, 2016 by Ms Blue Jay

[Swansong]

 

Viewers who dislike writing choices proceed to complain on the internet? News at 11! Censorship is upon us!

 I think critics might also have something to say about that. lol. Yeah it's not censorship to criticize someone else's work or wish they'd gone a different direction and even express it. 

 

 

Seriously, most TV writers pander heavily to their audience. When it comes to killing characters, they aren't really at liberty of killing the characters who are perceived as cash cows. Making noise on the internet is (in addition to venting frustration, of course) is an attempt to basically say "pander to me, not to them". Sometimes it's combined with loftier goals but censorship it is not. Nobody is stopping the shows which receive the most backlash from what you called "social justice warriors" from continuing to do exactly the same. That is unless the people who give the money decide they stand to make more money if they listen to the "social justice warriors"... which is exactly what they do in regards to the opinions of every other group of fans.

Exactly. Right now creators (and advertisers) believe men (mainly white men) are where the money is at. When they decide it lies elsewhere I'm sure their artistic vision will turn in that direction. Killing off characters is what's in right now. When audiences get bored with that and start looking for something else so will creators. 

[SmithW6079]

Viewers who dislike writing choices proceed to complain on the internet? News at 11! Censorship is upon us!

 

Next time, please post a trigger warning so I can go to my safe space to avoid microaggression. 

 

Nah, I'm kidding. I'm not a special little snowflake who needs to suppress opinions different from my own, and I can handle sarcasm.

 

There are actual women and minorities out there who want equal representation on television.

Yes, I'm one of them. But perhaps you jumped to the conclusion that I was a straight white male because I have differing opinions.

[Ms Blue Jay]

[Cobalt Stargazer]

From the Annoying Commercials thread

With all apologies to Kevin Bacon, I would like to make a couple of points about the supposed imbalance of female nudity and male nudity in the mainstream media.  First, I presume that most people who are upset by this also feel that it is unjust that males may appear shirtless in public while females may not, but using that standard we must either count all shirtless scenes as male nudity, or not count topless scenes as female nudity. If we do the former, men have been called upon to appear nude onscreen since the days of Clark Gable and before.  Heck, even on a family show like ABC's "Dancing with the Stars". the male participants are frequently shirtless, while I don't recall Peta Murgatroyd or Witney Carson ever dancing completely topless, though if it ever happens you can be assured it will stay on my DVR for quite some time.  If we do the latter, and not count toplessness as female nudity, I suspect that that would close the male to female nudity ratio considerably.

As far as full frontal nudity is concerned, since male genitals are external and female genitals are internal, I would suggest that the only female equivalent of an actor displaying his penis would be a complete spread eagle, and I haven't seen too many of those, not even on "Game of Thrones".  To summarize, I am calling for more topless female dancers on "Dancing with the Stars", and more vajayjay on "Game of Thrones". It's only fair.

 

Please note that while I'm just the messenger, I don't think the OP is entirely wrong. Discuss.

[Irlandesa]

From the Annoying Commercials thread

 

Please note that while I'm just the messenger, I don't think the OP is entirely wrong. Discuss.

I think it'd be easier to have a discussion here if I knew what you felt the OP was right about.  (For the record, I disagree with their POV so very much.  )  

Edited April 24, 2016 by Irlandesa

[Cobalt Stargazer]

I think it'd be easier to have a discussion here if I knew what you felt the OP was right about.  

 

Duly noted, and I should have been more precise.

 

The concept of female nudity as it relates to TV is based on the idea that its simply to attract the male gaze, and while that's not inaccurate, there can be a certain, well, tone to the term male gaze. I'll put that aside for now.

 

Is there such a thing as "equal time" for nudity? I think there could be, and maybe there even should be. Dudes walk around with no shirts on TV all the time, even during daytime soaps, and nobody blinks because that's just how the genre rolls. But most women on TV even have sex with their bras on, primarily during primetime shows. But it also happened during the movie Bridesmaids, which was rated R when it was released. There was somehow no issue with the scenes involving bodily functions, but they weren't willing to show a woman's boobs because of......what?

 

I suppose there's such a thing as too much nakedness. Kim Kardashian, for instance, should wear more clothes when she's in public and stop taking nude pictures of herself. Mostly just because its boring at this point. But I do think there ought to be an allowance for equal time, and I'm really trying to make this make sense because it sounds a lot more eloquent in my head than it does as I'm typing this.

[Irlandesa]

Thanks.  That helps a little.  I don't think shirtless men and shirtless women are quite equal because women have been sexualized to the point that women can't nurse without people freaking the eff out.  While shirtless men can be sexy, there hasn't been the same level of objectification to their torsos.  Maybe it shouldn't be that way but that's the way it is. 

 

There was somehow no issue with the scenes involving bodily functions, but they weren't willing to show a woman's boobs because of......what?

Probably because once they do it, it's out there. 

[Swansong]

 

I don't think shirtless men and shirtless women are quite equal because women have been sexualized to the point that women can't nurse without people freaking the eff out.  While shirtless men can be sexy, there hasn't been the same level of objectification to their torsos.  Maybe it shouldn't be that way but that's the way it is.

Pretty much this. The reason why a woman couldn't walk down the street with her top off the way men do is because the reaction would be so radically different because women's bodies and by extension women's breast are so sexualized to the point where, as you say, women can't even breast feed without some people seeing it as obscene. So in theory while male nudity on soaps and say the CW pretty much serves the same function as women wearing sexy clothes or female nudity does  pretty much all the time i.e nice eye candy it still doesn't carry the same weight. Not when men still feel an entitlement to a female body just based on the way she dresses (or doesn't dress).

 

I mean I think it's pretty silly to have a female character wearing a bra while they're having sex (and really if they're that afraid to show female breasts what happened to the strategically placed sheet) and I don't really have an issue with women being nude on screen, but I still think we're a long way from a time where even giving equal time to male and female nudity in a show would make those things truly equal.

Edited April 24, 2016 by Swansong

[mansonlamps]

Speaking strictly as a female with personal viewing preferences, I have zero interest in full frontal male nudity on my shows. None. Are there people who are dying to see this?

[SparedTurkey]

 

I think there's no right answer to this. If you cast all white men, the folks who want more women and people of color in starring roles yell about sexism, but if you cast people who are not white men and kill them off, then many of the same people yell because the white guys didn't die. Which I guess would....be the preferred scenario? I don't know.

As someone else pointed out that is completely side-stepping the point. No one is arguing that all white male leads should die. The point is the female and/or POC characters are usually not as developed as the leading white male and their deaths are just used to further his story or his character. Find a show where women and POC are written well treated equally and you'll find less complaining when anyone is killed - like Spartacus.

 

 

The answer is that it is up to the writers and creators to decide what happens to their characters. I find it chilling that people are trying to dictate artistic expression because something makes them feel bad or doesn't meet with their approval. Censorship, whether practiced by government or social justice warriors is equally unacceptable.

That is...completely ridiculous and deserves all the calling out it gets. It's not censorship to say you don't like something, to explain why or to encourage people to be better.

 

 

I suppose there's such a thing as too much nakedness. Kim Kardashian, for instance, should wear more clothes when she's in public and stop taking nude pictures of herself.

Male and female naked bodies are not equal and have never been viewed as such. Pecs don't equate to boobs and won't until people stop viewing women as either a Madonna or a Whore. I don't particularly like any Kardashian but they can wear or not wear whatever they want and can take whatever pictures they want. They aren't making anyone look at it.

 

 

The concept of female nudity as it relates to TV is based on the idea that its simply to attract the male gaze, and while that's not inaccurate, there can be a certain, well, tone to the term male gaze.

 

So men are offended by the term 'male gaze' now? Good to know. I'll add it to the list of things oppressing them on a daily basis.

Edited April 24, 2016 by SparedTurkey

[Cobalt Stargazer]

So men are offended by the term 'male gaze' now? Good to know. I'll add it to the list of things oppressing them on a daily basis.

 

That's.....not what I said. I didn't say anything about oppression, I said the term 'male gaze' has a tone to it, because then you get into objectification, because of course a guy can't look at a partially-clothed woman without turning into an out-of-control sex maniac. Even if its only in his head.

 

It's predicated on the idea that all female nudity, whether its partial or full, is objectification, because of course  the male gaze is inherently objectifying. Someone even admitted to me not that long ago that they meant the term in an uncomfortable way, so if we extrapolate from there, IMO it's not an enormous stretch to presume that 'male gaze' borders on meaning 'rapey', which isn't even a word but you know what I mean.

 

I don't know, mostly I just find it absurd that American TV takes out the sex and leaves in the violence, which in itself is inherently hypocritical. Kill 'em, but don't kiss 'em. Or maybe you can kiss 'em, just as long as too much skin isn't shown. Because then it's out there, and then I guess everything really goes to hell.

[peachmangosteen]

I said the term 'male gaze' has a tone to it, because then you get into objectification, because of course a guy can't look at a partially-clothed woman without turning into an out-of-control sex maniac. Even if its only in his head.

 

Maybe when 'he just couldn't help himself!' stops being a go-to explanation for rape then men will stop being looked at as not being able to control themselves. I've never gotten this whole phenomenon. Why do men want to be seen as uncontrollable idiots who are ruled by their penises? Have some faith in yourself, men!

 

I don't know, mostly I just find it absurd that American TV takes out the sex and leaves in the violence, which in itself is inherently hypocritical. Kill 'em, but don't kiss 'em. Or maybe you can kiss 'em, just as long as too much skin isn't shown. Because then it's out there, and then I guess everything really goes to hell.

 

IMO the mere fact that tv tends to take out sex and leave in violence is sexist.

Edited April 24, 2016 by peachmangosteen

[Swansong]

 

That's.....not what I said. I didn't say anything about oppression, I said the term 'male gaze' has a tone to it, because then you get into objectification, because of course a guy can't look at a partially-clothed woman without turning into an out-of-control sex maniac. Even if its only in his head.

Well that's an attitude largely perpetuated by men to make women responsible for men's reactions to them. If a woman goes out at night in sexy clothes she's asking for it because how can a man control his urges in those circumstances. It's probably not surprising that translates to how people respond to male and female nudity on screen. I assume most men do in fact have the ability to control themselves in the face of female nudity, but fiction doesn't exist in a vacuum and if you perpetuate a particular attitude off-screen it's not a shock that bleeds into how we address certain issues on-screen.

 

I don't think the idea of the 'male-gaze' is necessarily attributed to all forms of female nudity because there are obviously times when nudity exists in a text where people may find it sexy, but that's incidental to the actual intent and there are times when it's pretty clear that a female character is only naked or partially naked because the creators were thinking men needed something nice to look at. But it makes sense that people, women in particular, might be more sensitive to female nudity as opposed to male nudity because there's a long recent history of young female characters especially being used as exactly that kind of eye-candy with relatively little else to counteract that image in comparison to men and that's only slowly begun to change and a long history off screen of men feeling a certain entitlement to women and their bodies not only because of attitudes that are perpetuated off screen, but reinforced on screen which isn't really true in the reverse.

 

 

I don't know, mostly I just find it absurd that American TV takes out the sex and leaves in the violence, which in itself is inherently hypocritical. Kill 'em, but don't kiss 'em. Or maybe you can kiss 'em, just as long as too much skin isn't shown. Because then it's out there, and then I guess everything really goes to hell.

I agree it's hypocritical and I can't say I understand it, but Modern America was founded by the Puritans. lol. I guess some attitudes still linger. I don't think it's specifically tied to female nudity or at least not entirely. I guess people find sex scenes titillating in a way they don't necessarily find violence although people do tend to find it cool when female characters get to beat people up. People do tend to complain about violence, but it's usually in terms of it being glamourized so maybe it's harder for some people to separate the idea of titillation from sex in a way they can from violence. But other than that I've got nothing.

[SparedTurkey]

 

I said the term 'male gaze' has a tone to it, because then you get into objectification, because of course a guy can't look at a partially-clothed woman without turning into an out-of-control sex maniac. Even if its only in his head.

Of course any discussion of 'male gaze' is related to objectification and it should be. However the last part of that sentence is deliberately inflamatory and designed to imply men are getting the rawest deal out of it. Men have been the cause of it and have been objectifying women for ages and being called out on it now should happen. Not every instance of female nudity is the result of the male gaze - but most is. If pointing that out makes people uncomfortable - good. They may eventually realise there is a problem and it may change. Although I won't get my hopes up.

 

I prefer to use terms like 'rapey' in discussions of actual rape so I will be leaving that alone.

 

 

I don't know, mostly I just find it absurd that American TV takes out the sex and leaves in the violence, which in itself is inherently hypocritical.

Perhaps it is representative of puritanical American values - you know, like the ones that inspire people to tell Kim Kardashian to put her clothes back on?

[galax-arena]

Why do men want to be seen as uncontrollable idiots who are ruled by their penises? 

This is especially rich when you consider that many of the men who play into this by saying that men can't help it also buy into sexist gender roles where men are better leaders. So on the one hand, you think guys lack any sort of impulse control; on the other hand, you think guys make better leaders than women. This doesn't compute. Who wants a leader with all the impulse control of a toddler? Pick a side. 

 

Re: the conversation about nudity and the male gaze, several of the male actors for Game of Thrones defended the lack of parity between female and male nudity by saying that they weren't interested in seeing naked men on screen. Okay, but ever think that maybe some of the people watching GOT might not be straight men? 

Edited April 24, 2016 by galax-arena

[Ms Blue Jay]

Speaking strictly as a female with personal viewing preferences, I have zero interest in full frontal male nudity on my shows. None. Are there people who are dying to see this?

 

I'll put a hand up on the pro side of male nudity, or at least a lot less female nudity please.  I just hate the stereotype that only women's bodies are considered beautiful.  Men always bring up this argument with me and act like the female body is objectively beautiful and the male body is objectively not.  I know that's not what you're saying.  But it just feels like a really shitty excuse to perpetuate the status quo.  I know there's straight women who aren't dying for male nudity, but I'd just like to go on record that there's a lot of us that enjoy the male form and there's even groups of us who like it better than the female.  We exist.

[janie jones]

I think the reason the term "male gaze" has a tone to it because it refers to the negative objectification (if there's such thing as "positive" objectification -- if the object welcomes the objectification, it probably isn't going to be referred to as such) as opposed to something like "things men find attractive."