Gender On Television: It's Like Feminism Never Happened

[Danielg342]

On 2/12/2020 at 1:45 AM, Irlandesa said:

Although I never got the hoopla that when a woman takes down five bad guys in a fight, people rush to point out how unrealistic that is but if the male star of one of these action shows does it, it's seen as cool and "badass." 

It's all unrealistic so I just like to have fun with the fantasy.

A few points to make on this.

1) The actresses Hollywood tends to hire are five-foot 100-pound pipsqueaks who don't look like they could take off the lid of a ketchup bottle, let alone take down five or ten baddies in a fight. At least when Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jason Statham or Shemar Moore do it, they at least look like they can.

2) The "Superwoman" role tends to be a supporting character than a main character more often than not among the cast. Like the "plucky comic relief guy" or the "the bossman", the Superwoman won't be a focus of the writing staff, meaning she probably won't get as developed as a result.

3) The Superwoman role tends to be the only kind of "female character with agency" role that is available to women in Hollywood, especially on shows that are not "geared towards women". Chances are if a show has a Superwoman she's the only woman in the cast, or the only woman in the cast who will actually get meaningful time on the show. So audiences will tend to notice her more than the other supporting characters.

4) The unfortunate "tokenism" angle. Even when shows have legitimate female characters, you'll still have those who will protest that "they're only there because the show wants to be 'woke' ". Unfortunately, white, heterosexual, vaguely Christian male characters will have a much longer leash in terms of "acceptability" with audiences than the other set of characters.

5) Most importantly, the vast majority of Superwomen characters tend to be Mary Sues. Not only will she kick a lot of butt in fights, she's a hyper-competent woman who can solve all of her problems with the greatest of ease and never faces a lick of struggle.  Very rarely will you see a Superwoman who is well developed and faces actual, meaningful struggle in the story. Lots of male characters can also fit this description, yes, but there are at least many male characters who are super butt-kickers who also get a lot of depth and development, and they're not always "main" characters.

This isn't to suggest that female "supercharacters" deserve more scorn than male supercharacters- far from it. Far from it- any flat character deserves criticism. I just want to point out that there's more at play than simply misogynistic leanings.

[angora]

Here's the thing that gets me about Angel's curse. I understand the metaphor about a guy who turns mean/cold/whatever on a girl after they have sex, and on a very surface level, the metaphor works. But where it breaks down is in the change itself. I think for most people who've experienced something like this, the guy wants the girl specifically for sex, puts on a nice-guy act and pretends to care about her so she'll "give it up," and then shows his true colors and discards her afterward. With Angel, he WAS a nice guy who DID care about Buffy, but when he and Buffy have sex, he loses his soul. IRL, the guy doesn't actually change, he just shows who he was all along. With Angel, sex with Buffy MAKES him a monster.

[Spartan Girl]

2 hours ago, angora said:

Here's the thing that gets me about Angel's curse. I understand the metaphor about a guy who turns mean/cold/whatever on a girl after they have sex, and on a very surface level, the metaphor works. But where it breaks down is in the change itself. I think for most people who've experienced something like this, the guy wants the girl specifically for sex, puts on a nice-guy act and pretends to care about her so she'll "give it up," and then shows his true colors and discards her afterward. With Angel, he WAS a nice guy who DID care about Buffy, but when he and Buffy have sex, he loses his soul. IRL, the guy doesn't actually change, he just shows who he was all along. With Angel, sex with Buffy MAKES him a monster.

Which is why that metaphor doesn't really work, and is completely sexist. I really wish there had been another way for Angel to lose his soul in season 2 that didn't involve that crap. It would have been nice for Buffy's first time to not end so catastrophically. Instead we got the sexist trope of "girls shouldn't succumb to their urges because it leads to disaster."

[Bort]

8 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

1) The actresses Hollywood tends to hire are five-foot 100-pound pipsqueaks who don't look like they could take off the lid of a ketchup bottle, let alone take down five or ten baddies in a fight. At least when Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jason Statham or Shemar Moore do it, they at least look like they can.

I did appreciate that the show Continuum subverted this a bit with their casting of the female lead. While Kiera did have a supersuit that would absorb blows and help her out, Rachel Nichols was no pipsqueak, she was a big woman at 5’10” and actually did look like she could knock people on their asses. It also helped that whoever did the stunt choreography was really good because the fight scenes were awesome.

[supposebly]

54 minutes ago, kariyaki said:

I did appreciate that the show Continuum subverted this a bit with their casting of the female lead.

I agree. Jennifer Garner on Alias also looked like she could take out various bad guys. Her fighting style also helped since she would use anything in her environment that would give her an advantage. 

Just one of many examples. I couldn't find the one I was thinking of. For those who have watched the show, I'm thinking of the fight in the kitchen with "The Snowman". But this is just an excellent clip anyway. The fight starts at about 3 minutes. And then there is the epic fight with fake Francine at the end of season 2. I don't usually care all that much about fight choreography, but in Alias, loved them. 

 

Edited February 9, 2022 by supposebly

[Bastet]

On Remington Steele, Stephanie Zimbalist did virtually all her own stunts, so when Laura mixed in brawn with her brain, it was totally realistic, which I loved.  

As cheesy a show as it was in many ways, that was one of the things I liked about Charlie's Angels, too, because I was watching women do stuff that I could do, too.  When I watched the film, yeah, there's definitely something cool about all the crazy shit those Angels could do, but I also found myself missing the original.

[Hiyo]

Oh lord the Angels in the early 2000s movies made Captain America looks like a regular human.

[GHScorpiosRule]

30 minutes ago, Bastet said:

On Remington Steele, Stephanie Zimbalist did virtually all her own stunts, so when Laura mixed in brawn with her brain, it was totally realistic, which I loved.  

As cheesy a show as it was in many ways, that was one of the things I liked about Charlie's Angels, too, because I was watching women do stuff that I could do, too.  When I watched the film, yeah, there's definitely something cool about all the crazy shit those Angels could do, but I also found myself missing the original.

I think I posted the same about Charlies' Angels when this thread was first created. I'm sure I said something about how none of these women needed any stinkin' men to save them, because they saved themselves! Even when we had Jill and Kris having to scream like low rent B-list movie victims, it was almost always Sabrina who saved them.

Sorry, I feel too lazy to look for it.

It just seems to me that there was more feminism on television during a time when women didn't have as many rights as they do today; or rather, at at a time when they were seen and treated as "damsels in distress" if you will, when they clearly weren't.

Edited February 9, 2022 by GHScorpiosRule

[Lugal]

11 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

1) The actresses Hollywood tends to hire are five-foot 100-pound pipsqueaks who don't look like they could take off the lid of a ketchup bottle, let alone take down five or ten baddies in a fight. At least when Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jason Statham or Shemar Moore do it, they at least look like they can.

I remember people mentioned this when Buffy was airing, but Xena was on at the same time and people acknowledged that Lucy Lawless really looked like she could handle herself in a fight.

11 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

3) The Superwoman role tends to be the only kind of "female character with agency" role that is available to women in Hollywood, especially on shows that are not "geared towards women". Chances are if a show has a Superwoman she's the only woman in the cast, or the only woman in the cast who will actually get meaningful time on the show. So audiences will tend to notice her more than the other supporting characters.

I think things are changing somewhat, as it's rare to have a cast with only one woman in it these days, and the superwoman gets combined with the Cool Girlfriend character, who becomes sort of a writer's dreamgirl (or at least whichever writer did the episode).

[Mabinogia]

18 hours ago, scarynikki12 said:

My bigger issue was that both (the shows) Buffy and Angel later decided that it was sex itself that caused Angel to lose his soul when the episode, to me at least, demonstrated that it was Angel feeling complete happiness that did it. We were told specifically that "One moment of true happiness, of contentment, one moment where the soul that we restored no longer plagues his thoughts, and that soul is taken from him.”

That brings me to another issue I had with it. Angel wasn't truly happy until he got to fuck Buffy? So just being in her life, caring for her and having her care for and love him wasn't good enough. It isn't true happiness until he gets off. 

Mind, I loathed Angel. I hated who he was way back before he turned into a vampire and who he was when he was a vampire before the curse. Actually, the only time I found him even remotely fun as a character was when he went all bad. But of course that wasn't going to last because he was the love interest so we are all supposed to forget about all the many horrible things he did and just look at what is meant to be his pretty face. (I never found him at all attractive which might have been part of why I couldn't stand the character. Hated his personality, hated his looks and don't think DB could act his way out of a paper bag.) Buffy, both character and show, deserved better. 

[Spartan Girl]

2 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

That brings me to another issue I had with it. Angel wasn't truly happy until he got to fuck Buffy? So just being in her life, caring for her and having her care for and love him wasn't good enough. It isn't true happiness until he gets off. 

 

Well, in fairness, I don’t think he was subconsciously aware of that until the curse enacted. And ultimately, he DID choose her well-being over his happiness when it was obvious they weren’t going to work. Unlike Riley and Spike, who wanted Buffy to love them the way they wanted. As problematic as their relationship looks now, Angel never made any demands like that. 

I remember the old TWOP recap of “Forever” that pointed out Angel came through to show up for Buffy in the way that Riley found so intolerable: just by being there for her and supporting her, letting her grieve the way she needed to grieve without pushing her or making it all about him. So he gets that much, at least.

[Danielg342]

9 hours ago, kariyaki said:

I did appreciate that the show Continuum subverted this a bit with their casting of the female lead. While Kiera did have a supersuit that would absorb blows and help her out, Rachel Nichols was no pipsqueak, she was a big woman at 5’10” and actually did look like she could knock people on their asses. It also helped that whoever did the stunt choreography was really good because the fight scenes were awesome.

I hesitated to bring up size because it's deceptive. Someone may look scrawny but, in reality, they can pack a lot of punch. Besides, as any seasoned fighter will tell you, size isn't everything in a fight- technique and smarts go a long way too.

Plus most Hollywood actresses these days put in a lot of time at the gym (and actors too, for that matter). Gone are the days when the average Hollywood actress was actually a thin waif- these women are in shape and will run you through your paces with ease.

Still, size still gets brought up every now and then, perhaps because actresses don't benefit from favourable presentations. There are still a lot of Hollywood producers who prefer to cast their women with dainty, "vulnerable" types, while making sure the characters too come across that way, perhaps to ensure they're still "sympathetic". So, while in real life most actresses are far from a physical pushover, since they're still often cast in this manner, you'll still get those in the audience who will find it hard to believe many actresses can play a "believable" badass.

7 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

It just seems to me that there was more feminism on television during a time when women didn't have as many rights as they do today; or rather, at at a time when they were seen and treated as "damsels in distress" if you will, when they clearly weren't.

I'm not sure I would agree that things were, overall, more "feminist" before the age of feminism, since Hollywood leaned more heavily into casting the "dainty, vulnerable woman" for their female roles with the vast majority of those roles being little more than being "the damsel" or "the wife/the love interest". Even though as the '60s turned into the '70s more women were getting involved in society it took a while for Hollywood producers to catch up to those trends.

Still, there may be something to this, because, in the off chance that a show back then has a female character who is more than just "the wife/the love interest", it's highly likely that the character is there because the writers wanted her there and thus they're going to take good care of her and actually develop the character instead of making her one-dimensional. Nowadays, even though you have far more diversity in terms of roles for women to play in Hollywood, chances are that those characters are simply "afterthoughts" among the writing staff, so they don't get the development that they need. This is a corollary to the problem of executives forcing diversity on to their shows- more often than not, if you've got a show with women as cast members, unless the show is centred around them, chances are the female characters are not there by the choice of the writing staff which means they won't get the attention they need from the writers, Which, in turn, makes them flat characters.

5 hours ago, Lugal said:

I think things are changing somewhat, as it's rare to have a cast with only one woman in it these days, and the superwoman gets combined with the Cool Girlfriend character, who becomes sort of a writer's dreamgirl (or at least whichever writer did the episode).

I'm not sure how much more "ideal" this is.

Chances are if you have two supporting female characters on a show, one will be a woman of colour who will play the role of the "tough badass", while the other will be a white woman who fills the role of the "dainty, vulnerable, effeminate" woman (who, in one episode, will show she actually has "hidden strength" just so the writers can think they're shocking the audience).

The reasons for setting things up this way are threefold:

(...and please, don't get it twisted- I'm just trying to get into the minds of Hollywood executives here. Don't think I actually agree with this stuff)

One, it's an easy way to fill the "diversity" quotient for a show. Don't have your Black/Hispanic/Asian character cast yet? Make that character the "strongwoman" and you're good to go! You could even make her a part of the LGBT community and earn even more diversity points!

Secondly, there's still this idea among audiences- particularly among the male segment of the audience- that a strong woman is too "intimidating" to stomach. Because producers like to have their female characters be sympathetic and (more importantly) eventually play the love interest to one of the main male characters, they'll make sure there's a second woman for whom it's more "palatable" for the male character to end up with and is more "acceptable" to the male viewers within the audience.

The third point is related to the second. Because badass women have the perception of being intimidating, and because producers are still aiming their products at a mostly white audience, making the badass, say, a Latina lesbian is more "acceptable" because the target audience isn't likely to relate to the character much to begin with. This is in contrast with the white female character, whom, it is figured, the target audiences will relate to more so the producers do all they can to make her as "likeable" and "relatable" as possible.

In the end, you're probably still left with two flat characters. You have one character whose only story will either be to serve as the occasional canon fodder for the times when the writers want to establish that the villain is a special kind of menace or one who gets an "identity plot" where they fight sexism, racism, or homophobia (or all three). Then you have the other character who fits Hollywood's more traditional mould of a "female character" (the precious "English rose" type) whose only real role is to play the eventual love interest of someone within the main male cast. This second woman may be the first woman's "best friend" and, in the episodes where the first woman gets into trouble, reveal that she's not exactly a slouch when it comes to fights, but, make no mistake, she's mostly there to be the "cutesy damsel" and little else.

[Hiyo]

Quote

Still, size still gets brought up every now and then

In real life, it's more a combination of weight and experience that will win a fight. For men and women.

[angora]

On 2/8/2022 at 7:21 PM, Wiendish Fitch said:

Same with Mal Reynolds. God, I hated that guy.

Give me male characters like Marcus Cole from Babylon 5, Vincent from Beauty and the Beast, or Raymond Burr's Perry Mason: confident men who knew how to treat a lady. I'm so sick to death of whiny, insecure, criminally entitled man-babies polluting my TV screen. 

So much this, OMG. It was The Crown that destroyed whatever shreds of patience I had left for fragile dudes whose precious masculinity can't withstand powerful women. I didn't make it past the Claire Foy/Matt Smith seasons of that show because I just couldn't with Philip. So many scenes that left me shouting, "Aren't you embarrassed to have such a fragile ego, to need so much propping up just to feel secure about yourself???"

I have no time left for the Xander Harrises and Riley Finns. Give me men who love women's strength, intelligence, and ambition. Give me men who work shoulder to shoulder with capable women, respecting their insights and leaning on their capabilities. Give me men who argue with women over tactics or ideology but never make it into a gender thing, give me men who can express their emotions or or compliment another guy's appearance or ask for help without fear of losing their "man card." It's okay if they need to go through a bit of a journey to get to that point, because that is something that needs modeling, but please make it quick: I don't want to sit through a whole season/film/book of that shit.

Some of my favorites are Ben from Parks and Rec, Dr. Turner from Call the Midwife, a lot of the Marvel heroes (I especially love that T'Challa and Shang-Chi are both surrounded by confident, capable women they respect,) Ted and Roy from Ted Lasso, and Mando from The Mandalorian (in one of the episode threads for that show, someone pointed out that the character is modeled so much on the old macho "lone gunslinger" archetype, but Mando never gets into pissing contests with other guys, constantly allies himself with kickass women, and so plainly loves that baby with all of his heart.) These characters are out there, but we need so many more of them.

[GHScorpiosRule]

9 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

I'm not sure I would agree that things were, overall, more "feminist" before the age of feminism, since Hollywood leaned more heavily into casting the "dainty, vulnerable woman" for their female roles with the vast majority of those roles being little more than being "the damsel" or "the wife/the love interest". Even though as the '60s turned into the '70s more women were getting involved in society it took a while for Hollywood producers to catch up to those trends

I was referring to those shows that had female leads. And they were more feminist compared to shows of today, where every single woman MUST have a love interest/angst or the loathed triangle.

And a wife who wasn’t an afterthought, but also a strong character was Sally McMillan in McMillan & Wife, before they revamped the show and killed her off, of course🤬🙄😒 I don’t know if Susan St. James wanted to leave or if it was the Network’s idea.

[Llywela]

This is where Agents of SHIELD was amazing. It had an extremely diverse ensemble cast with a large number of women who were all complex, nuanced characters, each in her own individual way, and were all both strong and flawed, each in her own individual way. Some of the women were badasses who could take on any comers in a fight (although they didn't always win), but they were shown to work hard and train for that role; those who didn't undertake that training weren't magically able to fight just as well, but instead had very different areas of expertise, which were equally respected, because it was implicitly understood that it was okay for different people to be good at different things. And the male characters were never shown to resent the strength of the women around them.

The show wasn't perfect (although it remains one of my all-time favourites), but it was excellent in this department.

I'll just offer a shout-out to Agent Carter, too, because I really loved Peggy's fighting style in that. There was no finesse, she had no martial arts expertise, she just grabbed whatever came to hand and hit her opponent as hard as she could until he fell down!

[Kel Varnsen]

8 hours ago, Hiyo said:

In real life, it's more a combination of weight and experience that will win a fight. For men and women.

I think that is probably true. Although one thing TV generally doesn't do well is how much punishment smaller fighters can take, especially those small women fighter types. I don't care how good a fighter you are, if someone that has 150 pounds on you lands a hard punch or throws you into a wall it shouldn't be something easy to shake off. For the female fighter characters, one of my favourites was probably Fiona from Burn Notice. Gabrielle Anwar is a tiny person, so in the show when she would get into fights she would use moves that some might think of as fighting dirty (but who really cares when the point is to not die) and she would usually be the person who brings a gun to a fist fight. And if she was outmatched she would run away.

11 minutes ago, Llywela said:

This is where Agents of SHIELD was amazing. It had an extremely diverse ensemble cast with a large number of women who were all complex, nuanced characters, each in her own individual way, and were all both strong and flawed, each in her own individual way. Some of the women were badasses who could take on any comers in a fight (although they didn't always win), but they were shown to work hard and train for that role; those who didn't undertake that training weren't magically able to fight just as well, but instead had very different areas of expertise, which were equally respected, because it was implicitly understood that it was okay for different people to be good at different things. And the male characters were never shown to resent the strength of the women around them.

One thing that did always bug me about Agents of Shield (and Marvel in general although AoS was the worst for it) is how often those great fighters automatically went to having fist fights. Your agency is supposed to have all this super advanced tech and weapons so why are you trying to punch a bad guy to stop him? It just makes the fighters look dumb.

[Raja]

7 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

I think that is probably true. Although one thing TV generally doesn't do well is how much punishment smaller fighters can take, especially those small women fighter types. I don't care how good a fighter you are, if someone that has 150 pounds on you lands a hard punch or throws you into a wall it shouldn't be something easy to shake off. For the female fighter characters, one of my favourites was probably Fiona from Burn Notice. Gabrielle Anwar is a tiny person, so in the show when she would get into fights she would use moves that some might think of as fighting dirty (but who really cares when the point is to not die) and she would usually be the person who brings a gun to a fist fight. And if she was outmatched she would run away.

One thing that did always bug me about Agents of Shield (and Marvel in general although AoS was the worst for it) is how often those great fighters automatically went to having fist fights. Your agency is supposed to have all this super advanced tech and weapons so why are you trying to punch a bad guy to stop him? It just makes the fighters look dumb.

It was kind of weird since Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. invented a phaser on stun in the pilot to keep the death count down for a life saving not a killer organization, as they waited for the bad guys within reveal from Captain America Winter Soldier.  Eventually they gave the back story on their main fighter, a middle aged woman having killed a child in the line of duty so she mostly avoided guns, even non lethal ones while putting limits on the lethal powers of the super powered characters.

I do remember that while Fiona was asking "should we shoot them?" didn't seem large enough to comfortably carry her weapons around.

[Wiendish Fitch]

2 hours ago, angora said:

So much this, OMG. It was The Crown that destroyed whatever shreds of patience I had left for fragile dudes whose precious masculinity can't withstand powerful women. I didn't make it past the Claire Foy/Matt Smith seasons of that show because I just couldn't with Philip. So many scenes that left me shouting, "Aren't you embarrassed to have such a fragile ego, to need so much propping up just to feel secure about yourself???"

I have no time left for the Xander Harrises and Riley Finns. Give me men who love women's strength, intelligence, and ambition. Give me men who work shoulder to shoulder with capable women, respecting their insights and leaning on their capabilities. Give me men who argue with women over tactics or ideology but never make it into a gender thing, give me men who can express their emotions or or compliment another guy's appearance or ask for help without fear of losing their "man card." It's okay if they need to go through a bit of a journey to get to that point, because that is something that needs modeling, but please make it quick: I don't want to sit through a whole season/film/book of that shit.

Some of my favorites are Ben from Parks and Rec, Dr. Turner from Call the Midwife, a lot of the Marvel heroes (I especially love that T'Challa and Shang-Chi are both surrounded by confident, capable women they respect,) Ted and Roy from Ted Lasso, and Mando from The Mandalorian (in one of the episode threads for that show, someone pointed out that the character is modeled so much on the old macho "lone gunslinger" archetype, but Mando never gets into pissing contests with other guys, constantly allies himself with kickass women, and so plainly loves that baby with all of his heart.) These characters are out there, but we need so many more of them.

THIS.

I just want male characters whose strengths outweigh their weaknesses,  and who get over their problems long enough to get shit done. The men of Brooklyn Nine-Nine are a great example. None of them are even close to perfect: Jake is an arrogant, immature goofball, but he's a great detective who cares about others... and gets shit done. Holt is a total stiff-neck, but he's a fine leader who means business... and gets shit done. Terry is a neurotic mess, but he's always there when going gets rough... and gets shit done. Even Boyle of all people gets shit done!

So yeah, give me men who have their flaws, but don't spend all day whining about them and Bojack Horseman-ing their way through life. 

[vibeology]

I don't mind a whiny man character but the people around him need to acknowledge that he sucks. That's why I loved Bojack. His flaws were apparently to the world around him. He actually suffered the consequences of his actions. Someone like Prince Philip or Xander is still beloved by their circle and is supposed to be seen as a good guy. The consequences they face are minimal and those consequences never lead to growth.

 

[Wiendish Fitch]

Just now, vibeology said:

I don't mind a whiny man character but the people around him need to acknowledge that he sucks. That's why I loved Bojack. His flaws were apparently to the world around him. He actually suffered the consequences of his actions. Someone like Prince Philip or Xander is still beloved by their circle and is supposed to be seen as a good guy. The consequences they face are minimal and those consequences never lead to growth.

 

Well said. I hated the character of Bojack Horseman... and- Hallelujah!- I think that was the point. Bojack is never, ever framed as cool, aspirational, relatable, whatever. We are meant to empathize with him (I mean, he did have a fucked-up upbringing), but never, ever are we asked to sympathize or excuse his actions. Bojack is a grown man... er, horse, he needed to get his shit together on his own, and the show knew this and frequently addressed this.

Honestly, I watched the show for Diane, Princess Carolyn, and, later, Paige Sinclair.

[JustHereForFood]

With all the talk about Xander, I almost forgot the episode that made me so much angry: Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered. After every girl falls for him because of that spell, at the end of the episode Buffy thanks him for not taking the advantage of her when she came on to him. FFS! Just because he still has a crush on her (which he inappropriately brings up sometimes), that doesn't mean he has shown some great restrain that needs to be thanked for, that is just how a human being is supposed to act: not rape someone who clearly cannot consent at the moment.

It felt like the writers wanted the boys watching the show to get this idea of consent (some new concept apparently), but were afraid thet if they don't show that boys deserve a reward for it, then it won't have any effect. 

[Wiendish Fitch]

16 minutes ago, JustHereForFood said:

With all the talk about Xander, I almost forgot the episode that made me so much angry: Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered. After every girl falls for him because of that spell, at the end of the episode Buffy thanks him for not taking the advantage of her when she came on to him. FFS! Just because he still has a crush on her (which he inappropriately brings up sometimes), that doesn't mean he has shown some great restrain that needs to be thanked for, that is just how a human being is supposed to act: not rape someone who clearly cannot consent at the moment.

It felt like the writers wanted the boys watching the show to get this idea of consent (some new concept apparently), but were afraid thet if they don't show that boys deserve a reward for it, then it won't have any effect. 

"Bewitched, Bothered, and Bewildered" is one of the worst episodes of any show EVER. It is. So. Gross. Xander earned a permanent spot on my shit list from that one episode (though he sucks in general).

[Lugal]

15 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

I'm not sure how much more "ideal" this is.

Chances are if you have two supporting female characters on a show, one will be a woman of colour who will play the role of the "tough badass", while the other will be a white woman who fills the role of the "dainty, vulnerable, effeminate" woman (who, in one episode, will show she actually has "hidden strength" just so the writers can think they're shocking the audience).

I never said it was ideal but it seems to be happening.  The "dainty, vulnerable, effeminate” woman, at least as the main love interest is bleeding into the Cool Girlfriend.  She’s into monster trucks or comic books or whatever the writer of the week is interested in and she doesn’t do traditional girly things like cooking (although this may be a reflection of cooking being a dying skill, but that’s another topic) but she still has perfect hair, makeup and fashion sense.

15 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

One, it's an easy way to fill the "diversity" quotient for a show. Don't have your Black/Hispanic/Asian character cast yet? Make that character the "strongwoman" and you're good to go! You could even make her a part of the LGBT community and earn even more diversity points!

Secondly, there's still this idea among audiences- particularly among the male segment of the audience- that a strong woman is too "intimidating" to stomach. Because producers like to have their female characters be sympathetic and (more importantly) eventually play the love interest to one of the main male characters, they'll make sure there's a second woman for whom it's more "palatable" for the male character to end up with and is more "acceptable" to the male viewers within the audience.

The third point is related to the second. Because badass women have the perception of being intimidating, and because producers are still aiming their products at a mostly white audience, making the badass, say, a Latina lesbian is more "acceptable" because the target audience isn't likely to relate to the character much to begin with. This is in contrast with the white female character, whom, it is figured, the target audiences will relate to more so the producers do all they can to make her as "likeable" and "relatable" as possible.

They always look to stack up the diversity points while the female lead is still a white heterosexual woman.  And I agree they are still aiming at a mostly white audience, which leads to a kind "intersectional Othering". So you have the Latina lesbian, both categories of "Other" which are overlapped (gaining more diversity points while only having to pay one cast member) without the nuance of having to really examine the Latin community (Mexican or Puerto Rican etc.) or really examining how being a lesbian fits in that community.

I also agree on the intimidation factor, which is why I think more often the love interest can bleed into the Cool Girlfriend who can end up as a Faux Action Girl who is made out to be a badass, and occasionally punches a guy out, but in the end always needs to be saved by the male lead.  I think it's because of the above mentioned intimidation factor (she's badass, but not too badass), but I think there's also a reaction against girly-girls and there's the simple fact that it can keep the female lead in on the action (thus cutting down filming times/locations).

[Spartan Girl]

52 minutes ago, JustHereForFood said:

With all the talk about Xander, I almost forgot the episode that made me so much angry: Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered. After every girl falls for him because of that spell, at the end of the episode Buffy thanks him for not taking the advantage of her when she came on to him. FFS! Just because he still has a crush on her (which he inappropriately brings up sometimes), that doesn't mean he has shown some great restrain that needs to be thanked for, that is just how a human being is supposed to act: not rape someone who clearly cannot consent at the moment.

It felt like the writers wanted the boys watching the show to get this idea of consent (some new concept apparently), but were afraid thet if they don't show that boys deserve a reward for it, then it won't have any effect. 

 

35 minutes ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

"Bewitched, Bothered, and Bewildered" is one of the worst episodes of any show EVER. It is. So. Gross. Xander earned a permanent spot on my shit list from that one episode (though he sucks in general).

And most infuriatingly, the end of the episode was made out to seem that Cordelia, not Xander, was the one that needed to learn a valuable lesson about standing up to her friends. Instead of Xander not, you know, using magic to mess with people’s minds. 🖕

In retrospect, Whedon’s mommy issues were made painfully obvious in Buffy. Not just because of the whole debacle with Spike and his mom, not to mention the rage-inducing message that Wood’s mom valued being a Slayer more than the well-being of her son — nope, nope, NOPE, can’t even touch that one without blowing a gasket — but because of how Joyce was written.

For the first two seasons of the show, Joyce was constantly disappointed in Buffy, assuming that she was irresponsible while being completely in the dark about her real life. And when the truth comes out at the worst possible time in “Becoming Part II” she couldn’t handle it and threw her out of the house.

Now, it would have gone a long way to changing how I felt about Joyce if after Buffy came back in season 3, we had a scene of her opening up to Joyce about everything that had been going on in the past few years, and Joyce expressing shock and guilt about how completely in the dark about her own daughter’s life, and maybe even some shame that she had both intentionally and unintentionally made things harder on Buffy while she was already going through so much heartache. Then she could have assured Buffy of her unconditional love and support, even though she didn’t completely understand all of this, because Slayer or not, she was still her daughter and she wanted to support her in any way she could. A scene like would have been so cathartic.

But that’s not what we got.

Sure, we got the hug at the end of “Anne.” But we also got Joyce blaming Giles for everything, lashing out at Buffy for “punishing her” despite the fact that she kicked her out. And her “acceptance” was kind of written off as a lighthearted joke. For that reason, her attempts to try and ingratiate herself in Buffy’s life (like bring her a sack lunch in the middle of the graveyard) felt hollow at best and forced at worst. Because it was obvious how still Not Okay she was with everything. In other episodes, she was just used as a spell victim or hostage—she was never really included in the group.

Even in season 5, we see how she clearly plays favorites with Dawn, coddling and indulging her in a way she never supposedly did with Buffy as a child. But all that is swept aside when she gets cancer and dies, and suddenly she’s memorialized as a big den mother to the whole gang—which obviously wasn’t true.

So yeah, that was pretty sexist too.

[akg]

Legends of Tomorrow is another great example of strong women being appreciated and men treating them and other men well (start with season 2). Two of the guys become best friends and they are not uncomfortable showing their affection towards each other and no one ever shames them. Their captain is a woman that everyone respects and supports. She gets the promotion after an episode of an older white man stepping into the role (they're in the 40s so people just assume he's in charge) who then realizes it's not a good fit.

[Danielg342]

9 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I was referring to those shows that had female leads. And they were more feminist compared to shows of today, where every single woman MUST have a love interest/angst or the loathed triangle.

I understood that. I was talking more about the overall landscape, considering the totality of all the roles available to actresses at that time. It was rare in the '50s right through to the mid-80s (at least) for a woman to have a prominent role on a show, especially if that show was one that was directed at men (like a cop show or a spy thriller).

9 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

I think that is probably true. Although one thing TV generally doesn't do well is how much punishment smaller fighters can take, especially those small women fighter types. I don't care how good a fighter you are, if someone that has 150 pounds on you lands a hard punch or throws you into a wall it shouldn't be something easy to shake off. For the female fighter characters, one of my favourites was probably Fiona from Burn Notice. Gabrielle Anwar is a tiny person, so in the show when she would get into fights she would use moves that some might think of as fighting dirty (but who really cares when the point is to not die) and she would usually be the person who brings a gun to a fist fight. And if she was outmatched she would run away.

I remember on Gotham where Alfred was teaching Bruce how to fight, and the lesson that day was when you had a bigger opponent, your main task is to outlast them. Which perhaps points to the bigger issue- the lack of nuance when it comes to Hollywood fighting. More often than not, you have too many Hollywood producers trying to establish that their badasses are credible instead of putting in the work to make them credible.

3 hours ago, Lugal said:

I never said it was ideal but it seems to be happening.  The "dainty, vulnerable, effeminate” woman, at least as the main love interest is bleeding into the Cool Girlfriend.  She’s into monster trucks or comic books or whatever the writer of the week is interested in and she doesn’t do traditional girly things like cooking (although this may be a reflection of cooking being a dying skill, but that’s another topic) but she still has perfect hair, makeup and fashion sense.

Perhaps my point was lost, but my intention was to say that the "Cool Girlfriend" is today's version of the '60s "delicate flower". They're still idealized, "male fantasy" girlfriends, and the two share more traits than you might think. Neither are particularly strong, and if they are strong, it's of the deceptive, "out of nowhere" type. Their style emphasizes their "cuteness" and accentuates their outer beauty. They're emotional, and while today they may not need "saving" within the traditional "damsel in distress" type, the "cool girlfriend" still needs a "strong" guy to "ground her and save her from herself". They are also there to be the guy's "rock", the uplifting, "positive" presence that the guy turns to when he has a moment of weakness himself.

Bottom line is, the "cool girl" may not be, ostensibly, as "girly" as the '60s woman is- but, deep down inside, the "cool girl" is still very much a "girl".

4 hours ago, Lugal said:

They always look to stack up the diversity points while the female lead is still a white heterosexual woman.  And I agree they are still aiming at a mostly white audience, which leads to a kind "intersectional Othering". So you have the Latina lesbian, both categories of "Other" which are overlapped (gaining more diversity points while only having to pay one cast member) without the nuance of having to really examine the Latin community (Mexican or Puerto Rican etc.) or really examining how being a lesbian fits in that community.

I find that, more often than not, the token LGBT character will be bi or lesbian, maybe even more so the former. My guess is because society still hasn't completely gotten over being "squicked" by the thought of gay sex, and, if you make the character bisexual as opposed to lesbian, it allows the writers to still hook the character up with a male if they so desire. I do agree that, very rarely, do these shows ever explore what it would actually be like to be a lesbian or a bisexual woman, especially within cultural groups like Muslims or Mexicans who are, in general, less accepting of that lifestyle than we are in North America. On the other hand, seeing the characters treat the LGBT character like it's no big deal (because it isn't) is refreshing because I think it's beyond time to normalize these kinds of characters. So there's tradeoffs.

3 hours ago, Lugal said:

I also agree on the intimidation factor, which is why I think more often the love interest can bleed into the Cool Girlfriend who can end up as a Faux Action Girl who is made out to be a badass, and occasionally punches a guy out, but in the end always needs to be saved by the male lead.  I think it's because of the above mentioned intimidation factor (she's badass, but not too badass), but I think there's also a reaction against girly-girls and there's the simple fact that it can keep the female lead in on the action (thus cutting down filming times/locations).

That might be the one silver lining- at least today, the "ideal girlfriend" is no longer an absolute pushover. She's strong enough to "be her own woman" but she's not strong enough that she doesn't need a romantic partner to get her there or keep her there. Which, I would like to point out, is not necessarily bad storytelling- no one wants a "perfect" character, in much the same way that no one wants to see a completely "pathetic" character. I think what gets me more is that I'd like to see more women- and characters in general- saved by simply "the power of friendship" or maybe even "the power of family" as opposed to needing to find a romantic partner to do that.

[JustHereForFood]

7 hours ago, akg said:

Legends of Tomorrow is another great example of strong women being appreciated and men treating them and other men well (start with season 2). Two of the guys become best friends and they are not uncomfortable showing their affection towards each other and no one ever shames them. Their captain is a woman that everyone respects and supports. She gets the promotion after an episode of an older white man stepping into the role (they're in the 40s so people just assume he's in charge) who then realizes it's not a good fit.

And Sara is also a great example of female fighter - she's not too skinny but not too muscly either, we saw how she got to the level of skills she has and her fights look believable most of the time. Plus, Caity Lotz does her own stunts, I believe.

[Mabinogia]

On 2/10/2022 at 3:44 PM, JustHereForFood said:

Buffy thanks him for not taking the advantage of her when she came on to him. FFS! Just because he still has a crush on her (which he inappropriately brings up sometimes), that doesn't mean he has shown some great restrain that needs to be thanked for, that is just how a human being is supposed to act: not rape someone who clearly cannot consent at the moment.

The trouble with "oh, Xander is a good guy because he didn't rape his good friend when she was under the influence" is that I have no doubt at all he would have done it if he knew he could get away with it/she wouldn't know it happened. 

IRL I actually had a guy "friend" (technically a member of my group of friends I had to put up with because he came with the gang) ask me out after having driven me home drunk one night. When I said no he was pissed and said "I could have have you the other night but I didn't." He didn't say it but "so you owe me" was clearly implied. 

It is disgusting that that is still the way some guys think. Not raping me doesn't automatically make you attractive. It just makes you not a monster. 

[Wiendish Fitch]

2 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

The trouble with "oh, Xander is a good guy because he didn't rape his good friend when she was under the influence" is that I have no doubt at all he would have done it if he knew he could get away with it/she wouldn't know it happened. 

IRL I actually had a guy "friend" (technically a member of my group of friends I had to put up with because he came with the gang) ask me out after having driven me home drunk one night. When I said no he was pissed and said "I could have have you the other night but I didn't." He didn't say it but "so you owe me" was clearly implied. 

It is disgusting that that is still the way some guys think. Not raping me doesn't automatically make you attractive. It just makes you not a monster. 

If Xander wanted to redeem himself in "B,B & B", he should have gone on an arduous quest, or offer to sacrifice himself to whoever to break the spell, and then get down on his knees and beg every girl and woman in Sunnydale for their forgiveness for violating their minds and emotions! 

While we're on the subject, can we spare a thought for what the aforementioned girls and women went through? Willow nearly hurt her budding relationship with Oz because of the spell. Buffy probably felt mortified knowing she came on to Xander, on top of being turned into a damned rat because Amy's enchanted jealousy. To say nothing of Joyce and Jenny hitting on a teenager!

Unless...was everyone's memories of the spell wiped when it was broken? If so, that's infuriating, because Xander deserves to be a pariah after what he did. 

Edited February 12, 2022 by Wiendish Fitch
Possibly insensitive comparison. Apologies.

[Spartan Girl]

2 hours ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

It's like handing someone the wallet they dropped, and then demanding a reward because you didn't take any money or credit cards from it.

Um, no, you do not deserve a reward for basic human decency! Get the hell out of here with that noise!

If Xander wanted to redeem himself in "B,B & B", he should have gone on an arduous quest, or offer to sacrifice himself to whoever to break the spell, and then get down on his knees and beg every girl and woman in Sunnydale for their forgiveness for violating their minds and emotions! 

While we're on the subject, can we spare a thought for what the aforementioned girls and women went through? Willow nearly hurt her budding relationship with Oz because of the spell. Buffy probably felt mortified knowing she came on to Xander, on top of being turned into a damned rat because Amy's enchanted jealousy. To say nothing of Joyce and Jenny hitting on a teenager!

Unless...was everyone's memories of the spell wiped when it was broken? If so, that's infuriating, because Xander deserves to be a pariah after what he did. 

I know! All he got was a stern lecture from Giles and Willow not speaking to him at the end of the episode, but by the next one, all was apparently forgiven and nobody ever spoke about it again.

It was the same case with “Once More With Feeling.” Lest we forget, Xander was the one that cast that musical spell and summoned that demon. Several people wound up burned alive because of that monumental fuckup! But did Xander get punished? No. ONCE AGAIN, there was no accountability for his actions. It was shrugged off and never spoken about again! And yet he’s somehow the Moral Majority where Buffy was concerned?! Screw that!

Cordelia and Anya were the only ones that were willing to hold him to consequence for what he did to them, but their anger was written off as “bitches be crazy.” Let’s be frank: the only reason why the writers went with the Woman Scorned Trope with Anya was to keep Xander sympathetic in comparison. She wasn’t allowed to be more sympathetic than Xander even though he was the one that left her at the altar.

Edited February 12, 2022 by Spartan Girl

[scarynikki12]

55 minutes ago, Spartan Girl said:

But did Xander get punished? No

The demon did find him so repulsive that he waive the clause that required the spell caster to join him in hell as his new queen but that's as close as we got. Xander spending an episode in hell, especially after Buffy's singing confession, before getting rescued would have been decent punishment. 

[Spartan Girl]

41 minutes ago, scarynikki12 said:

The demon did find him so repulsive that he waive the clause that required the spell caster to join him in hell as his new queen but that's as close as we got. Xander spending an episode in hell, especially after Buffy's singing confession, before getting rescued would have been decent punishment. 

 

But seriously not even that demon deserved to be stuck with Xander for all eternity.

Edited February 12, 2022 by Spartan Girl

[Spartan Girl]

I’m dreading what Kim’s fate will be on Better Call Saul. It’s not that I don’t trust Vince Gilligan. But I also trusted D and D with Game of Thrones and the writers of The Falcon and the Winter Soldier, and I got burned big time. I just have a bad feeling that Kim’s story will end with some kind of fridging. Because it’s pretty obvious that the outcome of Kim’s dark path will be the reason why Jimmy let’s go of whatever shred of conscience and decency he has left.

[Bethany]

Thanks to my goofy channel I saw almost back to back an early seasons episode and then an episode from the last season of Everybody Loves Raymond.  All the characters had changed a bit but Debra was like a totally different person.  She looked different (which I know was partly some plastic surgery but that was really only part of it).  Anyway she was harder, meaner and to be honest Patty Heaton's acting in the last season was not nearly as good as it was in the early years.  

Anyway all this to say this reminds me of what they did to Bernadette on Big Bang Theory.  She went from being sweet and innocent and loving to being the biggest bully on the block.  On this same show Penny also went from being a nice "girl next door" kind of character to have a hard edge with strong overtones of bullying behavior as well.

It's like they cannot figure out a way to have a strong female character on a sitcom without turning into a hateful shrew.  I am sure there are exceptions, but the more I think about it the more examples I can come up with where a woman starts off one way and ends up just horrible by the end of a series.  I don't get it.

Edited October 11, 2022 by Elizabeth Anne

[Zella]

2 hours ago, Elizabeth Anne said:

Thanks to my goofy channel I saw almost back to back an early seasons episode and then an episode from the last season of Everybody Loves Raymond.  All the characters had changed a bit but Debra was like a totally different person.  She looked different (which I know was partly some plastic surgery but that was really only part of it).  Anyway she was harder, meaner and to be honest Patty Heaton's acting in the last season was not nearly as good as it was in the early years.  

Anyway all this to say this reminds me of what they did to Bernadette on Big Bang Theory.  She went from being sweet and innocent and loving to being the biggest bully on the block.  On this same show Penny also went from being a nice "girl next door" kind of character to have a hard edge with strong overtones of bullying behavior as well.

It's like they cannot figure out a way to have a strong female character on a sitcom without turning into a hateful shrew.  I am sure there are exceptions, but the more I think about it the more examples I can come up with where a woman starts off one way and ends up just horrible by the end of a series.  I don't get it.

I think it's particularly noticeable with women characters, but they do it with men too. Sheldon's personality changed drastically too and not for the better. In the early seasons, I could buy that this oddball had some awkward friends who overlooked his abrasiveness. But before long they Flanderized him so significantly that I refused to believe anyone would be willing to tolerate his bullshit long enough to be friends with him. 

[Danny Franks]

Is it me or is it kind of fucked up that the Game of Thrones spinoff decided to recast the female characters after a time-skip, but keep the same actors for the male characters?

There's just something inherent in that decision that suggests the women aren't as important as the men.

[Spartan Girl]

4 hours ago, Danny Franks said:

Is it me or is it kind of fucked up that the Game of Thrones spinoff decided to recast the female characters after a time-skip, but keep the same actors for the male characters?

There's just something inherent in that decision that suggests the women aren't as important as the men.

True!

And it sounds like one or both of the lead female characters (Alicent and Rhaenyra) are going to eventually go Mad Queen. Again. 😳

[Ceindreadh]

6 hours ago, Danny Franks said:

Is it me or is it kind of fucked up that the Game of Thrones spinoff decided to recast the female characters after a time-skip, but keep the same actors for the male characters?

There's just something inherent in that decision that suggests the women aren't as important as the men.

The female characters that were recast, started off aged 15(ish) and ended up aged 35(ish).  The male characters that didn't get recast started off 30+ at least and added on another 20 years over the course of the season. 

Rhaenys didn't get recast, probably because she started out (presumably) mid to late 30s and ended mid to late 50s. 

And pretty much all the kiddies - both male and female - got recast a few times as well. 

So I'd say the decision making process was just as likely to be along the lines that it's a lot easier to cast a single actor to go from 30 to 50 than it is to go from 15 to 25.  But YMMV.

[proserpina65]

On 10/24/2022 at 12:18 PM, Danny Franks said:

Is it me or is it kind of fucked up that the Game of Thrones spinoff decided to recast the female characters after a time-skip, but keep the same actors for the male characters?

There's just something inherent in that decision that suggests the women aren't as important as the men.

Nah, it's just that the female characters which were recast were, for the most part, much younger than the majority of the male characters.  Personally, I was thrilled that they recast Rhaenyra because I thought Milly Alcock was lousy in the role.

[Danny Franks]

21 minutes ago, proserpina65 said:

Nah, it's just that the female characters which were recast were, for the most part, much younger than the majority of the male characters.  Personally, I was thrilled that they recast Rhaenyra because I thought Milly Alcock was lousy in the role.

Well, I'm just going to say that if 39-year-old Matt Smith is okay to play a character in their fifties, then 28-year-old Olivia Cooke should be okay playing a teenager. In fact, she's more believable as a teen than he is as a guy approaching sixty.

[proserpina65]

48 minutes ago, Danny Franks said:

Well, I'm just going to say that if 39-year-old Matt Smith is okay to play a character in their fifties, then 28-year-old Olivia Cooke should be okay playing a teenager. In fact, she's more believable as a teen than he is as a guy approaching sixty.

I don't think Daemon is quite that old, and I disagree about Olivia Cooke.  Although I do think her performance has been magnificent.

[Popples]

I just wish they would have attempted to age up some of the men other than Viserys, who was more falling apart due to leprosy than old age. At least brush some gray streaks in Criston Cole's hair or something.

[proserpina65]

22 hours ago, Popples said:

I just wish they would have attempted to age up some of the men other than Viserys, who was more falling apart due to leprosy than old age. At least brush some gray streaks in Criston Cole's hair or something.

Yeah, at least TRY to make him look older than Aemond.

[Bethany]

Police shows that feature strong women - good.  Police shows that feature strong women who always seem to have their boobs hanging out.  Not good.  Maybe I'm wrong but do female detectives habitually turn up for duty in low cut blouses and tight skirts?  I'd have expected this from shows made in the '70s.  Not the current crop of police procedurals.

[Mabinogia]

2 hours ago, Elizabeth Anne said:

Maybe I'm wrong but do female detectives habitually turn up for duty in low cut blouses and tight skirts? 

I have a feeling a lot more guys would be confessing to crimes if that were the case. lol

I always get excited when I see, in a cop show, the female cop in flats! I do wear heels to work sometimes, but I have a desk job, if I had a job running after perps and climbing 5 flights of stairs to meet up with the elevator at the top floor, I'd be wearing some comfy flats with big, squishy insoles. 

[Raja]

5 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

I have a feeling a lot more guys would be confessing to crimes if that were the case. lol

I always get excited when I see, in a cop show, the female cop in flats! I do wear heels to work sometimes, but I have a desk job, if I had a job running after perps and climbing 5 flights of stairs to meet up with the elevator at the top floor, I'd be wearing some comfy flats with big, squishy insoles. 

It could be worse, in an attempt to hide the heel from us the costumers will put her in wedges. And because of the wedge and not a heel it is harder for her to flex her feet when running and fighting.

[possibilities]

East New York has female cops who dress sensibly for the job. It's a relief!

[Irlandesa]

I know I've probably mentioned Life here in this thread before but it's worth mentioning again.  In the first season, Sarah Shahi's character was sensibly dressed for a cop.  I think, in the second season, they decided she needed to be sexier so she started dressing less cop-like.  It was always a bit silly because even a sensibly dressed Shahi is still pretty sexy.

I highly recommend Life, by the way.  Cancelled too soon but they do wrap up the overall mystery.  It's free to watch on Roku.

[proserpina65]

On 10/27/2022 at 2:59 PM, Elizabeth Anne said:

I'd have expected this from shows made in the '70s. 

I'd have expected the opposite, actually.  Cagney & Lacey never had dressed like they were going to a club.  Not at work, actually.