Gender On Television: It's Like Feminism Never Happened

[SmithW6079]

A female meteorologist must be younger, attractive, and on the slender side.

That's not necessarily true. On one of my local stations, the weatherwoman is black and zaftig. As for "attractive," most people on TV are attractive; that's the nature of the beast. Edited May 29, 2015 by SmithW6079

[Trini]

There are still very different standards for men and women, though. Men might be able to get away with being 'not ugly'; women definitely need to be 'attractive'.

[proserpina65]

There are still very different standards for men and women, though. Men might be able to get away with being 'not ugly'; women definitely need to be 'attractive'.

Anchormen need to be attractive, at least on all the stations I watch, and young-ish.  Reporters, weathermen, sports guys, all not so much.  But women pretty much only get away with being less than perfectly groomed (not necessarily all that attractive but well put together) if they are reporters, and even then pretty much only the ones who do the special reports, not the regular field reporters.

[joelene]

I don't know what's going on with Scandinavian weathermen lately but everytime I happen to switch on during a forecast there's a hot dude telling me what to expect the next day. The women seem to look more "normal".

[M.F. Luder]

My high school science class had the local weatherwoman as a guest career speaker and she said it was a harsh reality that one of the main criteria for getting into the business was being attractive. That sticks out in my memory because it had never occurred to me before that that anybody on the local news in my area was attractive. They all seemed very below average to me. 

[janie jones]

At least in my city, there are meteorologists, and there are weather people.  As far as I can tell, some channels exclusively have meteorologists, and there's one female meteorologist among them all.  I don't blame those channels for hiring mostly men, because I'd assume mostly men study meteorology.  Now there's one channel that has like one butt-ugly male meteorologist and then some conventionally pretty weathergirls, and no good-looking weather guys.  That's where I think there's a problem.  (Oh, I just remembered, there are two unattractive male meteorologists, on that channel, and another guy who I think is just a weather guy, and who is maybe average in looks.  But still.  The weather girls are way better looking than anyone else on that channel.)

Edited May 27, 2015 by janie jones

[Rick Kitchen]

We've had a lot of weather to talk about recently (Houston area) and so the meteorologists are getting tons more tv time than typical.  Since last nights rain and all the related flooding, they've been on air almost nonstop.

 

A male meteorologist can be any age and of average looks, even a tad schlubby looking.

 

A female meteorologist must be younger, attractive, and on the slender side.

 

ABC News seems to be going with all young good looking guys as their reporters.

[proserpina65]

I don't know what's going on with Scandinavian weathermen lately but everytime I happen to switch on during a forecast there's a hot dude telling me what to expect the next day. The women seem to look more "normal".

I'm obviously watching the wrong channels.

ABC News seems to be going with all young good looking guys as their reporters.

And I approve of that 100%.  In the spirit of Remington Steele's Ms. Foxe, if I have to watch bad news, I might as well have good looking men give it to me.

[MaryMitch]

And I approve of that 100%.  In the spirit of Remington Steele's Ms. Foxe, if I have to watch bad news, I might as well have good looking men give it to me.

 

 I'm from the generation that grew up watching "Uncle" Walter Cronkite every night. I want my newscasters to be mature and look like they've seen it all before.

[magicdog]

I just happened to catch an episode of Burns & Allen and boy howdy did I feel cheated plot wise!  The episode was called, "The Ugly Duckling" (1957).

 

The main plot is the Burns' son, Ronnie (played by their real life son, Ronnie Burns) and his best buddy are arguing over who was going to take the "pretty girl", Joyce to the prom.  Of course there's a "Hollywood ugly" girl named, Mildred who is smart, studious and wears glasses.  The boys naturally don't notice her and neither offers to take her out.  Joyce agrees to go to the prom with Ronnie because he won the coin toss (that she initiated).  Mildred hopes the other boy will ask her - except he asks for another girl's number and leaves. Mildred is left devastated and crying her eyes out.  Ronnie's mother (Gracie Allen) consoles her and promises to get her a makeover.  Meanwhile Ronnie comes home and tells Dad (George Burns) that Joyce dumped him for someone else - who had a new Mercedes Benz.  Dad offers him money to take out Mildred and have fun.  He agrees.  Later on prom night, Joyce arrives, and is upset her date dumped her for some other trade up.  She's willing to go out with Ronnie again.  Gracie stalls since Ronnie is still supposed to take out Mildred.  Shecomes down looking beautiful - but she's going out with the guy with the Mercedes Benz and just walked out on her date with Ronnie.  Ronnie comes down and goes out with Joyce to the prom.

 

The End.

 

I have never hated [teenaged] protagonists so much in my life!  NONE of these people deserved a happy ending in any way!  Everyone dumped each other for convenience and trivial reasons and they still got to go out with whom they wanted and there were no lessons, no moral, no consequences!  Unusual for the period but I really resented the whole set up.

[magicdog]

Not a double post:

 

 

I caught an episode from Hazel  this morning – and I think this may have taken the cake for ridiculous storylines in the show’s run (the final season was the worst written,  but there were a few clinkers in the season before).

 

In the episode, “Marriage Trap” (1964) Hazel’s boss, Mr. Baxter is a corporate lawyer and has a secretary named Linda.  The secretary was dating a man named, Phil  (played by a young Ken Berry a year or so before F-Troop) and he asked her to marry him.  She wasn’t sure about it and they argue.  She accepts a date to a party thrown by Baxter’s law partner, Harry Noll, who looks old enough to be the girl’s father.  Turns out she and Harry get along well at the party and appear to work well together playing parlor games.  Somehow they get caught up in the moment and he asks her to marry him in front of everyone.  She accepts.  Suddenly, they’re both freaking out!  Neither really wants to marry the other (he likes being a bachelor, and she doesn’t really love him), but feel they are pressured to go through with it because the Harry is afraid of being sued for breach of promise if he breaks it off, and Linda is afraid of losing face with Phil.  One thing leads to another and Hazel managed to right everything by getting the woman and Phil together and have her accept his original proposal.  They marry in the Baxter’s living room right after since the preacher and a clerk from city hall had the license all ready (don’t ask!).  I kept wanting to yell at the screen!  It may have been the 60s but it wasn’t the Middle Ages either!  Linda didn’t have to marry anyone and IRL was under no obligation to do anything except be honest enough to tell Harry how she got caught up in things and apologize for accepting his proposal when she should have just denied it in the first place.    She acted like she was sold into bondage or something!  It was so painful to watch them avoid one another when all they had to do was be honest about their circumstances.

 

Mr. Baxter’s only concern was if Linda married, he’d be losing the best secretary he’d ever had.  Oy!

Edited July 2, 2015 by magicdog

[Cobalt Stargazer]

1. Nice Guys are a much bigger problem out there in the real world, so people are going to have a more kneejerk/visceral reaction to Xander's behavior. I know a lot of people (myself included) who didn't have as much of an issue with Xander when we initially watched the show because we had yet to encounter the phenomenon known as the Nice Guy. And then I went to college and found out that they exist and are incredibly gross and creepy, and now I can't stand it. And I can't stand it when (mostly male) writers prop up that sort of character. It's a sexist trope perpetuating the idea that men are entitled to women. While I don't think that anyone is entitled to a relationship "because I'm such a nice person" regardless of gender (so please do shut up, Willow), double standards in how people react to certain characters aren't necessarily bad when they're a result of seeing the characters as a reflection of how they operate in the real world and how pop culture treats them. But then, I don't think double standards in general are by default teh evil, either. Sometimes double standards exist for a good reason thanks to power structures/imbalances or what have you. Women thinking that they're entitled to men is not such a big problem in the real world (including the media) as the reverse, so people react to the tropes differently. It's why misogyny is a thing while misandry isn't. 

 

2. Like I've said, people hate on Willow plenty. But they're not going to gripe so much about Willow's "woe is me, why won't you date me" when there are so many bigger things to hate her for. Like the fact that she, y'know, quite literally mind-raped Tara. It's like arson, murder, and jaywalking.

 

Mmm.

 

Without debating whether or not misandry is a thing, since I'm not sure how it couldn't be since someone went to all the trouble to coin a word for it, I will say that the idea that double standards should be acceptable, and possibly even encouraged, is an interesting concept. As long as they're the right double standards, obviously, and not the ones those other people use, which are to be avoided at all costs. And I'm not being even the least little bit sarcastic. If all people are created equal, then maybe some of us really are more equal than others.

 

As for the Willow/Xander who-is-worse discussion, I just find it interesting that, as you say, she mind-raped her girlfriend because they had a fight about her over-use of magic, and then tried to destroy the entire world when said girlfriend was killed. She ends up being rewarded with a trip to the English countryside so she can ride horses with Giles, who she tried to murder. Y'know, after he and Buffy stood around cackling about what a craphole her life had turned into. But somehow Xander jilting Anya at the altar is seen as worse, I guess, since she tries to get his friends to wish him dead while its played for laughs. I mostly kind of liked Anya, but weighing Xander's actions against Willow's, its like comparing running a stop sign to mass murder. YMMV.

[Bastet]

I see someone already posted about the DGA's annual diversity report in the Race & Ethnicity topic - spoiler alert, the pie charts all look just as you'd expect them to - so here's the gender breakdown:

 

Women directed 16% of episodes (up from 14%) – 13% were directed by Caucasian women (one percent increase from last season), three percet by minority women (also a one percent increase).  The corresponding decrease is not in episodes directed by Caucasian men; that held steady at 69%.  It’s in the percentage of episodes directed by minority men, which went from 17 to 15 percent (and there’s a footnote that this is entirely because Tyler Perry directed 54 fewer episodes this season than last).

 

Among first-time directors (important for its impact on the diversity of the directors pool over time), the number of women hired went down, from 20 to 16 percent.  (The number of first-time minority directors was also 16%, up from fifteen.)

 

The number of shows in which women or minorities directed 40 percent or more of the season’s episodes was 57 (up from 49), which constituted 21% of all series examined.  But the number of shows who went the whole season without a single episode directed by a woman or minority male also went up, to 27 (ten percent of all series examined).  Another 35 shows (12%) had fewer than 15 percent of the season’s episodes directed by women or minorities.  (In the summary of this “Best/Worst” section, women and minorities are lumped together, and I don't have time to parse the data to break it down just to gender.)

[ChaseMCP]

Something I've noticed with female characters lately is that not only do they suffer heavily from critics who have always dislike female characters, but they also suffer heavily from critics who want more female characters. When a female character suffers from poor writing, people say it's an example of how the show must hate women as a result, not only ignoring the poor writing some of the male characters receive, but also dismissing all of the other female characters in the show. 

 

For example, Ani on True Detective. Like the other characters, people pointed out their disappointments with her character, but unlike the others she faced more scrutiny because she was a female. People commented on how her character was proof that True Detective didn't know how to write female characters. Why, when arguably ALL of the characters were written terribly, does she get the additional critique? People were quick to point out how as a female she was given the messed up sex life story, but seemed to ignore the positives of her character. She dressed appropriately, she knew how to defend herself in a reasonable way, she was serious about her job, she was good at her job, etc. I found her female detective character a breath of fresh air in the sea of female cops who wear 6-inch heels on the job and who are somehow able to kick ass for no reason other that to be a sexy bad-ass. She was a mess - like all the other characters on the show. I just wonder why people look at her character and insist that she's an example of the writers not being able to write female characters well when in this season the writers proved they couldn't write ANY of the characters well. 

 

As for the latter, in The Walking Dead (which did suffer in writing for females in the first couple seasons, but bounced back in season 3) when Beth died, people said it proved that the show can't write for female characters because she had a crappy story-line. Never mind that the other female characters included: Michonne who is one of the shows more unique characters, as well as a huge bad-ass, and Carol who has shown the greatest example of slow character development in the entire show. Because one female character had a death that became about Daryl in the end, the rest of the females are suddenly terrible too. When Glenn's story-line completely revolved around finding Maggie, how come people weren't accusing the show of terrible writing for all the males?

 

And lastly, Game of Thrones. Yes, it does rely on rape too much, but because of what happened to Sansa last season, suddenly the show is terrible at writing women in general. I know it goes beyond Sansa a bit, with Cersei's rape the season before and Dany's a few seasons before that, but this is a show with a large variety of female characters. From Brienne to Cersei, from Arya to Melissandre, from Sansa to Dany, this show has a lot of different female characters. True, this is obviously because of George R.R. Martin but if the people behind the show hate women so much, how come they wrote in a scene with Brienne and the Hound (that wasn't in the books) and allowed Brienne to win? How come they softened Cersei up in the show and gave her more depth? Yeah, female characters have suffered from poor writing, but so have the males. Jaime suffered especially last year, as did Tyrion. 

 

Shows deserve criticism when they write terribly for female characters, I am completely for that. Especially as a woman myself, I want better female characters. However, I think it's a shame when hearing comments about these shows that dismiss some great female characters based on the poor writing of a few. It kind of becomes backwards, when with our efforts to push for better female characters we end up ignoring some of the great ones that are already in front of us. I just don't understand how people can look at shows like The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones, with so many unique female characters, and say the writers hate women. They need to write better for females, but they don't hate women. If they truly did, they could do a whole lot worse.

[Irlandesa]

When a female character suffers from poor writing, people say it's an example of how the show must hate women as a result, not only ignoring the poor writing some of the male characters receive, but also dismissing all of the other female characters in the show.

 

I do think that some people jump to the "show hates women" critique too quickly when it's often more complex, but most of the critique I've seen for Game of Thrones is that the writing for the women has been problematic.  And problematic isn't the same thing as saying TPTB hate women. 

 

GoT does have some good female characters but it's also the kind of show that I have to do an equation.  Pro: There are a few decent to good female characters.  Con:  Three of the five initial female characters have been raped and subcon(a) one of those rapes turned into a love story subcon(b) one of those rapes wasn't even seen as a rape by TPTB and subcon© one of the rapes seemingly was about getting a male character to take action.  Pro:  There are females with agency and in power.  Con: There are numerous silent, naked women treated as set objects.

 

Each of those rape subcons is enough to get me off of a show but all three?  GoT would need three Jane Tennisons to even start to make the the pros balance out the cons.

 

As for True Detective, I think a lot of the opinions about how women are depicted is carryover from the first season where the women pretty much existed through the eyes of the developed male characters and their actions served the plot of the two detectives.  It also had the similar "naked women as set decorations" issue that GoT had. Because of it, I skipped the second season, although I do think there are smart critics who could speak to their issues with how women were protrayed in that second season.  I've read some but again, I didn't watch so I won't repeat them.

 

Inconsistently written/underdeveloped characters become more problematic when they're women because there are often fewer female characters. Even if there are underdeveloped/inconsistently written male characters, the numbers are usually in favor of having at least one or two well written male characters.  However, if a female character is underdeveloped or inconsistent, the numbers usually aren't in favor of a show having a well developed female character to offset her.

 

Believe it or not, I'm actually pretty forgiving as long as i'm being entertained but when I start doing the math, either the show has dropped in quality or the offensiveness has crept up too much.  

[Chaos Theory]

I don't like getting into this because it starts a fight but writing a good female character is a lot harder then writing a good male one because there are more rules. There are Almost no rules for writing a white guy but writing a woman there are a dozen. Make her a lesbian or a POC add a dozen more. Hell with a woman if she isn't immediately like able you might as well quit now because it is almost impossible to change a first impression of a female character even five seasons later.

Edited September 9, 2015 by Chaos Theory

[Spartan Girl]

I find it laughable that Olivia Pope on Scandal is considered an example of feminism. Sure she's a successful woman with a career, but whatever feminist principles she has are easily thrown out the window for Fitz. No matter Fitz does -- murdering that senator, shooting down a plane, starting a war over Olivia, or generally being an asshole -- Olivia comes crawling back. Every. Single. Time.

And for what?! So that she can stay home and make jam in their dream home in fucking Vermont?! It's pathetic!

Edited September 10, 2015 by Spartan Girl

[Cobalt Stargazer]

I don't like getting into this because it starts a fight but writing a good female character is a lot harder then writing a good male one because there are more rules. There are Almost no rules for writing a white guy but writing a woman there are a dozen. Make her a lesbian or a POC add a dozen more. Hell with a woman if she isn't immediately like able you might as well quit now because it is almost impossible to change a first impression of a female character even five seasons later.

 

I don't know these "rules" you speak of. I don't think there's any special trick to writing a female character as opposed to writing a male one. And this might be a better fit for the UO thread, but I don't think characters of either gender need to be "relatable".

 

I find it laughable that Olivia Pope on Scandal is considered an example of feminism. Sure she's a successful woman with a career, but whatever feminist principles she has are easily thrown out the window for Fitz. No matter Fitz does -- murdering that senator, shooting down a plane, starting a war over Olivia, or generally being an asshole -- Olivia comes crawling back. Every. Single. Time.

And for what?! So that she can stay home and make jam in their dream home in fucking Vermont?! It's pathetic!

 

Not for nothing, but I experienced this phenomenon (doo doo doo, doo doo doo) myself with a couple of shows. Sawyer from Lost and Spike from Buffy the Vampire Slayer were pretty much total assholes, and though I quit Lost after they killed off Ana Lucia, I would much rather they have whacked him instead. And Spike...well...almost enough said. Although I will make note that it was Buffy who drew a lot of the flack due to the abusive mess that was the Spuffy "relationship", that somehow she was this heinous bitch for not being nicer to the unrepentant murderer. Even if I pretend that I think "hot" is a character trait, I'm not sure why washboard abs should take the place of having anything like a moral compass.

[cynic]

...

Fine exception: Olivia Dunham on Fringe! Wore respectable (if slim-fitting) pantsuits, FLAT SHOES, and had her hair pulled back more often than not. The plotlines maneuvered her into her underwear once in awhile, but you know, baby steps.

...

I've apparently missed months and months of this topic, but I just wanted to chime in with how much I appreciated Olivia's sensible wardrobe. Also, even though she did get seen in her underwear, her underwear was functional instead of sexy as well. And Alt-Liv's clothing was even more practical!

 

Another exception was Sarah Shahi on Life. In the first season, she wore comfortable slacks and flat shoes. Her hair was almost always in a bun and she sported minimal makeup. (Of course, despite her character being dressed down, Shahi still managed to look stunning, so that helps.) It was really disappointing when TPTB decided to doll her up more in the second season in one of their attempts to "improve" the show. Ugh.

 

 

That's not necessarily true. On one of my local stations, the weatherwoman is black and zaftig. As for "attractive," most people on TV are attractive; that's the nature of the beast.

I live in SoCal. My sister lives in Oregon. Once while visiting, she commented on how weird it was how attractive the women on my local morning news shows are. Confused, since I didn't think anything unusual about attractive people being on tv, I asked her what she meant. She said that in her area, the reporters look like ordinary people and where I live, they look like actresses. I totally notice it now, especially when I visit her and then come back. One show in particular here has a male anchor that's probably in his sixties flanked by three attractive, younger females who are normally decked out in form-fitting dresses. They seem to age out and get replaced, but he remains the same.  

Edited September 12, 2015 by cynic

[Dejana]

When did women in TV news abandon the suit? It was a uniform for years and years, but at some point, it became the thing for female anchors to wear sleeveless shifts or dress like they were going to some sort of ladies' lunch or tea, even in the dead of winter. Fair or not, I think it makes the women seem more decorative and frivolous, less likely to be taken seriously.

Edited September 12, 2015 by Dejana

[ChaseMCP]

At this point, I've seen so many women in TV news wearing sleeveless dresses that I've seriously wondered if they were allowed to wear something else. It's gotten to a point where that's all they wear. I remember seeing Savannah Guthrie wearing a dress with long sleeves two days in a row and it stood out to me, when it really shouldn't have, because it was so rare.

I've never watched Fringe so I can't comment on the wardrobe choices there, but one thing that NCIS always did right was even when they had Ziva wearing more makeup than she needed towards the end before she left the show, she always dressed appropriately for work. Yeah her fashion choices were weird sometimes, but (especially when in the field) her hair was up, her shoes were flat, and her clothes were reasonable. I actually remember in an earlier season when, it was a really hot day, Kate wore a basic dress to work, but when she was in the field later in the episode, she was wearing sneakers and her hair was up.

And I'm not saying women can't do these tasks if they weren't dressed this way (on Burn Notice Fiona kicked a lot of ass while wearing different types of shoes and outfits), but I do hope for something reasonable when watching women in a professional setting. Or at least it'll help me take them more seriously. I never had an interest in Castle, but I caught a glimpse of an episode where the female lead has her hair down and is wearing spike heels (which seem SO practical when chasing suspects/sneaking up on them) and I couldn't take her seriously.

And I agree so much about Sarah Shahi on Life. I absolutely hated how much they changed her for the second season, especially because Reese in the first season is one of my all time favorite female characters. In the first season she was so unique because she did dress like a real cop and had no problems with it...only for the second season to change all of that.

And on a shallow note, I just saw a commercial for that Playing House show, and I really wish female characters could have a new hairstyle besides the "wavy, very loose curls that don't have a hair out of place". It seems silly, but so many characters have that hairstyle (which, granted a lot of real females have) that they blend together. And it makes it less believable when they're in the middle of some action...and the hair is still flawless. But I know, it's TV. Lack of flaws is to be expected. Some things never change.

[Irlandesa]

I don't like getting into this because it starts a fight but writing a good female character is a lot harder then writing a good male one because there are more rules. There are Almost no rules for writing a white guy but writing a woman there are a dozen. Make her a lesbian or a POC add a dozen more.

I don't agree with the idea that there are "rules" but I get what you're talking about.  People tend to analyze the depiction of women, WOC and lesbians more closely than they would if they were a white guy. 

 

But I think that has everything to do with the numbers thing I posted about earlier. Over the history of television, there have been lots and lots and lots of white guys.  Even today, white guys dominate TV in major roles, speaking roles and leadership roles. The latest splits I've seen have been 43/42% female characters 57/58% male characters.  So when the majority of your cast is male, it's easier to have some underdeveloped and some more developed.  When there's one or two women, critics are going to take a closer look. 

 

I think if a showrunner adds more women to their casts, they'd find they'd less overall criticism about  their female characters...until they start raping them all. Or killing off all the lesbians (they did this to gay men too for the longest time.)

 

I find it laughable that Olivia Pope on Scandal is considered an example of feminism. Sure she's a successful woman with a career, but whatever feminist principles she has are easily thrown out the window for Fitz. No matter Fitz does -- murdering that senator, shooting down a plane, starting a war over Olivia, or generally being an asshole -- Olivia comes crawling back. Every. Single. Time

 

An example of a feminist character or just feminism?  The character isn't a perfect feminist (few are.)  But an example of feminism?  I'd argue that she is.   She's a fully developed character.  She has a complicated family relationship.  She has a strong professional life and she has a twisted personal life.  But I get where she's coming from.  She's the lead character and largely drives the story.

 

That's why I think numbers are so important so we can have a wide assortment of female characters---those who are relatable and others who are not.

Another exception was Sarah Shahi on Life. In the first season, she wore comfortable slacks and flat shoes. Her hair was almost always in a bun and she sported minimal makeup. (Of course, despite her character being dressed down, Shahi still managed to look stunning, so that helps.) It was really disappointing when TPTB decided to doll her up more in the second season in one of their attempts to "improve" the show. Ugh.

I know.  This just screams "network notes" to improve and sex up the show. So not necessary.  Then also replaced Robin Weigert with Donal Logue.  I don't know whose decision that was and I normally like Donal Logue but I vasly preferred Lt. Davis.  I miss Life.

Edited September 13, 2015 by Irlandesa

[Spartan Girl]

I don't expect characters to be perfect but I think Scandal sets a horrible example for the kind of relationship a woman should aim for. There is nothing empowering or feminist about Olivia repeatedly going back to such a twisted toxic relationship with a petulant, possessive man child. I know lots of TV relationships are dysfunctional, yet that is just ridiculous. If Olivia had any self respect, she would have cut the cord with Fitz a long time ago.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

But I think that has everything to do with the numbers thing I posted about earlier. Over the history of television, there have been lots and lots and lots of white guys.  Even today, white guys dominate TV in major roles, speaking roles and leadership roles. The latest splits I've seen have been 43/42% female characters 57/58% male characters.  So when the majority of your cast is male, it's easier to have some underdeveloped and some more developed.  When there's one or two women, critics are going to take a closer look.

 

This is an old argument of mine, but whatever, its Sunday night and its already dark.

 

Of those "lots and lots and lots" of white guys, I'd say that over half of them are/were one form of asshole or other, and I'm not even kidding when I say that the bigger the asshole they were, the higher the ratings seemed to be. Mad Men, Sons of Anarchy, Dexter, Deadwood, Game of Thrones, and those are mostly shows that are off the air. chock-full of pricks (so to speak) of most stripes. And I guess somehow this is acceptable, since people watch(ed) in droves. I don't even mind shows full of terrible people, and a lot of the time I even like them, but what is so damn boring about genuinely good characters* that "going dark" is seen as awesome?

 

 

An example of a feminist character or just feminism?  The character isn't a perfect feminist (few are.)  But an example of feminism?  I'd argue that she is.   She's a fully developed character.  She has a complicated family relationship.  She has a strong professional life and she has a twisted personal life.  But I get where she's coming from.  She's the lead character and largely drives the story.

 

I've only seen a few episodes of Scandal, so I can't really speak to whether or not Olivia's relationship with this Fitz guy is as dysfunctional as people say, but from what I know about feminism you don't have to be perfect at it to not let some douche treat you like crap. I will make note that the Spike-Buffy garbage I was talking about earlier happened during a time when she was in a very low place in her life (literally, since she dug herself out of her own grave) and he made every effort to keep her in that spot so she'd be dependent on him. If its anything like that, I can see why people would give it the side-eye.

 

And random is random, but what is a "perfect feminist"?

[Irlandesa]

Of those "lots and lots and lots" of white guys, I'd say that over half of them are/were one form of asshole or other, and I'm not even kidding when I say that the bigger the asshole they were, the higher the ratings seemed to be. Mad Men, Sons of Anarchy, Dexter, Deadwood, Game of Thrones

Of those, only Game of Thrones truly had very high ratings.  Maybe Dexter for a while.  The rest just had tons of accolades.  I think the "anti-hero" asshole is more of a recent thing.  TV is a copycat medium.

 

 

I've only seen a few episodes of Scandal, so I can't really speak to whether or not Olivia's relationship with this Fitz guy is as dysfunctional as people say, but from what I know about feminism you don't have to be perfect at it to not let some douche treat you like crap.

No.  But having someone treat you like crap doesn't suddenly mean you lose your right to be a feminist either.  Even if it's your choice.  The relationship is dysfunctional.  Shonda Rhimes, who I applaud for being such a powerful woman, has a fascination with dysfunctional relationships for her lead female characters and I don't think always realizes just how messed up they are.  Maybe she has more of an idea on Scandal.  Maybe. 

 

And random is random, but what is a "perfect feminist"?

My reference to a 'perfect feminist' was tongue-in-cheek to the idea that someone who believes in equality for women and supports efforts to achieve that.will perfectly apply those ideals consistently and to herself. 

 

I don't expect characters to be perfect but I think Scandal sets a horrible example for the kind of relationship a woman should aim for.

Is that what Scandal is aiming to show?

[Actionmage]

Hell with a woman if she isn't immediately like able you might as well quit now because it is almost impossible to change a first impression of a female character even five seasons later.

 

There have been unlikable women that viewers slyly, or not so slyly, enjoy, so I don't understand this point. Even if TV had every female character likable, someone would complain. So you get Magnificent Bitches like Patty Hewes of Damages,  The Evil Queen/, a.k.a.Regina Mills of Once Upon a Time, Maude Findley in her eponymous show, Sue Ann Nivens of The Mary Tyler Moore Show, Rosalind Shays of L.A. Law ( a spiritual mother to Patty, imo) and, no doubt, more.

 

Women aren't a monolithic being, as you probably know, so any supposed rule that TV women can only be likable or they're a waste of the writer's time seems... odd?  Especially as women, of any stripe, were often portrayed as the reason the male characters ended up being brought to bad circumstances/heartbroken and never recovered/ "nobly" suffered due the men's love for the women/ I'm sure there's more tropes. I roll my eyes at the "period appropriate" bs that women were expected to roll with, across the board, not just Westerns that were popular, but the then-modern stuff of the 50s and 60's.

 

I don't even mind shows full of terrible people, and a lot of the time I even like them, but what is so damn boring about genuinely good characters* that "going dark" is seen as awesome?

 

ITA with this, but the last decade or so has had writers who seem to really buy that if you are a genuinely good character, you are A) as boring as watching paint dry or B) supremely smug to everyone you see and are the utmost hypocrite and Must. Be. Exposed!   (See, ABC's treatment of Snow White and Prince Charming on Once Upon a Time.) Good characters aren't extinct, they are just a bit spread out.  The Playing House leads, Kimmy Schmidt, the leading ladies of The Walking Dead are as good as you're going to get in a zombie apocalypse, Abby of NCIS, just to start. 

 

I don't believe that a genuinely good character has to be 100% unadulterated sweetness and light ( or as the tabletop RPG world, in general, labels it: Lawful Stupid.) Kimmy Schmidt shows you can, though.  There are many good women TV characters that have done good to overcome/ atone for mistakes/ not-mistakes in their past and are clearly on the side of Good, though, so I'm, again, not sure I'm understanding the complaint. 

 

There is drama, and ,to some, lessons gleaned about dealing with "darkness", so showing good women ( or men) face inner and/ or outer demons is cathartic or instructive. Unfortunately, it isn't always well-done and is over-used as a way to "stretch"/ "grow"/ "make interesting" too many perfectly fine characters, who now have all this new, unnecessary baggage ( for the most part.)

[Cobalt Stargazer]

From the Celebrity News thread:

 

 

The thing is, though, humanist by definition actually doesn't mean someone who wants equality for all humans. It's actually a term related to atheism. Feminism is actually defined as wanting equality between men and women, and given that Meryl Streep is in a new movie about feminism, it's disheartening that she won't actually SAY the word, even though everything she said before that question indicates that she is, in fact, a feminist.

 

Every human should be equal, yes. But women have long been at a greater disadvantage than men in society, and I HATE that feminism is still seen as a dirty word, when it has NO reason to be whatsoever. 

 

Replace those terms with All Lives Matter and Black Lives Matter, and the subject of race, and it's basically the same argument. 

 

Without trying to start up a big debate, a couple of things:

 

I don't think that feminism is a dirty word. I do think that people with genuinely good intentions can go overboard with it, to the point that everything male is somehow seen as "the enemy" and that if you (the general "you") aren't completely in favor of Grrrrrl Power then you're a misogynist.

 

As it relates to television, advertising, which are commercials that are on television, there's a particular thing that, as I get older, I find especially grating. I cannot count at this point the number of times I have seen grown-ass men portrayed as immature children who are incapable of handling even the most basic task as it relates to housecleaning or grocery shopping, usually with their wife/girlfriend either rolling their eyes at their incompetence or getting naggy and expecting them to either go back to the store or do X Whatever Thing. And somehow this is supposed to be amusing, or at least get consumers to buy the product that's being advertised.

 

I've said this in the commercial section, but IMO it always bears repeating - imagine the reaction if the script of these ads were flipped and it was the wife who couldn't remember to buy the right dish detergent or the correct cat food, or if she wasn't capable of cleaning the kitchen. You (again, the general "you") can say the familiar stuff about how domestic tasks aren't only woman's work and how men should be able to pitch in and help around the house, etc, and that's fine, but its the lack of intelligence that stands out to me, not whatever dated stereotype about gender roles. Is that part of feminism, portraying men as complete morons?

 

As for Meryl Streep, who I've never been all that partial to, I think it might just be a personal choice on her part, not anything to find sketchy. As Kromm says, its semantics, not a line drawn in the sand.

[UYI]

Absolutely not. I would LOVE to see more couples on TV or movies that are clearly shown to be of equal intelligence. I absolutely see how that scenario is problematic, too. But unfortunately in the media, it still feels like, in general, while improvements have definitely been made, that's harder to find women who are portrayed as strong, intelligent women. It's a LOT easier to find men who are portrayed that way.

 

And the humanist vs. feminist argument matters to me for two reasons:

 

1. Because definition wise, humanism is a term related to atheism. It simply is not defined in the way that Streep used it in that interview.

 

2. Because Streep is actually not the only celebrity woman to say she's a humanist as opposed to a feminist. Madonna has said it. I think Susan Sarandon has said it. Sarah Jessica Parker said it by quoting famed playwright Wendy Wasserstein, who apparently had said that herself years back. It's a problem because that is NOT how the word is defined at all, and by having high-profile women like these quoted as saying so, it perpetuates an untrue definition, and a disservice to what feminism actually is. Not only that, but women who have said they are not feminists--celebrities, like Streep, or otherwise--often contradict themselves right before or after that by saying they are for equality--THAT is feminism. So why not just SAY it already?

 

You can be both a humanist AND a feminist, at the exact same time. They are two completely different things.

Speaking of which, I was reading through some of the earlier posts here yesterday about the Bechdel test. One of my favorite movies of all time is When Harry Met Sally..., written by the brilliant Nora Ephron (RIP), but talk about a movie that fails the test MISERABLY. Every single conversation the women have are related to men and romantic relationships. And the same goes for the men, for that matter. 

[galax-arena]

You'd think these women would at least call themselves 'egalitarian' which would sound less stupid. 'Humanist' just sounds dumb any way you slice it because as you point out, it already has a clear definition that does not need to be hijacked by people who don't even understand what 'feminism' means. 

 

If you want to cheer yourself up though UYI, you can read about Girl Meets World's Rowan Blanchard who is all of 13 years old and seems to have a better grasp on feminism than most adults twice her age do. I know that GMW can be pretty polarizing on here - I'm actually not a huge fan of the show myself - but Blanchard at least seems to be a gem. When I was 13, my understanding of feminism didn't go beyond the Spice Girls. 

 

My link is to a recent Elle interview with her; the article mentions this kickass instagram essay on feminism she wrote several weeks ago.

[Bastet]

I lived through "I'm no women's libber, but ..." and now "I'm not a feminist, but ..." and I've completely run out of patience.  Issues with the mainstream representation of the movement, sure, but disavowal of the cause itself?  No.  I'm getting up there, and I'm done.  I won't dismiss anyone who finds this shit depressing.

[joelene]

I lived through "I'm no women's libber, but ..." and now "I'm not a feminist, but ..." and I've completely run out of patience. Issues with the mainstream representation of the movement, sure, but disavowal of the cause itself? No. I'm getting up there, and I'm done. I won't dismiss anyone who finds this shit depressing.

Preach. How hard is it to grasp the concept of feminism? It's one sentence. Equality for men and women.

There are extremists within every group of people. I don't like or agree with every single feminist. Some feminists annoy the shit out of me. But believing that all feminists are radicals who want to purge the world of men (or whatever justification anti-feminists have) is like believing all gay men are dirty sodomites with aids or all black people are lazy criminals or all Middle Easterners are terrorists or that all Christians are good people.

ETA: Just read a news item at The AV Club on that Marion Cotillard apparently also doesn't want to define herself as something so ugly as a feminist, although it's clear from the interview that she, in fact, is one. Then the article included this great quote from Aziz Ansari:

"If you believe that men and women have equal rights, if someone asks if you’re feminist, you have to say yes because that is how words work. You can’t be like, ‘Oh yeah, I’m a doctor that primarily does diseases of the skin.’ Oh, so you’re a dermatologist? ‘Oh no, that’s way too aggressive of a word! No no not at all not at all.’

Edited October 1, 2015 by joelene

[UYI]

One of the reasons I have always loved Ashley Judd is that she has NEVER shied away from the word feminist. She was saying she was a feminist before a lot of other celebrity women were. And her philanthropy over the years in the name of women's rights proves that she can walk the walk, too.

[Aquarius]

With regard to men being portrayed on commercials as completely inept when it comes to simple household tasks, I would not say that's a product of feminism.  As a matter of fact, it's only a reinforcement of the old gender stereotypes and roles.  Women are naturally capable with housework.  Men are naturally incapable with housework.  I don't think it has anything to do with portraying men as stupid or weak.  They got bigger fish to fry and simply don't need to worry about keeping the counters clean when they bring home the catch.  Cuz, ya know, women's work and all.  Good thing the man has a mommy wife who can take care of all of life's "little" messes.

 

I agree that it's taken to a ridiculous degree with an intent at "humor", but the message couldn't be less feminist.

 

A similar stereotype emerges whenever the use of tools is shown.  You can always tell if an advertiser is trying to portray a tool as easy to use because a woman will be shown using it.  Anything mechanical that is meant to be powerful, efficient, impressive, etc. - then you see the man working it.  As if mechanical tasks that are not made dead simple are beyond a woman.

 

Don't even get me started on life insurance ads, or ones for home security systems.  Because women don't die and leave men with final expenses, and men are never the victims of break-ins.

 

I really don't see much feminism portrayed in advertising.  Which is worrisome to me, because it is such a telling reflection of a culture. 

[CabotCove]

I've only seen a few episodes of Scandal, so I can't really speak to whether or not Olivia's relationship with this Fitz guy is as dysfunctional as people say, but from what I know about feminism you don't have to be perfect at it to not let some douche treat you like crap. I will make note that the Spike-Buffy garbage I was talking about earlier happened during a time when she was in a very low place in her life (literally, since she dug herself out of her own grave) and he made every effort to keep her in that spot so she'd be dependent on him. If its anything like that, I can see why people would give it the side-eye.   And random is random, but what is a "perfect feminist"?

 

Spike was a vampire (dead souless thing) what Fitz excuse.  Different rules, one show is  a supernatural fantasy with non humans and another is "realistic" political drama. Still Buffy eventually had the willpower to end her sexual relationship with Spike.  I dont watch much of Scandal, but I know that the Olitz thing its still going on in season 5, clearly it can never really end as its such a crucial part of the series.  I dont believe one has to be a perfect feminist but surely you cant just want the label without wanting or trying to live by feminist "principles", walking the walk.

 

Is that what Scandal is aiming to show?

 

Isn't it?.

Edited October 1, 2015 by WildcardC

[DearEvette]

I don't believe Scandal is trying to to sell Olivia and Fitz's relationship as something women should aim for.  It is simply showcasing a particular relationship in all its fucked up glory.  Sure it is making it clear that Olivia and Fitz are stupid in love with each other and on some level -- because of the attractiveness and chemistry of the actors and the normal audience tendency to try to identify with main characters -- you want to believe in it for them.  But the show also clearly displays the fall out and consequences of that love and how it really isn't an aspirational love.  Shonda said in an early interview:
 

We've actively worked, because we're in Liv's perspective, to make you be as in love with this couple as you can possibly be, because you're with Olivia. And, yes, I do think people are conditioned for that. But I think that Edison says it best, which is that "Love is not supposed to hurt." And Olivia clearly does not know that yet. This is not your cute, sweet, adorable relationship. But I think it is a complex, interesting, very adult one, that is based in something that is not necessarily wholesome or right.

 

That said, I do believe that Olivia is a feminist as well as a character that is in existence because of feminism.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Re: commercials -

 

 

This commercial makes me stabby.  Why is it wrong for a father to play with his daughters?

 

http://www.ispot.tv/ad/AL8x/papa-murphys-pizza-re-bold-your-man

 

 

And yes -- why is she so butthurt that he is playing with his daughters.  I guess he should just ignore them and secretly hope for boys so he can be a man again.  Oh wait -- now you can have frozen pizza delivered to your house that will do it for you.  Because apparently playing with your little girls doesn't make you a man, but pizza will.

 

Please make note that these are not my observations, although I suppose I have to be fair and say that I would have made the same observations had I seen the stupid ad first. Let's review:

 

A) The guy's wife is seeing him as less manly because he's interacting with his daughters and actively being a parent. That they're playing "tea party" or whatever the hell is not the point. He's present and interested in his kids' lives and what the enjoy doing, and The Wife sees this as a problem because.......why?

 

B) Because she sees him as less manly, she tosses a frozen pizza in the oven, and when he eats it he becomes "the man he used to be". Or something. That the man he used to be is apparently the guy who drools all over himself because his team scores a goal is almost as obnoxious as implying that interacting with his daughters is somehow a negative thing. I guess if he was playing with his sons instead, it wouldn't be an issue? Or would it be preferable if he was ignoring his kids altogether, regardless of gender?

 

C, which is unrelated to this particular commercial) I do not know these men who have no idea of how to shop for food, clean the house, or do the laundry. Unless there's a lack of home training involved, which is another matter entirely. TV shows, which are largely about fictional people, are one thing, but aren't commercials at least kinda-sorta supposed to reflect real life?

 

Absolutely not. I would LOVE to see more couples on TV or movies that are clearly shown to be of equal intelligence. I absolutely see how that scenario is problematic, too. But unfortunately in the media, it still feels like, in general, while improvements have definitely been made, that's harder to find women who are portrayed as strong, intelligent women. It's a LOT easier to find men who are portrayed that way.

 

See, I've heard this argument before, but because there's always a 'but' its really just a way of saying that double standards are actually good, just as long as they're the right double standards. Men shouldn't have to be portrayed as witless idiots to sell breakfast cereal just because improvements aren't being made fast enough.

 

Spike was a vampire (dead souless thing) what Fitz excuse.  Different rules, one show is  a supernatural fantasy with non humans and another is "realistic" political drama. Still Buffy eventually had the willpower to end her sexual relationship with Spike.

 

See, this doesn't hold water with me. Soulless or not, Spike was the one slobbering about how much he loved Buffy, after he had a damn wet dream about her, and then when she finally decided she'd had enough, he tried to rape her in her own bathroom. And considering that, at the time, a fair portion of the fandom took issue with her, as if she was some heinous bitch who wasn't giving him the love he deserved, it does, as the poster upthreaad said, make me wonder about some people''s priorities. At the time season six was airing, I had a younger sister who was starting college, and my personal nightmare was that she would watch the Spuffy "relationship" and be under the severely mistaken impression that Spike was a romantic figure. If nothing else, unless all of those people complaining about how terrible Buffy was were boys, no wonder Fifty Shades of Crap is so damn popular.

[DeLurker]

B) Because she sees him as less manly, she tosses a frozen pizza in the oven, and when he eats it he becomes "the man he used to be". Or something. That the man he used to be is apparently the guy who drools all over himself because his team scores a goal is almost as obnoxious as implying that interacting with his daughters is somehow a negative thing. I guess if he was playing with his sons instead, it wouldn't be an issue? Or would it be preferable if he was ignoring his kids altogether, regardless of gender?

 

C, which is unrelated to this particular commercial) I do not know these men who have no idea of how to shop for food, clean the house, or do the laundry. Unless there's a lack of home training involved, which is another matter entirely. TV shows, which are largely about fictional people, are one thing, but aren't commercials at least kinda-sorta supposed to reflect real life?

It's because women keep feeding their men crappy frozen pizza that they revert to being sloppy, grunting, irresponsible adoloscents.

Edited October 2, 2015 by DeLurker

[SparedTurkey]

 

See, I've heard this argument before, but because there's always a 'but' its really just a way of saying that double standards are actually good, just as long as they're the right double standards. Men shouldn't have to be portrayed as witless idiots to sell breakfast cereal just because improvements aren't being made fast enough

Except that no - that is not what they are saying. It has nothing to do with 'double standards'. It is saying that the portrayal of men (white, that is) in all forms of media -t v shows, movies, ads - is so varied with so many options that for one being stupid re: washing dishes, there are 3 dozen saving the world. White men get varied and nuanced portrayals of their lives while women (and minorities) are still very much under-represented or used as tokens. No one has watched Everybody Loves Raymond and felt that all men are stupid - but portraying women as harpish shews is unfortunately common. It isn't a double standard it is just a mark of how little things have changed in the media. 

 

Also, I have had enough of the 'not all men' crap that always follows a discussion about feminism. Also the idea that men are being attacked. Its absolute rubbish.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Also, I have had enough of the 'not all men' crap that always follows a discussion about feminism. Also the idea that men are being attacked. Its absolute rubbish.

 

Perhaps it does border on being rubbish, SparedTurkey. But as a viewer of Criminal Minds, (and I'm only mentioning that because I've seen your posts in those threads in the past), I think its worth mentioning that the prevalence of JJ Jareau on that show is ostensibly a mark of Girl Power. For a character who started out as the media liaison and was then transformed into someone who almost killed Osama Bin Laden, with little explanation and almost no pause in between, she went from being moderately okay with me to nearly unbearable. Others have compared her with NCIS' Ziva David in terms of being unbelievable, but even Ziva started out with the Mossad background. I can't really speak to what she evolved into, as I have issues with Mark Harmon that are unrelated to anything rational, but I do know that when Ziva first replaced the deceased Caitlin Todd, she had a background that would allow for taking an action role. JJ? Not so much.

 

Further, its actually been called misogyny to want the male characters to get more screen time, and the suggestion that Spencer Reid should be given a storyline or more to do than just spout facts elicits things like "this isn't The Reid Show", as if that's even what's being asked for. In the past, all of the characters got to contribute, not just Reid, and I don't think its too far out of line to suggest that the showrunner simply over-identifies with JJ or perhaps might not be particularly good at her job that the show has taken such a wild swing in the opposite direction.

 

"Misogyny" is a serious word, and I don't care for it being slung in my general direction just because I want a male character to be treated with respect again.  And I don't think its misogyny to show that men are capable of doing housework, or at least that they can be trusted to leave the house and not come back with the wrong brand of X Whatever Thing. If nothing else, if Husband In Commercial is really so dense that he can't read a brand name, why is Wife In Commercial even with him? I admit I'm probably way overthinking it, but its just so irritating to see people in general being portrayed as too dumb to get out of the house in the mornings.

[SparedTurkey]

I am not sure of your point with Criminal Minds in relation to this discussion - that other posters are being somewhat misandrist because they don't want a story about Reid? Admittedly, I occasionally go into CM fandom, but I have never been overwhelmed by all the love for JJ or Garcia. Much the opposite in fact.

 

In fact - it almost sums up the problem we are talking about - there are so many men on that show that while some are not the best or the most popular it has allowed for variation (keeping aside the fact your favourite doesn't get enough screentime). But there are two women. Two. And look at the amout of vitriol and criticism aimed at both of them. Now, my point is not that they are the best characters ever and shouldn't be critiqued ever, because they are women. But there isn't as much criticism aimed at the male characters because there are so many - they get to be different and while one can be X the other is Y and it doesn't matter if a third one says something dumb because they have clearly shown it isn't everyone.

 

 

"Misogyny" is a serious word, and I don't care for it being slung in my general direction just because I want a male character to be treated with respect again.

First - I never called you a misogynist and I really dislike people putting words in my mouth.

 

Second - I get that you don't like watching 'irritatingly dumb people'. And that is fine. I don't think it is particularly witty and rarely watch crap like that myself. I am just saying that I don't think it is sexist/misandrist for a few ads or television shows to portray a man as dumb. They don't have a history of being used as an accessory that it just is not the same.

 

Third - I stand by my comment about the offensiveness and ridiculousness of 'Not All Men'. Fyi - it wasn't a particular response to what you had said but a more general comment about any discussion of feminism. You can always guarantee it will show up in the first few comments and I am sick to death of assuaging male egos.

[galax-arena]

Third - I stand by my comment about the offensiveness and ridiculousness of 'Not All Men'. Fyi - it wasn't a particular response to what you had said but a more general comment about any discussion of feminism. You can always guarantee it will show up in the first few comments and I am sick to death of assuaging male egos.

For you, SparedTurkey:

 

[Irlandesa]

In fact - it almost sums up the problem we are talking about - there are so many men on that show that while some are not the best or the most popular it has allowed for variation (keeping aside the fact your favourite doesn't get enough screentime). But there are two women. Two.

Ah Criminal Minds. Remember when there were three women?  And then they fired two of them---including AJ Cook (JJ) and Paget Brewster (by reducing the # of eps she was slated to appear in)?  And that was somehow supposed to be a non-problematic way to "refresh" the show?

[SparedTurkey]

 

And that was somehow supposed to be a non-problematic way to "refresh" the show?

And then hired a younger blonde to replace them? And then fired her over twitter when it didn't end well? And forced Paget Brewster back even though she didn't want to come back but they could because it was in her contract?

 

Yeah - CM is a real haven for women - fictional or otherwise. Said no one ever ;)

 

And I loved that comic galax-arena!!!

[kathyk24]

If JJ Jareau were a male character and all he did was hold press conferences and meet with families the audience would be asking the writers to give him more screen time. Female supporting characters are often labeled  bland or boring but when they are given more screen time people will complain that they are taking time away from the male lead. Juliette from Grimm fell victim to this as well as JJ.

[kili]

For you, SparedTurkey:

 

Meh. Make a generalization about any group and expect to have somebody contradict you.  Differences between individual within groups is almost always larger than differences between groups.

 

If JJ Jareau were a male character and all he did was hold press conferences and meet with families the audience would be asking the writers to give him more screen time.

 

I thought it was funny about the lab techs on CSI. They cast one guy to be an annoying pain in the butt and fans clamour for him to be a regular so they normalize him and introduce an even more obnoxious lab tech as his foil (making sure this one is 50% less attractive) and the same thing happens (he even gets a hot lab tech girlfriend).

 

This is far more likely to happen with secondary/tertiary male characters than female characters (Felicity from Arrow (became a major character) and Kerry ffrom ER (who was softened and stopped being the foil) are examples of female characters, but one can easily name legions of male characters this has happened with) and it creates an interesting conumndrum. This is the fans clamoring and not dictated by the industry. Why do fans do this?  Who is doing this?

Edited October 9, 2015 by kili

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Ah Criminal Minds. Remember when there were three women?  And then they fired two of them---including AJ Cook (JJ) and Paget Brewster (by reducing the # of eps she was slated to appear in)?  And that was somehow supposed to be a non-problematic way to "refresh" the show?

 

Actually...

 

When AJ and Paget were fired the first time, there was such a clamor among the viewers that they fired Rachel Nichols and then hired Cook back. They eventually got Brewster to come back, but they screwed her over writing-wise and she left again. She was replaced by Jeanne Tripplehorn, formerly of Big Love and one of my crushes since '95's Waterworld, and don't ya'll judge me. Tripplehorn's character could have been a return to the early, more cerebral days of the series, since she was supposed to have knowledge about languages and taught forensic linguistics. But rumor had it that Erica Messer, CM's showrunner, didn't want to hire JT and the Suits made her do it, and her character was quickly sidelined in favor of JJ, who spent most of the season running around kicking people like River Tam if she'd been slugging back Red Bull.*

 

Tripplehorn left the show at the end of the ninth season, and it was the showrunner's decision to truncate part of her character backstory by killing off another (female) character as part of the season's arc. She was replaced by Jennifer Love Hewitt, who fared slightly better in both characterization and having things to do, but Hewitt only stayed for a single season. Now she has been replaced by Aisha Tyler, who voices Lana Kane on Archer, but I think she might only be temporary because AJ Cook just had her second child and is still on maternity leave. If they're going to keep Tyler after Cook returns, I do not foresee the former's character being given equal time with EM's Golden Child. Because I've seen the show do this twice before, try to replace Brewster, and the newbie always loses out to blonde, blue-eyed JJ. I guess favoritism knows no gender.

 

*The above is an exaggeration, although I do think its worth mentioning the time JJ almost single-handedly solved the case and shot and killed the bad guy while in the throes of what she herself called "beyond PTSD". She even hallucinated a conversation with the dead terrorist who'd tortured her a year prior to that, which she was cracking jokes about as recently as the premiere of season ten. I guess they must have really taught her some amazing shit at Ninja School.

[SparedTurkey]

 

When AJ and Paget were fired the first time, there was such a clamor among the viewers that they fired Rachel Nichols and then hired Cook back. They eventually got Brewster to come back, but they screwed her over writing-wise and she left again.

Worth mentioning that:

a) they claimed the firings were for 'budget reasons' - only they paid Rachel Nicols double (so not really).

b) they forced PB to return - they had got her to sign a contract which meant they could force her to return if her pilot wasn't picked up. In effect still tying her to them and making it difficult for her. She didn't want to - because who would after all that - but was threatened with legal action. She didn't leave because of the writing. She only came back because it was contractually obligated and had no intention of staying longer.

c) Rachel Nicols found out she was fired ON TWITTER.

 

I do wonder why I used to watch that show. That's just such blatant sexism on the part of the show and network. (I'm not speculating on Jeanne Tripplehorn, because no one knows. And with JLH - well, she was having a baby). I don't currently watch the show. It became something I didn't like. But regarding JJ - I wonder how much of making her front and centre has to do with protecting the actress from being fired again? I mean, the men on that show are safe, no matter what. But the show has demonstrated that actresses do not have such protections. Also - Why so many complaints are levelled at her when Morgan (at least in previous seasons) was written exactly like her and is a favourite character?

 

Although all shows on CBS have reduced women characters - Eg. CSI - the female characters fought all the time about stupid nonsense just because they could.

 

That is why I do like the BBC's The Fall - female characters over the shop and no ridiculous behaviour. CBS should take notes.

[joelene]

That is why I do like the BBC's The Fall - female characters over the shop and no ridiculous behaviour. CBS should take notes.

I'll add Scott & Bailey and No Offence to that list.

[Chaos Theory]

A lot of perseieved sexism I have found is actually women on women crime. I had a conversation with my twenty something cousin and all her favorite characters were male. Every last one of them. I mentioned a few female characters on shows she watched that I thought she might like and some she outright hated often because she had a crush on the actor their character was dating.

It is actually kind of funny how easy it is for a woman to hate a female character...well kinda sad actually all they have to do is look funny at the cute male they have a crush on and the character and even the actress is hated for life.

Edited October 14, 2015 by Chaos Theory

[lavenderblue]

That "just jealous!" argument is one of my absolute least favorites and somehow one that is a constant of fandom's existence. It's entirely possible to dislike a female character for her writing and to not give a flying fig about her looks/love interest/perceived popularity etc. I've loved some female characters, I've disliked others, and it all typically comes down to how much I personally appreciate or enjoy the traits of said character or how much such traits are things that bother me in people of either sex in real life, along with quality of writing and quality of storyline.

 

What I don't appreciate is the idea that as a woman, I -- speaking generally for the population -- am committing a wrong by daring not to love every woman or girl I watch and to sometimes prefer male characters (always again for reasons having nothing to do with their...dateability or whatever).