Gender On Television: It's Like Feminism Never Happened

[allyw]

12 minutes ago, crowsworks said:

except on the Finale when the cast seemed to be lining up for the reaper - Carter was only for a set period since the actress didn't want to spend 5 or 6 years. (See Cookie)

One of the Lesbians lived.

This isn't true. 

[SparedTurkey]

Quote

Not being able to write decent women does not equal misogynist, IMO. Incompetence, perhaps, but I'm not sure that means they hate women.

I dont think the complaints of him being sexist is solely based on him not writing a female character decently. More that the female characters and male characters can do exactly the same thing - only the female will be punished, criticised and will otherwise loose while the male is put down to a 'boys will be boys' or it's not even a thing. E.g. Rachel and Finn. Rachel kissed Puck, Finn goes ballistic, she looses him etc. Fair. Finn cheats with Rachel, then Quinn, Santana even - No big deal. Add in 4-5 years of that on the same show - sexism is a fair call in my opinion. (It was a missed opportunity that he didn't keep Glee what it was supposed to be originally and made it so "family friendly" and a constant "teaching moment")

[DittyDotDot]

3 hours ago, SparedTurkey said:

I dont think the complaints of him being sexist is solely based on him not writing a female character decently. More that the female characters and male characters can do exactly the same thing - only the female will be punished, criticised and will otherwise loose while the male is put down to a 'boys will be boys' or it's not even a thing. E.g. Rachel and Finn. Rachel kissed Puck, Finn goes ballistic, she looses him etc. Fair. Finn cheats with Rachel, then Quinn, Santana even - No big deal. Add in 4-5 years of that on the same show - sexism is a fair call in my opinion. (It was a missed opportunity that he didn't keep Glee what it was supposed to be originally and made it so "family friendly" and a constant "teaching moment")

And yet, still not sure why that means he, himself, has a hatred of women. Being a bad writer, sure, sexist, perhaps, but not sure how this shows he, Ryan Murphy, hates women. Now, if you had examples of Ryan Murphy talking about hating women outside of his shows--things he personally said or did--I could get behind the idea. But this is a TV show with so many different people involved, how is it you're sure this is Murphy's actual beliefs and not some network suit's interference? 

BTW, I know nothing about Ryan Murphy other than he's run a few shows I've never watched, I just find the word misogynist to be bandied around far too freely these days. And, IMO, the word is not interchangeable with sexist. 

[magicdog]

I wasn't sure where to put this but I guess this is as good a place as any since it involved women and aging.

 

I know that aging is a bit different than it used to be - people are living longer and more active lives, and the number attached to your age is becoming just that.  A number that is less relevant than in the past and yet there are times when I bristle over what is considered "old" in TV and film.

I happened to catch an episode from the first season of Facts of Life (1979).  In an early scene, the male headmaster walks in with a female administrator.  They have an argument over pushing curfew back for the students since a dance was coming up.  At some point age gets mentioned and the female administrator is asked how old she is.  She reluctantly responds she's 32.

32?  They acted as if she were way older than that!  Since when is/was 32 the end of everything or something not to be admitted to by an adult professional?  

[GHScorpiosRule]

2 hours ago, magicdog said:

I wasn't sure where to put this but I guess this is as good a place as any since it involved women and aging.

 

I know that aging is a bit different than it used to be - people are living longer and more active lives, and the number attached to your age is becoming just that.  A number that is less relevant than in the past and yet there are times when I bristle over what is considered "old" in TV and film.

I happened to catch an episode from the first season of Facts of Life (1979).  In an early scene, the male headmaster walks in with a female administrator.  They have an argument over pushing curfew back for the students since a dance was coming up.  At some point age gets mentioned and the female administrator is asked how old she is.  She reluctantly responds she's 32.

32?  They acted as if she were way older than that!  Since when is/was 32 the end of everything or something not to be admitted to by an adult professional?  

Oh that's nothing! In the tv version of Valley Dolls, Mimi Rogers' character kept going on and in about how turning 30 was a death sentence. And she wasn't a model, but a former model, so it wasn't because she wasn't getting any more assignments.

It drove me nuts and wanting to punch her in the face.

[SparedTurkey]

Quote

And yet, still not sure why that means he, himself, has a hatred of women. Being a bad writer, sure, sexist, perhaps, but not sure how this shows he, Ryan Murphy, hates women.

I don't know - perhaps being unable to write a female character as anything else as a despicable character while the male characters are either the best things ever (or if they are they villans they are tragically misunderstood)? Ryan Murphy isn't writing responsible for writing anti-female lesgislation, but then this is a site to just discuss television and aside from the first 13 episodes of Glee, and possibly a handful of other episodes everything I have seen points to a creator putting out a pretty hateful representation of women - that wasn't wrapped in a Game of Thrones shell I guess. Whether or not he personally hates women I am not commenting. But I don't think suggesting there is a level of misogyny based on his work is out of the question. Misogyny does mean the dislike of, contempt for or ingrained prejudice against women. Is that present in his work - I think so. Misogyny is and can be so pervasive that I think it is worth calling it out when it should be.

[joelene]

7 hours ago, SparedTurkey said:

I don't know - perhaps being unable to write a female character as anything else as a despicable character while the male characters are either the best things ever (or if they are they villans they are tragically misunderstood)?

Perhaps he just hated Glee? Because as someone who's watched pretty much everything he's done except past season 2 of Glee and most of The New Normal I don't recognise this at all. 

[memememe76]

I don't see this view of Glee. I  fail to see how characters like Rachel, Sue, Santana, and Brittany were so harmed by the writers. If there is a character who got away with EVERYTHING on that show, it was Brittany. Yet call her dumb, EVEN THOUGH SHE WAS A CRAPPY IDIOT, and all hell broke loose.

[SparedTurkey]

Quote

I don't see this view of Glee. I  fail to see how characters like Rachel, Sue, Santana, and Brittany were so harmed by the writers. If there is a character who got away with EVERYTHING on that show, it was Brittany. Yet call her dumb, EVEN THOUGH SHE WAS A CRAPPY IDIOT, and all hell broke loose.

That's fine. Everyone has their own view. Mine is that the female characters were treated demonstrably worse. Sue was awful to all students except Becky, yes, but so was Will to anyone who wasn't Finn. Who was shown as awful? Sue. Kurt being threatened by Karofsky - awful. Santana being outed by Finn - totally fine once blackmailed into having him sing to her about it. Blaine has a crush on Sam - cute. Tina having a crush on Blaine - Creepy. Finn was a simpering, weak mess who had everything handed to him for no reason. Rachel - worked her guts out and got most of what she wanted but was made to look like an awful person for it. Perhaps it was that Ryan Murphy hated Glee - but he only had himself to blame for what it became. He decided it had to become a show with teaching lessons every week.

As for Brittany, it was never really clear what she was supposed to be. I don't think she got away with everything - she lost the presidency to Blaine of all people and failed her senior year - but she may be the closest female to be treated the way the boys were. But one female character written like the boys doesn't negate the rest of it.

Maybe Ryan Murphy, and all the Glee writers don't hate women. I don't know them. But I don't think it is an unfair call to make based on this show. And I don't think Glee should be lauded the way it has been. Unless you're a gay male or a white male.

Unrelatedly, I am torn over the latest season of The Fall. While the acting was of the usual high quality I can't help but feel the season was nothing but an exercise in pulling Stella Gibson down and (spoilers for the reasons why because I'm not sure it has aired in America yet).

Spoiler

and reducing her to nothing but someone who sleeps around and was 'sexually' obsessed with a serial killer. Who ultimately loses because Paul Spector wins.

Which was nothing like she was in the first 2 seasons.

[Lady Calypso]

I think that female characters on Glee were handled quite differently than the male characters. There seemed to be bias toward the male characters while the female characters didn't get as much positive light shone on them. Not that Ryan Murphy is a misogynist, but he definitely butchered most of the female characters at some point. 

For example: Kurt, Blaine, Finn, and Sam got all the martyr storylines. Their consequences were handled quite differently than females. Most of the men got away with a lot. As much as I personally liked Finn and adored Cory Monteith, his character got off light most of the time, even when he did stupid stuff. I can't help but look at the double standard held with Marley and Sam. Both characters with some sort of body dysmorphia/eating disorder. While Sam got several speeches from other men about how his body is fine and that he should feel comfortable about himself, no matter what, Marley got reprimanded and judged for her disorder. And one episode had her refusing to dress sexy because of her discomfort with her body, and she got suspended from Glee Club for voicing her opinion. 

Brittany is her own special person. She got to cheat, do illegal stuff, and just be treated as dumb. Sam even was dumbed down to below her level just so it could be explained why they were some epic couple of that season. And Sam never quite recovered from this. So I don't think Ryan Murphy or his team hated women; they just didn't know how to write women. Sometimes, they didn't know how to write men either. All of them ended up looking awful by the end. The only person who might have escaped relatively unscathed was Emma, but she kind of disappeared by the end.

But it was clear that Ryan Murphy and his team definitely had better ideas for the men of the show. They assassinated Quinn to the point of Dianna Agron leaving the show and only returning for a couple of cameos for very special episodes (hell, she wasn't even asked back for Finn's memorial episode and they had to make it up to her by bringing her back for the 100th), Santana and Rachel both seemed to suffer by the end, with Santana hastily being written off because of the behind the scenes drama, and Rachel's college storyline doing a complete 180 to the character we were introduced to. And don't get me started on how badly they ruined Tina's character. 

I remember back in season 3, I was on the TwoP forums and we joked at first about whose puppy did Dianna and Cory run over to get the treatment that they did with their character assassinations. But by the end of the series, it became something pertaining to mostly the female characters, but some of the men as well. 

[galax-arena]

How Ink Master Became an Unexpected Lesson in Feminist Strategy

This is awesome.

Quote

Studies show women are often interrupted and spoken over at work or in environments like Ink Master, whose so-called “stew room” where contestants await judging has been home to consistently aggressive behavior since the show’s inception. But the women this year, led by Malarkey, (who could single-handedly make neck tattoos the next big thing) formed an alliance in the early episodes, which enabled them to amplify each other’s voices on a show that this season saw regular fighting matches about whose art was the ugliest, as well as below-the-belt attacks about people’s looks and ages.

Amplification essentially needs to be a conspiracy, says Arreola: “They all have to buy in to say they’re going to have each other’s backs at every meeting.” That’s exactly what Malarkey arranged on Ink Master. On the show, the “meetings” were the stew rooms and strategy sessions where the challenges played out. And in those meetings, when the men were louder than each of the women individually, they had a chorus of women backing them up. In that way, they made themselves heard.

[snip]

These women leaned into their gender. Hard. Every episode, they huddled and repeated some variation of “as long as one of us wins,” and then they’d do whatever they could to bring down the weakest man. Week after week, the men fell. And when a woman was on the ropes, the women from both teams came together and did everything they could to save her—to the increasing fury of the show’s men. Gender became the topic of every conversation. But while the men complained about the women teaming up against them, they never really formed an alliance of their own. Instead, they looked out for themselves. For the women, though, the show wasn’t about the individuals; it was about all of them helping to get at least one of them—any of them—to the top.

Edited December 7, 2016 by galax-arena

[CoderLady]

31 minutes ago, galax-arena said:

How Ink Master Became an Unexpected Lesson in Feminist Strategy

This is awesome.

I read this multiple times and each time I did somehow I felt better and better about the world in general. Thanks for posting it.

[Chaos Theory]

Anyone who thinks Ryan Murphy is a sexist must never have heard of his Half Foundation.  You don't have to like him.  I understand that he isn't to everyones tastes and he is many things.  The one thing he is not is a sexist.  

[JustaPerson]

For all the Smash fans: Theresa Rebeck speaks

ETA: I saw this in the Gender in Movies thread but I think it probably belongs here instead.

Edited April 2, 2017 by JustaPerson

[UYI]

I feel so bad for Jessica Mendoza from ESPN's Baseball Tonight. She is getting SO much crap on Twitter for DARING to be a woman who pursued a career calling a baseball game on TV! OH NOES! It's not like women, you know, actually LIKE baseball, amirite? And, you know, play professional softball. Oh, wait. She DID!

UGH UGH UGH.

You do you, Jessica. 

Edited April 3, 2017 by UYI

[DisneyBoy]

20 hours ago, JustaPerson said:

For all the Smash fans: Theresa Rebeck speaks

ETA: I saw this in the Gender in Movies thread but I think it probably belongs here instead.

It's an interesting article but I can't help but wonder how she'll be perceived for having spoken out in this way. I love the frankness but admitting that Steven Spielberg called her up to say he dropped the ball at her expense probably isn't something that will endear her to the higher-ups she still has to deal with on a daily basis.

It is interesting to see how working as a television writer is so much like so many other less glamorous jobs in that you have to kiss ass almost constantly and never object to your valid ideas or good work being thrown out the window for arbitrary reasons.

I didn't keep up with SMASH once I realized it would follow Glee's template of having songs interrupt ordinary life moments...but from what little I saw and everything I heard the show was kind of a mess from day one. It's not as though it was a wonderfully solid series the entire first season and then she got booted out like, say, Deborah Joy Levine of Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman fame.

Still, the thought of having to listen to a bunch of grown men laugh and guffaw over fisting jokes when they should be working is really depressing.

[Bastet]

20 hours ago, JustaPerson said:

For all the Smash fans: Theresa Rebeck speaks

I never watched Smash, but this from that essay jumped out at me for its glaring truth:

Quote

I tell stories about the shenanigans that go on in writers’ rooms, and my friends outside the business roar with laughter or cringe in disbelief.
…
The misogyny is beyond anything that people believe when I tell these stories.

I've heard horror stories from every profession, but never as consistently ugly as what I hear from women who are TV show writers or writers' assistants.  The average writers' room is an absolute cesspool of sexism and even outright misogyny.

[kathyk24]

22 hours ago, UYI said:

I feel so bad for Jessica Mendoza from ESPN's Baseball Tonight. She is getting SO much crap on Twitter for DARING to be a woman who pursued a career calling a baseball game on TV! OH NOES! It's not like women, you know, actually LIKE baseball, amirite? And, you know, play professional softball. Oh, wait. She DID!

UGH UGH UGH.

You do you, Jessica. 

Jemele Hill also gets garbage thrown at her on Twitter. She said on Mike and Mike that she gets told to either go back to Africa or go back to the kitchen.

[UYI]

4 hours ago, kathyk24 said:

Jemele Hill also gets garbage thrown at her on Twitter. She said on Mike and Mike that she gets told to either go back to Africa or go back to the kitchen.

I think what stands out about the criticism Jessica gets is the role she specifically has as a baseball analyst. There are many female sports anchors, and there are many female sideline reporters. There have only been, to my knowledge, two women who have actually called a nationally televised baseball game--Jessica on ESPN, and Michele Smith (who, like Jessica, is also a former softball player) a few years back on TBS (and on a local level, Yankees radio broadcaster Suzyn Waldman has been at it longer than pretty much any woman, period, on radio OR TV). And unlike Michele, Jessica is doing it on a regular basis. It's like there's this unspoken rule that women are allowed to talk about what happened after a "men's" game is over, or interview a player right after a game is over, but God forbid they actually get describe the game as it is actually in progress (and I'm talking about traditionally men's sports--obviously women commentating on women's sports events on TV is seen as perfectly okay--as it should be--and I imagine no one blinks an eye when a man does it, either). OMG, WHAT ABOUT TEH MENZ? Their delicate fee fees can't handle womenfolk in the booth! *retch*

And I'm sure it's not just baseball--I imagine the reaction to a female color commentator during a football game would be even worse. Has there even been one for football before?

I'm definitely not trying to downplay any crap Jemele may get--unfortunately, women who cover sports has always had to deal with this in one way or another. I'm just pointing why the criticism Jessica is getting in particular is uncharted territory, especially since she now has a regular gig, as opposed to a one-off appearance in the broadcast booth during a baseball game just for the novelty of it. 

Edited April 4, 2017 by UYI

[Bwill3133]

Beth Mowins does do some college football games commentary on ESPN while Kara Lawson and Doris Burke do men's college basketball. Also next NFL season I cannot wait to see the response to Samantha Ponder hosting NFL countdown because she's replacing Chris Berman. 

[Raja]

3 hours ago, Bwill3133 said:

Beth Mowins does do some college football games commentary on ESPN while Kara Lawson and Doris Burke do men's college basketball. Also next NFL season I cannot wait to see the response to Samantha Ponder hosting NFL countdown because she's replacing Chris Berman. 

I can't see there is much of an issue requiring any response Jayne Kennedy had the same role for CBS in 1978. The ceiling is  at the actual game play by play and color commentator announcer team

[kiddo82]

http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/billions-star-challenges-emmys-male-female-acting-categories-n743401?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma

Interesting article.  First of all, I was pleasantly surprised that the Academy will let you submit for either category no questions asked.  The problem with eliminating gender categories, however, is that the roles for men and women are different and the evaluation of men and women is different.  Serious question, if the acting categories had been all inclusive from the beginning, how many women would have won in the comedy categories?  I'd guess Candace Bergen and Julia Louis Dreyfus would have one or two apiece but before the 90s you'd probably have as much chance as finding a unicorn as you would a woman with a comedic Emmy.  It's such a sticky situation because unlike physical competitions where men have an inherit advantage there should be no obvious advantage when it comes to performance art and yet, as we all know, gender politics, whether conscious or subconscious, are usually at play.* And strictly as a business decision, I don't see the academy shrinking acting categories when those are the main ones people tune into the telecast to see.  I do think it's cool that actors who identify as non-binary, or anyone for that matter, at least have their choice of category though.   

 

*And while there's a lot of sexism, a looooooooot of sexism, it's not always wrong to see men and differently because it's hard wired into our DNA.  The thing is "different" shouldn't equal "less than" and there in lies the problem 

Edited April 9, 2017 by kiddo82

[slf]

The thing about trying to define a man as being either a Misogynist or Not A Misogynist is that it's sometimes but not always that clear cut. Yeah, some men are raging no-question-about-it misogynists. The thing is though when you're raised in a misogynistic society you internalize things, men and women alike though obviously men especially. Attitudes, language, etc. A man might not see himself that way but that doesn't mean things he says or does aren't misogynistic even if he's not some stereotypical MRA rape-shouldn't-be-illegal douche. So maybe Ryan Murphy isn't against equal pay or denying women access to jobs or education (though many men who say they aren't still enforce the status quo, if only subconsciously) but that doesn't mean he doesn't have a bias that shows up in his writing. Joss Whedon's done some sketchy stuff with his writing, but also outside of that capacity, that was misogynistic as well.

On 10/26/2016 at 6:58 AM, DittyDotDot said:

And, IMO, the word is not interchangeable with sexist. 

Sexism refers to prejudice against someone on the basis of sex, misogyny refers to specifically "dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women." Not interchangeable, no, but misogyny is not different from sexism against women. I prefer to use misogyny rather than sexism because the former names the problem.

Edited May 17, 2017 by slf

[Irlandesa]

Looks like Criminal Minds is at it again with their contract negotiations.    

[AimingforYoko]

Megan Boone lobbies for equal representation in The Blacklist promos.

[Kel Varnsen]

15 hours ago, AimingforYoko said:

Megan Boone lobbies for equal representation in The Blacklist promos.

Now I would totally expect any actor to try and get more promotion for themselves and generally not hold it against them. But is Spader being used more in the promos a case of Hollywood sexism or is it more because Spader is significantly more famous than anyone in the cast of The Blacklist? 

[Chaos Theory]

1 hour ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Now I would totally expect any actor to try and get more promotion for themselves and generally not hold it against them. But is Spader being used more in the promos a case of Hollywood sexism or is it more because Spader is significantly more famous than anyone in the cast of The Blacklist? 

There is a legitimate case for both.  Spader is the most famous person on the show and you can make a case for him being the star but that is also in large part because the show had made him the star and Megan Boone does have a significant role on the show maybe even as large as Spaders so you can also make a legitimate case that it is Hollywood sexism causing execs not to use Boone in more promos.  

[kiddo82]

Anyone else watching GLOW?  I watched the first two episodes last night and I thought it was interesting that smarmy, kinda sexist director character Sam twice used the word "asshole" when the word "bitch" could have also applied.  I'm not even opposed to the word "bitch" on principle and it seems like a show set against the backdrop of the gorgeous ladies of wrestling heyday, particularly since it features a man who used the term "womb goof" to refer to a miscarriage, would be a breeding ground for said word.  Having said that, I really appreciated the use of the gender neutral expletive.  In a weird way, it showed that the smarmy, kinda sexist, kinda creepy character sees the women as equals as opposed to just "bitches be crazy." 

[AimingforYoko]

To be fair, 

Spoiler

Ruth is an asshole.

[kiddo82]

37 minutes ago, AimingforYoko said:

To be fair, 

  Reveal hidden contents

Ruth is an asshole.

Agree completely.

[slf]

9 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Now I would totally expect any actor to try and get more promotion for themselves and generally not hold it against them. But is Spader being used more in the promos a case of Hollywood sexism or is it more because Spader is significantly more famous than anyone in the cast of The Blacklist? 

The former. Liz, whether show fans like it or not, is the co-lead and most of the show is centered around the mystery of her childhood, family, and relationship to Red. There's absolutely no reason why Spader should dominate the promotional material.

[biakbiak]

20 minutes ago, slf said:

whether show fans like it or not, is

I think this is the point though a lot of the fans vastly prefer Red to her character and I imagine NBC marketing has numbers to back that up that influences why they choose to promote the show that way. A lot of shows don't have an equal balance of co-leads in their promotional materials.

[slf]

6 minutes ago, biakbiak said:

I think this is the point though a lot of the fans vastly prefer Red to her character and I imagine NBC marketing has numbers to back that up that influences why they choose to promote the show that way. A lot of shows don't have an equal balance of co-leads in their promotional materials.

I kind of doubt it, though. That NBC is looking at numbers to determine who gets the most promotion, not that most fans prefer Red. Studies have shown that sex does not sell and yet networks always go that route and we all know why. (Just like shows with a female lead or a black cast, etc., can be ratings winners. And yet...) ABC decided Nathan Fillion was the draw for Castle despite having no evidence that was true and made a bunch of b.s. decisions that backfired on them spectacularly. NBC has likely prioritized Spader for the simple reason of he's the male lead. I mean, he's had more screen time than her for the past season and a half and yet that hasn't translated into higher ratings so...

[orza]

24 minutes ago, biakbiak said:

I think this is the point though a lot of the fans vastly prefer Red to her character and I imagine NBC marketing has numbers to back that up that influences why they choose to promote the show that way. A lot of shows don't have an equal balance of co-leads in their promotional materials.

Yep. It's a business. The networks have market research departments that gather data about which characters and story lines viewers prefer and all kinds of other things. Promos are supposed to create buzz and entice viewers to watch the show. They don't have to be balanced with equal time for all cast members. It makes little sense to feature unpopular characters in the promos.

Megan Boone may have been hired for a leading role but she demonstrated fairly quickly that she was not up to the task. The show adjusted and made her character a plot device for stories that featured other characters. This past season was a good example of that. Liz was the plot device that drove the main story arc, but Mr Kaplan was the main character of that story, not Liz. And I would say Susan Blommaert functioned as the female lead this season along side James Spader, even though she was a recurring guest star.

[biakbiak]

14 minutes ago, slf said:

That NBC is looking at numbers to determine who gets the most promotion, n

They most certainly do use things like focus groups, q scores, etc. to come up with a promotional strategy which also helps explain why a majority of the time previews often aren't a reliable indication of an episode because they are going by different criteria than just trying to represent the episode.

[slf]

1 hour ago, biakbiak said:

They most certainly do use things like focus groups, q scores, etc. to come up with a promotional strategy which also helps explain why a majority of the time previews often aren't a reliable indication of an episode because they are going by different criteria than just trying to represent the episode.

While I'm sure that focus groups are consulted, and the like, I doubt "these people say they like Spader's character so let's focus on him more even though doing so isn't increasing the ratings at all" is what's determining his prominence. After all, they have access to the ratings right? I'm sure they must consult those numbers and those numbers say that whatever focus groups like aside, Spader being put front and center isn't increasing the ratings. Hell, it's not even just preventing them from falling. And last I checked, ratings matter more than what focus groups like. So why lean so heavily on him in promotional material?

Edited June 25, 2017 by slf

[biakbiak]

1 minute ago, slf said:

Hell, it's not even just preventing them from falling. And last I checked, ratings matter more than what focus groups like.

Ratings go more into scheduling decisions not the overall marketing strategy. Obviously, both are consulted but the. Ratings aren't giving them specific data, also marketing departments have a lot more information and data collection than just focus groups. 

[slf]

Just now, biakbiak said:

Ratings go more into scheduling decisions not the overall marketing strategy. Obviously, both are consulted but the. Ratings aren't giving them specific data, also marketing departments have a lot more information and data collection than just focus groups. 

Seriously? That's dumb, then. If you promote an episode by being all "look how much it's about Red and not that boring Liz!" and that doesn't increase your ratings you don't....figure maybe that's not the way to promote your next episode? Especially when doing that for a season just gives you series-low ratings? Then how the hell do you decide that the focus groups are giving you useful information?

1 hour ago, orza said:

Yep. It's a business. The networks have market research departments that gather data about which characters and story lines viewers prefer and all kinds of other things. Promos are supposed to create buzz and entice viewers to watch the show.

I'll admit, I don't get it. Isn't the business part about getting people to watch your show so you can make money? And Spader being featured the most in promotions isn't getting more people to watch the show. No one's being enticed by him.

[orza]

9 hours ago, slf said:

Seriously? That's dumb, then. If you promote an episode by being all "look how much it's about Red and not that boring Liz!" and that doesn't increase your ratings you don't....figure maybe that's not the way to promote your next episode? Especially when doing that for a season just gives you series-low ratings? Then how the hell do you decide that the focus groups are giving you useful information?

I'll admit, I don't get it. Isn't the business part about getting people to watch your show so you can make money? And Spader being featured the most in promotions isn't getting more people to watch the show. No one's being enticed by him.

Live+same day ratings alone are not the whole measure of a show's success. From a Deadline article appearing last month:

Quote

A modest Live+same day performer, The Blacklist has done well in delayed viewing with solid lifts. Season to date, it’s the third highest rated and most watched NBC scripted series behind This Is Us and Chicago Fire with a 2.1 adults 18-49 rating and 9.6 million viewers (Live+7).

It would appear the show is doing fine focusing their promotion on Spader.

I don't think this is an issue of sexism in Hollywood, but more an issue of Megan Boone is not very good at her job and not very well liked by viewers and that is why the network is not promoting her.

[Kel Varnsen]

1 hour ago, orza said:

 

I don't think this is an issue of sexism in Hollywood, but more an issue of Megan Boone is not very good at her job and not very well liked by viewers and that is why the network is not promoting her.

I just figured, as someone who has never watched the Blacklist, it was a case of Spader being a relatively big star (multiple emmy winner, Ultron, etc) and Megan Boone being someone i have never heard of.

[orza]

11 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

I just figured, as someone who has never watched the Blacklist, it was a case of Spader being a relatively big star (multiple emmy winner, Ultron, etc) and Megan Boone being someone i have never heard of.

Well, yes that, too. As I posted in the show forum, this is the James Spader show. Without him they don't have a show. Without MB they could carry on quite well and would probably have a better show.

[janie jones]

On 6/25/2017 at 11:21 AM, Kel Varnsen said:

I just figured, as someone who has never watched the Blacklist, it was a case of Spader being a relatively big star (multiple emmy winner, Ultron, etc) and Megan Boone being someone i have never heard of.

I don't watch The Blacklist, but seeing James Spader in the commercial would be more effective in drawing me in than seeing that lady whose name I don't know.  (That is to say, I watched the first episode because of James Spader but didn't continue to watch because the show bored me.)

[memememe76]

I view Spader, who I don't much like, as a name that will attract media and general viewership interest. Even if the character is not figured prominently on the show. Not that I know, I have never watched the show. Kinda like Luke Perry on Riverdale. He is not a hoooge character on the show because the CW hates old people, but he is still featured prominently in promotional materials. 

This is Us is the much bigger NBC hit, and i feel that Mandy and Vilo are equivalent in terms of stature. And NBC doesn't favor one over the other when promoting the show. At least, imo.

Edited June 27, 2017 by memememe76

[slf]

I still find it hard to believe that Megan Boone being a woman isn't playing a role. Maybe because I've sat through, literally, countless tv shows with mediocre male leads and those men never had to lobby to get featured more in the promotional material. They were the leads therefore it went without saying that would happen. Like I've been thinking about male leads getting shortchanged that way and I'm struggling to name any. Considering that NBC ABC was going to dump Kate, the lead female, from Castle (and decision which caused such a backlash the show was cancelled) and FOX actually killed off Abbie, the female lead (though racism factored into that hugely, too), from Sleepy Hollow...this just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Maybe MB is mediocre, maybe a lot of TB fans don't like her, but so what? She's the co-lead. They screen tested her and hired her (and have given her fuck all to do) and made her the co-lead. And I just find it so, so hard to believe she'd have to lobby like this if she was a man.

14 hours ago, memememe76 said:

This is Us is the much bigger NBC hit, and i feel that Mandy and Vilo are equivalent in terms of stature. And NBC doesn't favor one over the other when promoting the show. At least, imo.

NBC was going to shitcan Stana Katic from Castle so they're going to have to do a lot better than giving Mandy and Vilo equal promotional opportunities to earn the benefit of the doubt from me. That was ABC. I was thinking it was NBC because earlier I was discussing with a friend how absurd it is that the actor playing Weller on Blindspot has top billing when Jaimie Alexander is clearly the lead, as well as discussing the networks atrocious coverage of female athletes (particularly during the Olympics).

Edited June 27, 2017 by slf

[DittyDotDot]

13 minutes ago, slf said:

NBC was going to shitcan Stana Katic from Castle

Isn't Castle on ABC?

[slf]

Just now, DittyDotDot said:

Isn't Castle on ABC?

You're right, I was thinking of NBC because of a different show. ABC pulled that crap with Katic. I stand corrected. 

[proserpina65]

On ‎06‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 3:32 AM, slf said:

While I'm sure that focus groups are consulted, and the like, I doubt "these people say they like Spader's character so let's focus on him more even though doing so isn't increasing the ratings at all" is what's determining his prominence. After all, they have access to the ratings right? I'm sure they must consult those numbers and those numbers say that whatever focus groups like aside, Spader being put front and center isn't increasing the ratings. Hell, it's not even just preventing them from falling. And last I checked, ratings matter more than what focus groups like. So why lean so heavily on him in promotional material?

I don't watch the show, but I have seen many promos for it during its run, and they've always focused on James Spader's character far more.  So much so that I wouldn't have guessed that the actress was a co-lead at all.  (Obviously I don't know the name of either the actress or her character, which is a reflection on how the show is promoted.)  I wouldn't put it down to sexism in this case.  I would say it's because James Spader was the known entity when the show started, and is still far better known amongst non-viewers whom NBC is presumably trying to attract with the promos.

[UYI]

My mom and I recently started watching Perry Mason on DVD (she's 60, so she's watched on and off on her whole life--the show is the same age as she is--but while I remember her watching it as a kid, I'm more or less a new viewer to the show). I started to notice at some point that the name of the executive producer of the show is Gail Patrick Jackson. It stuck out to me, as the idea of woman being an executive producer of a television show in 1957 was UNHEARD of, and I know that first name has been used by men, too (the late Gale Gordon, for example), so I finally decided to Google the name last night. Sure enough, Gail Patrick Jackson was not only a woman, she was the one of the first women producers in television--and, during the nine year run of Perry Mason, the ONLY woman executive producer of a primetime television series.

Here is her Wikipedia page, which explains more about how her Perry Mason gig came to be:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gail_Patrick

[GHScorpiosRule]

Not only that, @UYI, but she's the one who convinced Barbara Hale to read for the part of Della, saying it would only be for a few episodes, and here it is, 30 odd years later, and she's still playing Della!?(That was from an interview right around the time the movies premiered). Hale was hesitant to commit because she had young children. But it all worked out on the end. I can't imagine anyone else playing Della Street.

[slf]

So according to Joss Whedon's ex-wife, Kai Cole, he cheated on her for almost twenty years with actresses from his shows, co-workers, friends, and even fans. According to her he wrote her a letter in which he basically blamed culture for him being an asshole who exploited his position to have affairs all while preaching about feminism (“In many ways I was the HEIGHT of normal, in this culture. We’re taught to be providers and companions and at the same time, to conquer and acquire — specifically sexually — and I was pulling off both!”). From a letter he wrote her: “When I was running ‘Buffy,’ I was surrounded by beautiful, needy, aggressive young women. It felt like I had a disease, like something from a Greek myth. Suddenly I am a powerful producer and the world is laid out at my feet and I can’t touch it.”

...I believe it.