Gender On Television: It's Like Feminism Never Happened

[Irlandesa]

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.

When I was younger a lot of my favorite characters were males as well. Perhaps it was my raging teenage hormones but if the actor was good and made me feel their pain, then I was ride or die with that character.  If a female character decided to break up with him and move on, I'd be a little resentful because how could she?  Couldn't she see the absolute heartbreak that was in his eyes as he told her he never loved her?  Couldn't she tell it was all a LIE that he was only doing because he felt unworthy and believed he was dying and didn't want to hurt her more in the long run? (Can you tell I used to watch soaps?)

 

That was then.  When I got older, I didn't become immune to good writing and acting, but I got a lot better at distinguishing what I saw as a viewer about a male character and what the female character saw. (And vice versa) I got much better about not holding the female characters accountable for things that their characters didn't know but I did. I got much better at judging them equally for their transgressions or understanding them equally.

 

But it was never about jealousy.  It was about feelings and fantasy but not wishing the female character were somehow out of the way.  I'm glad I grew out of that stage.

Edited October 15, 2015 by Irlandesa

[SparedTurkey]

 

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.

 

I don't think it is quite that simple though. Or it is, but in a different way. The majority of characters on tv shows and movies are men. A vast majority. So it isn't surprising that male characters are someone's favourite and it isn't selling out the sisterhood or whatever if it is. What that says is that there aren't enough female characters on television that are varied enough or nuanced enough or written very well or given major focus - unlike male characters (and again, I should point out I mean white men). I don't think your 20-something cousin is anti-female characters (unless she is?) but it is more that there are very few female characters to choose from and she hasn't liked what she has seen. Which is fair enough - and remains problematic for the television writers and networks, not the fans.

 

And sure, maybe some young women/men don't like a character because of the dating thing. Maybe that is just because they are young - or maybe it is also that a show does very little in defining that female character as anything other than a love interest for a particular character.

 

For what it is worth, from what I see, The X Files is pretty split down the middle over the preference of Scully and/or Mulder. While there are some issues in the way Scully was written, she was given equal focus and attention by the writers. Consequently, the fandom is a lot more equal in terms of which one is a favourite. And Scully is pretty damn popular with women - which may be a result of her being written for and being clearly defined, with flaws and all. Similarly, most people I know prefer Xena to Hercules (different shows, but one was a spin-off and they were in the same universe). 

[Danielg342]

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.

I can understand the frustration- there are a lot of men who don't realize feminism talks more or less in the abstract and not in absolutes and throw up defences like “not all men” to be dismissive about a problem (e.g.- saying “I don't drug women and rape them...there's no problem!”).

However, the inverse is that I see- too often- people invoke “male privilege” to shut down perfectly reasonable commentary and criticism. I've seen more than my fair share of vile that is unequivocally and unmistakably discriminatory against men done “in the name of feminism” where it gets justified because “we need to promote equality” when it should be condemned.

Then you get feminists- or, more often, “feminists”- who get so sensitive to criticism that they just don't hear anyone who raises even the slightest bit of critique against their ideas, dismissing even the most honourable of critics as “MRAs” or some such.

Don't get me wrong- I don't think men are oppressed or any of that claptrap, and I understand, totally, how much more difficult it is for a feminist to get heard (the ones who issued death threats during “GamerGate” are a great example of this), but I also think we need to be careful and not take things too far. Just because men aren't oppressed shouldn't mean we should start oppressing them- eventually, that's just trading one problem for another and we'll just be back where we started, only with the genders flipped.

As far as “bumbling dads” are concerned, my thing with them is that, in any kind of comedic setting, way more often that not, if show is asked to portray either a father or a mother as “stupid” in a given situation, the father is the one that's chosen to be the dunderhead. This has become so ubiquitous that it at least appears to me that there's no such thing as a sitcom dad who is competent, and it reinforces the idea that it's okay to make dads the butt of every joke, which should be an affront to all the capable fathers out there.

Sure, you can point to many other capable father figures on TV, but they're almost all on more “serious” fare like dramas (which opens a whole new can of sexist worms), and yes, the problem of “bumbling dads” isn't quite as serious as the issue of the dearth of respectable female characters in Hollywood. However, it's still a troubling stereotype, not just for men but for women too, since it tells the mother that she bears the burden of responsibility that her husband- presumably also an adult- does not have to have.

Women have it worse in Hollywood- I won't dispute that. However, it still shouldn't mean a troubling trope directed at men should be given a pass simply because it's “a male trope”- a troubling trope should still be criticised, because nothing should be “above” criticism.

[Danielg342]

In a nutshell...my issue is the same issue I have with gender politics in general- both sides snipe at each other and argue about “who's got it worse” instead of focusing on the problem at hand. A problem is a problem, and our efforts should be put forward into solving the problem- not by making it into a counter-productive competition of “who's problems are worse”.

[galax-arena]

The majority of characters on tv shows and movies are men. A vast majority. So it isn't surprising that male characters are someone's favourite and it isn't selling out the sisterhood or whatever if it is. What that says is that there aren't enough female characters on television that are varied enough or nuanced enough or written very well or given major focus - unlike male characters (and again, I should point out I mean white men).

I agree with this, but I do raise my eyebrows when people say that their favorite characters are all men because there are literally no well-written female characters on television. Erm, no. I'd say that that's confirmation bias at work. Most of my favorite characters on television happen to be women, and I don't think it's because their standards are higher than mine.

[Jack Shaftoe]

 

The majority of characters on tv shows and movies are men. A vast majority.

 

Maybe I am watching the wrong shows but I really don't think that the vast majority of characters on TV are men - if for no other reason than most showrunners seemingly being unable to allow any important character to stay single for more than a few episodes. Now, men being given the juicier roles is a problem that is very much real but in terms purely of the number of characters, I doubt there is much of a discrepancy between male and female ones.

 

 

I agree with this, but I do raise my eyebrows when people say that their favorite characters are all men because there are literally no well-written female characters on television. Erm, no. I'd say that that's confirmation bias at work.

 

Yes, the sheer number of female characters on TV (even if they are fewer than them men, we are talking of hundreds upon hundreds of them in the currently ongoing shows alone) makes me wonder how someone can manage to not have a single favourite female character. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that 95% of female characters are badly written, this still leaves plenty of room to pick your favourite.

Edited October 15, 2015 by Jack Shaftoe

[cynic]

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.

 

Wait, I don't understand. Did she say that's why she hated the character or is that your read on why she hated the character? I just seems crazy and illogical to me that a grown woman would hate a fictional female character simply because that character is dating a male fictional character played by an actor she has a fan crush on but has never met in real life. Who does this? I don't see how this could possibly be a major reason for the dislike of female characters. 

 

I'm a woman. A lot of my friends are women. In my social circle, we like to talk about tv a lot. I fangirl and ship. I have never disliked a character due to jealousy or suspected a friend of it. Now I have disliked female characters and gotten very annoyed when they hooked up with a fave male character, but that was because I already disliked that character and now I couldn't fastforward past her scenes anymore. I've also loved female characters and liked them even more when they shared great romantic scenes with a favorite guy. Or I might start disliking them both because their romance sucks, changes their characters/the show, or is written stereotypically. Or I might not care at all. Whatever happens. it's all show related, because I don't actually know these people and the characters aren't real. I simply can't imagine that level of personal involvement that would inspire actual jealousy. I feel like sometimes actual issues with a character are too quickly dismissed as simply being due to jealousy or being a fan or shipping for that matter. Just because I like romance between characters does not mean I'm incapable of looking at something objectively or logical analysis.

[SparedTurkey]

 

This has become so ubiquitous that it at least appears to me that there's no such thing as a sitcom dad who is competent, and it reinforces the idea that it's okay to make dads the butt of every joke, which should be an affront to all the capable fathers out there.

I just don't feel like that is true. I think there are a lot of capable sitcom fathers or those that aren't bumbling idiots like Homer Simpson. Roseanne, 8 Simple Rules, Modern Family, The Middle to name a few. And dad's aren't the butt of every joke. For every Homer, there is a Phil Dunphy. Yes, 'Homer' can be a trope but is that really representative or poor representation of men? I don't believe so. Not when looked at as a whole. And sure, it is troubling to a degree. But considering all the other portrayals of father's on television, even in the comedy genre, well, I think there are more important fish to fry before fixing that.

 

 

However, the inverse is that I see- too often- people invoke “male privilege” to shut down perfectly reasonable commentary and criticism.

Sure. But to be fair, a lot of that is because the reasonable commentary begins with a 'Not All Men' comment. I'm happy to engage with anyone but when you start out demanding an apology for the way men have been treated by feminists - you won't get very far.

 

Erm, no. I'd say that that's confirmation bias at work. Most of my favorite characters on television happen to be women, and I don't think it's because their standards are higher than mine.

 

I am not saying they have high standards and you dont. Most of my favourite characters are females on television right now. But what I was saying was that there are more male characters than women so it is just basic law of averages that more males will be popular. I was just saying not liking female characters is not anti-feminist. It's just representative of current television.

 

 

Maybe I am watching the wrong shows but I really don't think that the vast majority of characters on TV are men - if for no other reason than most showrunners seemingly being unable to allow any important character to stay single for more than a few episodes. Now, men being given the juicier roles is a problem that is very much real but in terms purely of the number of characters, I doubt there is much of a discrepancy between male and female ones.

 

Sure - but I don't really count someone whose primary role is girlfriend/one-night-stand as a well-rounded character. Because more often than not they aren't and there is absolutely no development. Being someone's bed warmer does not mean you are a character.

 

[Minneapple]

just seems crazy and illogical to me that a grown woman would hate a fictional female character simply because that character is dating a male fictional character played by an actor she has a fan crush on but has never met in real life. Who does this? 

Step right this way to a little fandom of a show called Supernatural...

[Jack Shaftoe]

 

Sure - but I don't really count someone whose primary role is girlfriend/one-night-stand as a well-rounded character. Because more often than not they aren't and there is absolutely no development. Being someone's bed warmer does not mean you are a character.

 

Well, you did say "the vast majority of characters", not "the vast majority of well-rounded characters"...

 

 

I was just saying not liking female characters is not anti-feminist. It's just representative of current television.

 

Even when somebody cannot come up with a single favourite character who happens to be female? Maybe I am too easy to please or I stretch the meaning of the word favourite just a tiny little bit but I don't watch that much TV and I still have dozens of favourite characters, male and female. I mean, liking more male than female characters is one thing, not having a single female character you are particularly fond of is a whole different ball game, IMO.

[galax-arena]

I am not saying they have high standards and you dont.

I'm not saying that you were saying that, just repeating a common rationalization I've heard from people who have no favorite female characters. And while I could see having the vast majority of your favorite characters being male based on the law of averages, like you say, I do a Leo squint when the person likes literally zero female regulars, especially when they say it's because there aren't any well-written female characters out there. And these are generally people who are watching the same sort of CW-level "trash" as I am, so it's not even an issue of garden-variety prestige television snobbery. Not that it would necessarily be okay if we were talking about prestige television, because it's not like well-rounded female characters don't exist there, either. Just saying, I've come across this sort of rationalization a lot in CW fandoms, so I definitely know their standards are not higher than mine lol.

Edited October 15, 2015 by galax-arena

[Danielg342]

I just don't feel like that is true. I think there are a lot of capable sitcom fathers or those that aren't bumbling idiots like Homer Simpson. Roseanne, 8 Simple Rules, Modern Family, The Middle to name a few. And dad's aren't the butt of every joke. For every Homer, there is a Phil Dunphy. Yes, 'Homer' can be a trope but is that really representative or poor representation of men? I don't believe so. Not when looked at as a whole. And sure, it is troubling to a degree. But considering all the other portrayals of father's on television, even in the comedy genre, well, I think there are more important fish to fry before fixing that.

I don't think a problem should be an “either/or” proposition- a problem is a problem. Should a comedy that decides its only black character is a wannabe thug get a pass because there are many other black characters who are *not* wannabe thugs?

As I said before, problem-solving shouldn't be a competition- it should be a collaboration.

[Bruinsfan]

And Scully is pretty damn popular with women - which may be a result of her being written for and being clearly defined, with flaws and all. Similarly, most people I know prefer Xena to Hercules (different shows, but one was a spin-off and they were in the same universe). 

There are people out there who prefer Hercules? Besides Kevin Sorbo, I mean—he appears to be fond enough of himself to counterbalance the rest of the world's population.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

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?

 

A) AJC and JLH got pregnant at almost the same time, so saying that's why JLH decided not to come back doesn't work for me. I presume that Cook is going to hire someone to help her take care of her new baby, unless her husband is a stay at home dad, but regardless she's going to return to work. I don't know if Hewitt has anything going on work-wise now that she's left CM, but I have a very hard time believing that she intends to carry her kid around with her 24/7 until he's old enough to walk by himself. Also.....Atticus? Really, Jennifer?

 

B) I don't think Morgan is actually a favorite character. I really only frequent these forums, as I once only frequented TWOP, but there seems to be a lot of ambivalence towards him, and for myself I find him tolerable only when he's not being condescending or patronizing. That 'Baby Girl' thing makes me want to slap packing tape over his mouth.

 

C) Maybe its true that no one knows what happened with Tripplehorn, but IMO Messer used the protests of Brewster's fans to make JJ more of a focal point on the show, which is what she wanted to do anyway. And if that meant not only decimating a character who had also been there since the beginning (Reid) but also taking an enormous dump on JT, then too bad, because she was indifferent to him and didn't want to work with her.

 

D) I find it so interesting that its somehow all the network's fault, even though Messer is the showrunner. I guess its only if you're Joss Whedon that everything is your doing. I have my issues with Joss too, BTW, but that's a separate matter.

 

 

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).

 

Quoted for truth. I've had this discussion, that liking male characters more than female ones is not a crime. It isn't even sexist. If you want generalizations, how about the one where the bigger an ass a male character is (Logan Echolls, Damon Salvatore, etc) the more female fans he seems to have?

[Minneapple]

I find it so interesting that its somehow all the network's fault, even though Messer is the showrunner

 

It was the network's fault, they didn't want to pay the ladies and tried to blame the cuts on creative decisions. Paget Brewster has always been very vocal about how she blamed CBS, not the show's producers.

 

And was Messner the Criminal Minds showrunner at the time the initial Cook-Brewster kerfuffle went down? I thought it was Ed Bernaro.

Edited October 16, 2015 by Minneapple

[Irlandesa]

Maybe I am watching the wrong shows but I really don't think that the vast majority of characters on TV are men - if for no other reason than most showrunners seemingly being unable to allow any important character to stay single for more than a few episodes. Now, men being given the juicier roles is a problem that is very much real but in terms purely of the number of characters, I doubt there is much of a discrepancy between male and female ones.

People study this.  42% of speaking characters/major characters on broadcast television are women in 2014-2015.  It drops to 40% overall when you include cable and Netflix with Broadcast. (So imagine the discrepency on just cable and Netflix alone).  That's a 20% difference.  That may not be as vast as 90% to10% but I think it's pretty significant.  And persistent considering that broadcast number only represents a 3% increase from the late 90s and a 1% decrease from a few years ago.  

 

A lot of shows have perhaps one female lead, one male lead, one supporting female character and three supporting male characters. 

 

I just don't feel like that is true. I think there are a lot of capable sitcom fathers or those that aren't bumbling idiots like Homer Simpson. Roseanne, 8 Simple Rules, Modern Family, The Middle to name a few.

I can't think of a TV show on the air right now with a "bumbling dad."  Eccentric and silly dad?  Yes but I'd argue the mothers have their own crazy quirks as well.  Black-ish, The Carmichael Show, The Mindy Project, The Goldbergs, Fresh Off The Boat all have fathers who are competent. 

[paulvdb]

I can't think of a TV show on the air right now with a "bumbling dad."  Eccentric and silly dad?  Yes but I'd argue the mothers have their own crazy quirks as well.  Black-ish, The Carmichael Show, The Mindy Project, The Goldbergs, Fresh Off The Boat all have fathers who are competent.

I can't think of one off the top of my head, so you're probably right. The bumbling sitcom dad is a thing of the past. And now I'll wait for all the posts of people who list the currently airing sitcoms with bumbling dads that I don't watch or that I forgot in the long list of sitcoms that I watch.

[SparedTurkey]

 

Even when somebody cannot come up with a single favourite character who happens to be female?

 

I don't think that is any more anti-feminist than I think someone who enjoys Homer Simpson is a misandrist who lives off the trope of men being inept fathers. I don't think it is implausible that a particular woman's favourite characters out of the shows she watches aren't women. Maybe the particular show/s she watches either don't have many women in the cast (Supernatural), don't treat the women well (Criminal Minds) or she cannot relate to that particular character (Homeland). Maybe that woman has a bias, maybe not. Maybe all it means is writers need to pick up their game or include diversity.

 

I would be more inclined to ask that question if you were discussing Orange Is The New Black for example. I have never seen anyone pick a male character over one of the females. There are many different female characters - some likeable, some not. But I have never seen anyone pick Pornstache, Larry or Healy over at least one of the females, be it Nichols, Crazy Eyes, Piper, Yoga Jones, Red or even Pennsatucky. Maybe a situation of reverse law-of-averages I was talking about. Maybe a result of having a number of different kinds of women on a show who are given attention.

 

 

I'm not saying that you were saying that, just repeating a common rationalization I've heard from people who have no favorite female characters.

 

No I know you weren't saying that I was saying that you were saying that I was...wait...anyway. No, I know you weren't. And I am not sure what CW level trash you are watching - even though I am sure I have watched some similar kind of shows. I mean, I watched Pretty Little Liars up until recently, so I am not saying I am very high brow or whatever. People have different tastes and that is what it is. I think it is sad if a girl or women watches television and does not like a single female character. But female television watchers shouldn't have to settle. We shouldn't have to sit back and be grateful to be included at all. Women make up more than 50% of the population and we come in all different forms. Maybe if television represented us properly, it wouldn't be an issue.

 

 

I don't think a problem should be an “either/or” proposition- a problem is a problem. Should a comedy that decides its only black character is a wannabe thug get a pass because there are many other black characters who are *not* wannabe thugs? As I said before, problem-solving shouldn't be a competition- it should be a collaboration.

 

No. That comedy with a black thug does not get a pass and (going slightly off-topic) that is because the depictions of black people (like women) on television is still pathetic. There is still systemic racism - and sexism and misogyny - that occurs every day and television currently reflects that landscape. Minorities have a history of being beaten down, reduced to a particular trope and there is a lot of cultural significance that goes along with it. It is not routinely called out and remains a shorthand for communication. White men have not been, and are not, ever persecuted for being white or male. They are the top. That is why a comedy will and should be called out if a black guy is just a thug for laughs or an Asian character cannot drive for laughs or a woman's behaviour is explained as 'hormonal' for laughs or a Latino is a maid and some miscommunication happens 'for laughs'. If and when we get to the point where minorities are treated like white males - where there are a multitude of different portrayals of all kinds - then I would say they wouldn't be an issue, much like the bumbling dad schtick. But socially, culturally and politically we are just not there.  It isn't an either/or competition.  

 

 

JLH decided not to come back doesn't work for me

To each their own - Maybe JLH decided she didn't want to work while the baby is new or whatever. She undoubtedly has enough money that she doesn't need to. Maybe AJC wanted to work - maybe not. I really have no opinion on why she left and unless told otherwise, I am not assuming they forced her out.

 

 

I don't think Morgan is actually a favorite character.

I have seen the CM Fandom be pretty vocal about how great he is. That may not be your opinion or mine, but it isn't an unpopular opinion.

 

I find it so interesting that its somehow all the network's fault, even though Messer is the showrunner. I guess its only if you're Joss Whedon that everything is your doing.

I never brought up Joss Whedon - but yes, I agree, he has sexism issues with his shows.

 

Messer isn't to blame for what happened behind the scenes at CM. CBS was to blame for the sexism at CM. CBS fired PB and AJC. Ed Bernero was in charge during the time but had no choice. It was not the showrunner, producers or writer's decision. There was no appeal. Messer was stilla writer at that time. I don't recall her episodes particularly holding JJ up in a great light but MMV. CBS initially screwed with CM. Whatever your opinion of the treatment of Reid vs JJ since may be under Messer as showrunner, she was not to blame for what happened. Why is this even a comparison? When was Joss even brought up in this discussion?

[Danielg342]

White men have not been, and are not, ever persecuted for being white or male.

The problem I have with this is that this is a slippery slope. At what point does “reverse persecution” go too far from “doing its job”? Plus, as I've said before, this slope is eventually about trading one problem for another, and I can't have that.

This further highlights the problem with playing “the numbers game”- equality shouldn't be about “keeping score”, it should be about changing attitudes.

Case in point- Criminal Minds has, for years, faced criticism for being misogynistic about its victim choices, because its victims have been- and still largely continues to be- women. In the first few seasons, I would say the criticism is unfair, since the show actually attempted to examine who the victims were and why the killer chose them- in other words, they had a point to being in the story (not to mention the show did mix in quite a few male victims, especially in S1).

Lately, though, since Season 7 or so (mileage will vary on this one), the show has stopped doing that, becoming a show where the highlight is pretty much seeing what the killer is going to do to each victim. No attempt is really made to explore who the victim is and remind the audience that the victim is still a human being- no, the victim is merely a pawn, an object to show you how “depraved” the killer is, so I would say the “monster misogyny” criticism got earned, since I don't find it right to use a victim as a mere pawn.

Anyway, from S7-S9, the show largely continued its trend of selecting female victims as “pawns” (moreso in S7 and S8, I think but that's just semantics, and S9 did have a storyline where JJ was kidnapped just so she could have her infamous waterboarding torture scene), but in S10, for much of the first half of the season at least, the show decided to change its “pawn” victims from women to men, seemingly under the mistaken belief that by switching the gender of the “pawns”, it made the practice okay.

Unequivocally, I say it doesn't. I don't like my crime shows “glorifying” a crime by using someone- who is a normal human being with feelings- just to highlight the new torture device the writer thought up. The gender in this case shouldn't matter- whether the victim is a man or a woman, the practice is still wrong, and “tipping the scales” doesn't make it right. Only by actually giving the victims a meaning in the story can the problem be rectified.

Edited October 16, 2015 by Danielg342

[galax-arena]

But female television watchers shouldn't have to settle. We shouldn't have to sit back and be grateful to be included at all.

I agree with this. I'm all for continuing to advocate for parity when it comes to gender in the media, because it's still very lopsided. I just wish those viewers who can't find a single female character to like wouldn't make up bullshit about how there are no well-written female characters on television. I think it does a disservice to some of the great characters out there. Doesn't mean you have to personally like them. I'm actually not a huge fan of OITNB for whatever reason, but I'll still give it credit for its layered depictions of women (and WOC in particular). Well-written female characters are obviously not in great supply compared to men, but don't say that they don't exist, period. Or else Jessica Huang from Fresh Off the Boat is gonna have to cut someone.

 

And as far as the "reverse sexism" discussion going on here goes, my take is that as privileged and marginalized groups in society do not operate on a level playing field to begin with, there's no reason to treat them as though they do. The media doesn't exist in a social vacuum. 

[proserpina65]

There are people out there who prefer Hercules? Besides Kevin Sorbo, I mean—he appears to be fond enough of himself to counterbalance the rest of the world's population.

I prefered Hercules (the show) to Xena.  Mainly because I really liked the character of Iolaus, but also because I thought the actor who played Hades was hot.  And I disliked Gabrielle enough that I found Xena hard to watch.  But as a character, Xena rocked.

[SparedTurkey]

 

The problem I have with this is that this is a slippery slope. At what point does “reverse persecution” go too far from “doing its job”? Plus, as I've said before, this slope is eventually about trading one problem for another, and I can't have that.

Much like 'reverse racism' - 'reverse sexism' is not a thing. There is no slippery slope here. I am not and have not been arguing that white men take the place for women/minorities (though for a day, just to see the difference, but I digress). My point was/is that having a white male portrayed as an idiot, while may not be your cup of tea, is not ultimately sexism and is not ultimately  damaging. The fact there is even a discussion of the bumbling dad trope and acknowledgement of all other white male tropes shows that while perceived negative by some it is just a non-issue. And yes, it would be nice if women (and minorities) were at the point where representation was at the point where we can quibble over the quality of the portrayal. But it is not and focus should be on getting us to that point. White men aren't ever going to disappear from television. Not going to happen. But there is room at the table for the rest of us.

 

 

but in S10, for much of the first half of the season at least, the show decided to change its “pawn” victims from women to men, seemingly under the mistaken belief that by switching the gender of the “pawns”, it made the practice okay. Unequivocally, I say it doesn't. I don't like my crime shows “glorifying” a crime by using someone- who is a normal human being with feelings- just to highlight the new torture device the writer thought up. The gender in this case shouldn't matter- whether the victim is a man or a woman, the practice is still wrong

Okay? That seems like more of a quality issue than anything else. Not to mention factually incorrect on the show's behalf - the vast majority of victims of serial killers are women. I can't speak to the idea that they are torturing men to combat the sexism criticisms on having female victims - do you have any interviews to support that?

[Jack Shaftoe]

 

People study this.  42% of speaking characters/major characters on broadcast television are women in 2014-2015.  It drops to 40% overall when you include cable and Netflix with Broadcast. (So imagine the discrepency on just cable and Netflix alone).  That's a 20% difference.  That may not be as vast as 90% to10% but I think it's pretty significant.  And persistent considering that broadcast number only represents a 3% increase from the late 90s and a 1% decrease from a few years ago. 

 

A lot of shows have perhaps one female lead, one male lead, one supporting female character and three supporting male characters.

 

I suspected as much. But still. 40 to 60 ratio is nowhere near a "vast majority", that's all I'm saying. Compared to say Hollywood mainstream movies or mainstream video games, the male to female ratio on TV is much better (based on anecdotal experience, not any studies I have read, mind you).

 

 

I don't think that is any more anti-feminist than I think someone who enjoys Homer Simpson is a misandrist who lives off the trope of men being inept fathers. I don't think it is implausible that a particular woman's favourite characters out of the shows she watches aren't women. Maybe the particular show/s she watches either don't have many women in the cast (Supernatural), don't treat the women well (Criminal Minds) or she cannot relate to that particular character (Homeland). Maybe that woman has a bias, maybe not. Maybe all it means is writers need to pick up their game or include diversity.

 

Sure, the situation is nowhere near ideal but if you pick half a dozen shows at random, chances are there you are going to find some well crafted female characters in them. It's not like this is something so rare that one needs to watch half the shows Hollywood produces in order to get to see one or two interesting women. Having at least one favourite female character is a pretty low benchmark and I can't help but suspect that the most probable cause for failing to reach it would be bias against female characters on the part of the viewer in question, rather than bad writing or acting all around.

Edited October 16, 2015 by Jack Shaftoe

[SparedTurkey]

 

Having at least one favourite female character is a pretty low benchmark and I can't help but suspect that the most probable cause for failing to reach it would be bias against female characters on the part of the viewer in question, rather than bad writing or acting all around.

Sure. But regardless of those who don't like any female characters, even the well written, well-rounded ones - I don't see why that means that producers, writers, networks get a pass on not being better at it at this point? You can't please everyone, absolutely true. But if you can do better - do better. Blaming the audience - however small that audience is - is an easy way out and ignores what is really important.

[Irlandesa]

I suspected as much. But still. 40 to 60 ratio is nowhere near a "vast majority", that's all I'm saying. Compared to say Hollywood mainstream movies or mainstream video games, the male to female ratio on TV is much better (based on anecdotal experience, not any studies I have read, mind you)

I'll bring over a summary of a study because I get paid to find things but  films are looked at as well. And you're right, women only had 30% of the speaking parts in movies and made up only 12% of the protagonists. 

[mansonlamps]

Maybe there is no such thing as "reverse sexism" per se, but I think it can be argued that what some people are objecting to isn't the "bumbling male" as much as the role he represents, usually husband and/or father. Not all husbands are unable to boil water and not all fathers are virtual imbeciles when compared to the superior intelligence of their children.

[Demented Daisy]

Maybe there is no such thing as "reverse sexism" per se, but I think it can be argued that what some people are objecting to isn't the "bumbling male" as much as the role he represents, usually husband and/or father. Not all husbands are unable to boil water and not all fathers are virtual imbeciles when compared to the superior intelligence of their children.

 

And not all wives are nagging shrews and not all moms are no-fun rule enforcers.

 

Stereotypes of pretty much every group exist on TV, so I see no point in "Not All (insert group here)!"

[kili]

The fact there is even a discussion of the bumbling dad trope and acknowledgement of all other white male tropes shows that while perceived negative by some it is just a non-issue.

I disagree on two fronts.

 

As a feminist, my goal is equality. I don't like stereotyping of either gender. The bumbling dad bothers me greatly because it effects both genders (making men idiots and women responsible for all things domestic). 

 

As a viewer, my goal is interesting TV. Main characters who are tropes who bring nothing new to the table is lazy writing and I do not like it. I have no time for sitcoms revolving around an imbecilic dad. 

 

I work in a male dominated industry. Years before I was married, some of my co-workers had an idea about getting a daycare at our workplace. They held a meeting to judge interest. Despite 80% of the employees being male, only one male showed up to the meeting of about 40 people. Later that day, I got asked by my male co-workers where I was at lunch. I told them and some of them started complaining about how unfair it was that my company was considering a special benefit just for women. I reminded them that males can become parents too. They said that their future wives would stay home with their children - children should not be in daycare. I asked them why they wouldn't be the one to stay home and they said that women are better than men at domestic stuff. 

 

So, no, I don't think that the bumbling dad trope is a non-issue.

Edited October 17, 2015 by kili

[DearEvette]

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.

 

I can kinda see this but I think it is more complicated than that.  I have this theory that for any show there is the likelihood that every character has the potential to be likeable or unlikable at any time based on the writing of that character.  But their reception by the viewer and how likable or not they are perceived in based on a lot of other mitigating factors.  For instance there is the 'Main Character Exemption Clause' which basically says that the main character of the show is given a LOT of leeway from viewers in terms of behaviors they are willing to accept.  Most main characters tend to be male.  But this also applies to female main characters as well.  So basically if you are a main character who is important to the story narrative, then you get away with a lot and even some of your more asshole-y actions get excused by viewers for reasons.

 

If you aren't driving the narrative, then your chances of being arbitrarily disliked are raised exponentially.  Unless you are 1) male supporting character or 2) funny comic relief or 3) bad-ass female.

 

For the most part, I think people tend to like characters who are 'doing something'. Anecdotally it feels like male  supporting characters tend to be written more proactively.  Obviously this isn't true of every show, but on the whole, they feel like they have more active roles whereas females feel like they have more written in more passive roles.   An example of this would be Breaking Bad where Jessie and Hank seemed like they did more than Skyler and Marie.  But even in the case where a male character doesn't add more to the story, I think female viewers tend to be more forgiving of attractive male supporting characters who don't add anything to a story than they are to even attractive female characters who don't add anything to a story.  I have seen the "she is so useless" lament way more than I have seen a corresponding "He is so useless" on discussion board.  They can crush on cute male characters.  To like a female character she has to be adding something important to the story more often than not.  So in the case of The Flash, Iris was given a lot of flack last year because it was perceived that she had no purpose other than being Barry's ordained love interest. And she was given a LOT of hate for rejecting Barry's crush of her. Whereas Eddie didn't get any the ire Iris did even though she arguably had a more important role in the mythology of the show than he did. Neither did Cailtyn because she worked in the lab and was perceived to be more 'useful' and part of Barry's team.

 

Comic relief also tends to be cast as male more than female.  And being able to drop a funny one-liner all the time is almost a sure fire way to be liked. 

 

The only time a supporting female character tends to be liked almost universally is if she is perceived as a 'Bad-Ass.'  Which says a lot because being a bad ass usually translates into her doing actiony things that are coded as traditionally male.

 

Anyway this is my incredibly unscientific theory of fandom character acceptance based on observations of discussions on various platforms.

[VCRTracking]

There's also a resentment by viewers toward a character if they're perceived as being favored by the showrunners over other characters. Some instances it might be true and some is just imagined by some people watching.

 

Linda Gray(Sue Ellen from Dallas) did a recent "Random Roles" interview for The Onion AV Club and she told this story of when she wanted to direct an episode of Dallas and the resistance from TPTB:

 

AVC: You were brave then to take on directing episodes on that show, knowing all the hijinks that you were going to have to corral by going behind the camera. How did that come about?

LG: I wrote a very long piece about it in my book because I felt that, in the end, that it would help women directors. And it has. I was very truthful in my book. And what happened was, at the end of season eight I went to my producers—it was the time to negotiate for the next two years—and I said, “I would like to direct.” I had been studying with a French woman director, whom I adored. And I said, look, I don’t want to go in there and say, “I want to direct and and you’re going to let me direct, blah blah blah.” I didn’t want to be that person. I wanted to go in with a solid bag of my solid work, my homework, and I did it. I said to my director I was studying with, “Tell me when you feel that I’m ready.” So after a long time, she said, “Okay. You’re ready.”

So I went in at the end of season eight and I said, “I’m really tired of Sue Ellen drinking and having affairs. And the world is changing and women are changing and I really would like to direct.” And I said, “I don’t want money, I’m not asking for money, I’m just asking to direct one in 52 episodes. The next 52.” And they said no.

AVC: Wow.

LG: And they said, “Is that your final negotiation?” You know, it’s a lot more involved, but the bottom line is, I said, “That’s it. That’s what I want. I’m not asking for more money, blah blah blah.” So they said no. And so I said, “Well, okay.” And so basically I was fired at the end of season eight.

So I told Larry, “I’m not coming back.” And he said, “What do you mean you’re not coming back?” So he went in, and he said, “If she goes, I go.” So that’s another Larry Hagman prankster, right? Coming from a good place, but still, Larry Hagman would never have left that show. Even if everybody left. Anyway, it sounded good, it made him feel good, he kind of puffed up, and in my head I can envision him riding in in a white Stetson on a white horse, saying, “I’ll save the day.” And it didn’t matter to me. I didn’t care. I said, “If I’m fired I’m fired. If they take me back, great.”

So they hired me for one. One episode. And so I stepped up, did it, and I felt that it would be great for future young women directors.

AVC: It looks like you did a few more after that?

LG: Yeah! Well, because they liked what I did. It was great for women, because I did it, and that was in the ’80s. I speak to young women directors now, and it’s still a male industry. So they’re inching toward it, but I thought it would be better by now.

 

http://www.avclub.com/article/linda-gray-dallas-hijinks-and-playing-first-transg-226556

Edited October 17, 2015 by VCRTracking

[SparedTurkey]

 

The bumbling dad bothers me greatly because it effects both genders (making men idiots and women responsible for all things domestic).

As a viewer, my goal is interesting TV. Main characters who are tropes who bring nothing new to the table is lazy writing and I do not like it. I have no time for sitcoms revolving around an imbecilic dad.

I have said it before - but I just don't think this trope is that common. Other than the Simpsons I am struggling to come up with the bumbling dad stereotype. Even if it is common, it isn't the prevailing portrayal of men on tv. And if it isn't interesting to you, that is fine - no one is forcing you to watch it.

 

 

They said that their future wives would stay home with their children - children should not be in daycare. I asked them why they wouldn't be the one to stay home and they said that women are better than men at domestic stuff.

So, no, I don't think that the bumbling dad trope is a non-issue.

So the bumbling dad tropes have caused your coworkers sexist attitudes? Perhaps the bumbling dad trope  is more reflective of current male attitudes and those sitcoms should really be considered a documentary then?

[kili]

Other than the Simpsons I am struggling to come up with the bumbling dad stereotype.

Start with Ray on "Everybody Loves Raymond" and Jim on "According to Jim". Then add in countless commercials and movies and top off with books. Just google Bumbling Dad Trope and there is tonnes of stuff.

 

So the bumbling dad tropes have caused your coworkers sexist attitudes? Perhaps the bumbling dad trope  is more reflective of current male attitudes and those sitcoms should really be considered a documentary then?

So, there are no issues with the portrayal of women in media except in documentaries? All the sexist portrayals and stereotypes of women are fine in fiction because they aren't factual? 

 

Media helps to frame our view of norm. Yes, the bumbling dad trope has its genesis in the idea that a woman's place is in the home and domestic tasks are below the attention range of men (note  how they always get better when forced to do it - they can do it, they just can't be bothered). No, my co-workers don't think sitcoms are documentaries. Just as women know that fashion magazines are photoshopped doesn't mean that it doesn't re-inforce unhealthy body images. These are not new concepts.

 

Every time we have a gender based stereotype, it hits both ways. Boys are good at math=girls are not as good at math.  Men can't take care of the baby=Women must take care of the baby. 

 

I think it's important to recognize that stereotyping based on gender, any gender, is not a good thing. It helps us all to be seen as a person first (and not defined by our gender).

 

I have no problem with saying that men get stereotyped and that isn't right. I also have no problems with saying that female stereotypes are far more restrictive, far more prevalent and do far more harm. Admitting one doesn't mean denying the other.

Edited October 18, 2015 by kili

[SparedTurkey]

 

Start with Ray on "Everybody Loves Raymond" and Jim on "According to Jim"

Right yes, I should have specified. I meant current sitcoms. Not to mention that there are many sitcoms past and present where the bumbling dad is not present. Even within the sitcom world there are a many different portrayals. For every Raymond Barone there was a Dan Connor and a Phil Dunphy. From what I can see in the current sitcom landscape there are very few/almost one that I can think of. In light of that - I am failing to see how this is a serious issue that warrants attention.

 

 

Media helps to frame our view of norm. Yes, the bumbling dad trope has its genesis in the idea that a woman's place is in the home and domestic tasks are below the attention range of men (note  how they always get better when forced to do it - they can do it, they just can't be bothered)

Well sure - but that wasn't the argument. What seemed to be suggested was that men are being irreversibly harmed by the bumbling dad trope and that needs to be considered above all else. I just think that is complete crap and I responded to that. While the media frames our view of the norm, one small section cannot be viewed on its own, but as a whole. And in light of that, I just don't see the bumbling dad as a big problem for men. Not when viewed as part of the whole.

 

 

I think it's important to recognize that stereotyping based on gender, any gender, is not a good thing. It helps us all to be seen as a person first (and not defined by our gender).

And all I am saying is priorities. Plus, while stereotypes are not great, when weighed and balanced against the whole picture - it isn't a big deal for certain groups in society.

[kathyk24]

I think writers are more likely to kill off female characters than male ones. Has a female character good or bad been allowed to survive? On Criminal Minds several main and recurring roles have been written off while having only one male leave. Grimm killed off Nick's aunt mother and girlfriend while leaving his male friends alone.

[DearEvette]

I think writers are more likely to kill off female characters than male ones. Has a female character good or bad been allowed to survive? On Criminal Minds several main and recurring roles have been written off while having only one male leave. Grimm killed off Nick's aunt mother and girlfriend while leaving his male friends alone.

 

That is an actual trope called 'Fridging.'  It is based on a Green Lantern issue where a villain stuffed the hero's dead girlfriend in a refrigerator to find.   It refers to when a character is killed off for the sole purpose of causing the hero agony so the plot can then be all about his reaction to her death.   While any character close to the hero can get fridged, women are disproportionately the victims of fridging and it is done primarily so we can witness another trope in play, exploring the hero's Manpain.

[kili]

While any character close to the hero can get fridged, women are disproportionately the victims of fridging and it is done primarily so we can witness another trope in play, exploring the hero's Manpain.

Isn't this a side-effect of the fact that most of the main characters (on shows where somebody might die) are men, so their significant others are more likely to be female? It is a way to make an otherwise strong character vulnerable. Plus, unattached characters are unhappy characters and stories are usually about overcoming something. 

 

We do see the reverse as well. Sydney from Alias starts out with her fiancé being killed in the pilot. Emma on "Once Upon a Time" has had several of her love interests die in her arms (her first love Neal, Graham and August...they even had her Dad kill her current boyfriend right in front of her...but her son managed to reverse that....her son also died and was revived along the way). It was actually a running joke in the first season that all the men died. 

 

Grimm is an interesting case. Nick generally kills several men per episode, so the death count of men on that show is quite high. His Aunt needed to die so that they could set up the premise and I actually liked that she was a woman. They could have had the character be his Uncle die for all the exact nature of the relative matters, but making it a female that kicked all kinds of a$$ even as she was dying of cancer was a nice touch. His mother was likewise a kick-a$$ woman in a dangerous job, but her killing made less sense (was the actress unavailable?). The killing of Juliette is because they had made a hash of her character. They do have two decent female character in Rosalee  and Trouble and a so-so character in Adalin. They have killed off male recurring characters (which is what Nick's Mom was - Mouse, Renard's Brother, the male FBI guy). It's unfortunate that there does not appear to be a single female police officer in Portland because maybe some of Nick's LEO friends could have been female.

 

Now, Arrow is a case where the life-expectancy of female characters is quite low. If you are a female in a relationship with Oliver, you better keep your will up to date. Never date a super-hero. 

 

As we get more female main characters and super-hero (trying to be optimistic), we should see a more even distribution of the genders of the fridgees. 

 

Where the killing of female characters is more troublesome, IMO, is when there isn't an inherent danger in the show. This is going in the way-back machine, but the first seasons of Law and Order had an interesting example of this. A police officer main character died in the initial seasons, but that seemed reasonable since it is an inherently dangerous job. The killing of the female ADA seemed much more gratuitous (she was hit by a drunk driver while driving her drunk colleague home) because her job is not dangerous, she could have just gone to another job (like her predecessor did) and we rarely delved into the personal lives of the characters anyway. It just seemed there to give the characters a chance to look pained for a few episodes. 

 

I do think that writers have a greater tendency to kill female characters as they exit the show than they do male characters (who simply go get another job or move to another town). An example of this that breaks the super-hero dating trope is Buffy. She had three major boyfriends on the show - Angel, Riley and Spike. Angel and Riley left town (and the show) instead of dying.  So, maybe my hope for gender-balanced fridging is too optimistic. 

Edited October 18, 2015 by kili

[VCRTracking]

It just seemed there to give the chapters a chance to look pained for a few episodes.

 

And not even that. They addressed it at the end of the next season's premiere and that was it. The episode took place months later so whatever grieving that went on happened offscreen.

Edited October 18, 2015 by VCRTracking

[jhlipton]

Re OitNB: I'm at episode 5 of Season 3, so I don't know if he's coming back, but Bennet was one of my favorite characters.  Not as high as Suzanne, Puissey, Red, or (my personal favorite) Nicki.  (Alex and Piper are among the least favorite characters.)

 

Shows with strong female characters tend to be cancelled quickly (worse if they're black -- see Sleepy Hollow and Minority Report).  I don't know how anyone can watch the fantastic acting Nicole Beharie does (even in the dregs of Season 2) and not have Abbie as a favorite character,

[DearEvette]

Isn't this a side-effct of the fact that most of the main characters (on shows where somebody might die) are men, so their significant others are more likely to be female? It is a way to make an otherwise strong character vulnerable. Plus, unattached characters are unhappy characters and stories are usually about overcoming something.

 

Yes, definitely.  Male main characters are more predominant so of course fridging of a female is also more predominant.  But it can be any main character.  The main thing about the concept of fridging isn't that someone got killed.  I mean, shows kill people of both genders all the time.  It is the fact that the person got killed solely to explore how their death affects the hero.  A lot of people dislike it as a trope because it feels like lazy plotting and it makes the person who died feel very disposable regardless of how much they contributed to the show or how much potential story they have left.  Sort of like.... 'hmmm Our Hero has already done a lot of things and we are running out of plots. What can we have him do next?  I know, he hasn't lost a loved one yet.  What if we kill his girlfriend so he can go on a revenge journey?  That will give us lots of stuff to play off of for awhile.'  

 

For me a good example of this is Carter from Person Of Interest.  From a story standpoint there was no logical reason to kill off Carter, especially since they already pre-fridged Reese's girlfriend before the pilot and that is why he was all homeless and angry.  But I guess it was time for him to spiral into an abyss again, so let's kill off one of the people he most respects and probably is kinda-sorta in love with on the down-low.  And boy did it make for a great next episode with Reese going all Johnny Cash 'Hurt' and raining down fire and brimstone on people.  People fanboied the hell out of that episode.  So I guess it worked in the short run.

 

OI also think it is something that writers are attracted to attaching to a male heroic character because it allows a man to show vulnerability and painful emotions which are things people still don't necessarily automatically associate with men.

[Danielg342]

Well sure - but that wasn't the argument. What seemed to be suggested was that men are being irreversibly harmed by the bumbling dad trope and that needs to be considered above all else.

Which is not what I've said. I've never called it “the most important problem there is”- I've described it simply as a problem. Big difference.

[VCRTracking]

This still makes me sad. Even though as a kid at the time I was like "Yeah Worf is going to avenge her by killing Duras!"

 

Edited October 18, 2015 by VCRTracking

[galax-arena]

Which is not what I've said. I've never called it “the most important problem there is”- I've described it simply as a problem. Big difference.

For the record, I'm not in favor of stereotypes about incompetent dads either, because I think it lends to gender essentialist attitudes. However, the problem I had with your earlier comments was that you were drawing a parallel between the men targeted by those stereotypes and minorities like black people. And there is just no comparison between the two. In the realm of sex and gender, men are privileged. In the realm of race, black people are marginalized. The idea that we shouldn't play Oppression Olympics works when we're talking about two different minority groups, e.g. white women versus MOC, gay white men versus straight women, Asians versus Latinos, etc. But it's not meant to give an out to a group that's privileged against a group that's marginalized. You're right that it shouldn't be a competition... and it isn't. It really is no competition when men hold almost all the cards. 

 

So, yeah, I'm all for getting rid of that stereotype (although I agree with SparedTurkey that its prevalence in current media is largely overstated). And I do think that media influences society and vice versa. But I'm not for drawing comparisons to the portrayal of black thugs on television, or acting like it's on par with what women face in the media. "A problem is a problem" is reductive. Maybe you didn't say that it's the biggest problem there is, but the implication with "a problem is a problem" is that it's as much of an issue as the sexist depiction of women, and I just don't agree. Men have much richer, varied portrayals of themselves in the media compared to women to balance that sort of shit out. 

 

(And of course this is leaving aside all the intersectionality issues.) 

Edited October 19, 2015 by galax-arena

[Danielg342]

For the record, I'm not in favor of stereotypes about incompetent dads either, because I think it lends to gender essentialist attitudes. However, the problem I had with your earlier comments was that you were drawing a parallel between the men targeted by those stereotypes and minorities like black people. And there is just no comparison between the two. In the realm of sex and gender, men are privileged. In the realm of race, black people are marginalized. The idea that we shouldn't play Oppression Olympics works when we're talking about two different minority groups, e.g. white women versus MOC, gay white men versus straight women, Asians versus Latinos, etc. But it's not meant to give an out to a group that's privileged against a group that's marginalized. You're right that it shouldn't be a competition... and it isn't. It really is no competition when men hold almost all the cards. 

 

So, yeah, I'm all for getting rid of that stereotype (although I agree with SparedTurkey that its prevalence in current media is largely overstated). And I do think that media influences society and vice versa. But I'm not for drawing comparisons to the portrayal of black thugs on television, or acting like it's on par with what women face in the media. "A problem is a problem" is reductive. Maybe you didn't say that it's the biggest problem there is, but the implication with "a problem is a problem" is that it's as much of an issue as the sexist depiction of women, and I just don't agree. Men have much richer, varied portrayals of themselves in the media compared to women to balance that sort of shit out. 

 

(And of course this is leaving aside all the intersectionality issues.) 

 

First of all, I'm sorry...but I don't think it should ever be okay to mistreat someone else based on their skin colour and/or gender. Just because the white man has- in North America- never been oppressed should never mean it's suddenly okay to start.

 

White men may not have nearly "as big" a problem as minorities do...but that doesn't mean they can't face problematic scenarios and tropes.

 

Second of all, SparedTurkey used the argument that "numbers means this problem doesn't exist". So I said that if we're going to play the numbers game, then by that extension, it means that racism doesn't exist because...numbers. Yet it does. The number of characters doesn't change the idea that a trope can be problematic.

 

Not once did I ever assert that the "black thug stereotype" is on the same level as the "bumbling dad" stereotype. I simply said that you cannot get rid of a problematic trope based on sheer numbers alone. That's all.

Edited October 19, 2015 by Danielg342

[UYI]

For those of you who haven't seen it and are interested, there is a great documentary called Miss Representation that deals with the representation of women in the media, and includes a great deal of talk about women on TV. It's on Netflix.

 

Here's the trailer:

 

Edited October 19, 2015 by UYI

[Irlandesa]

First of all, I'm sorry...but I don't think it should ever be okay to mistreat someone else based on their skin colour and/or gender. Just because the white man has- in North America- never been oppressed should never mean it's suddenly okay to start.

 

White men may not have nearly "as big" a problem as minorities do...but that doesn't mean they can't face problematic scenarios and tropes.

I am not convinced that it's starting.  The focus seems to be around the "bumbling dad" trope which seems to be disliked and therefore is problematic.  I don't see it as problematic or "oppression" for a few reasons. 

 

I looked at lists of sitcoms from the 90s, 2000s and current, and the competent father far outweights the "bumbling father."  While the "bumbling father" could be considered a trope, a trope does not mean ubiquitous.  This is where we get into issues of representation.  The problem with the "black thug" trope was that for a while it was the majority of black people with speaking parts who appeared on shows.  But with fathers, the gamut is well represented. 

 

Second, we get to issues of why diversity behind the scenes is so important.  Tim Taylor?  Ray Barone?  Bumbling dads, to be sure, but also written/created by the actors who portrayed them.  Other bumbling dads?  Likely created by white men.  The reason for that is less about "treating men badly" and rather these men making a comedic choice.  If the dad is the main character, the easiest way to keep him at the center of the comedy is to have him screw up as it's much easier to mine comedy from people screwing up than being super competent.

[Minneapple]

The problem with the "black thug" trope was that for a while it was the majority of black people with speaking parts who appeared on shows.

 

Yes, exactly. The bumbling dad usually refers to white men, and since there are a billion representations of white men on TV, somehow the bumbling dad trope doesn't concern me too much.

[Danielg342]

I feel like this is going in circles, so I don't know how many more times I'll respond to this topic. One last word:

 

I am not convinced that it's starting.

 

...and I'm not saying that "the oppression of white men" is starting. Just that it never should start.

 

 

 

The focus seems to be around the "bumbling dad" trope which seems to be disliked and therefore is problematic.  I don't see it as problematic or "oppression" for a few reasons.

I looked at lists of sitcoms from the 90s, 2000s and current, and the competent father far outweights the "bumbling father."  While the "bumbling father" could be considered a trope, a trope does not mean ubiquitous.  This is where we get into issues of representation.  The problem with the "black thug" trope was that for a while it was the majority of black people with speaking parts who appeared on shows.  But with fathers, the gamut is well represented.

Second, we get to issues of why diversity behind the scenes is so important.  Tim Taylor?  Ray Barone?  Bumbling dads, to be sure, but also written/created by the actors who portrayed them.  Other bumbling dads?  Likely created by white men.  The reason for that is less about "treating men badly" and rather these men making a comedic choice.  If the dad is the main character, the easiest way to keep him at the center of the comedy is to have him screw up as it's much easier to mine comedy from people screwing up than being super competent.

 

Thing is, the "black thug" trope would still be a problem today even if numbers indicate that it shouldn't. That's why I think numbers is a very poor indicator of the "power" of the problem.

 

Besides, I have yet to find a TV dad nowadays that's as much a household name as Homer is or as Tim Taylor or Ray Barone were back in their days. Plus we still aren't that far removed from the days of Alan Harper, who's three problematic tropes in one (the awkward guy who gets made fun of for how much sex he doesn't have, the husband made out to be worthless because he allows his ex-wife to dominate him, and the "bumbling dad" trope).

 

Doesn't matter to me that white male writers created Homer, Barone, Taylor and Harper. It doesn't make it any more acceptable.

 

It's also been pointed out many times before that this trope isn't just problematic for men but for women too- if the men cannot be accounted for to be responsible, then women must be the "responsible" one in the family, and that's not a good message to send. Furthermore, it must be asked why this is a "comedic" trope- if sitcoms are not supposed to be "serious" storytelling, with women only being shown to be capable in "non-serious" settings, does it mean that when things are serious that women can't be counted on?

[Irlandesa]

Besides, I have yet to find a TV dad nowadays that's as much a household name as Homer is or as Tim Taylor or Ray Barone were back in their days.

That's because television viewing is scattered.  Household names are harder to come by in general. 

 

Plus we still aren't that far removed from the days of Alan Harper

Had to Google the name.  One dude.

 

Doesn't matter to me that white male writers created Homer, Barone, Taylor and Harper. It doesn't make it any more acceptable.

I guess we're at an impasse because I'm not convinced it is unacceptable or problematic considering "dads are dumb" isn't something I encounter much.  And numbers matter.  They do.  They absolutely 100% do.  In fact, one of my arguments about women on television is that I want more women so we can have the variety of anti-hero characters like Walter Whites.  

 

[kathyk24]

Supernatural was the show I meant to mention when I talked about a show killing off all female characters. Regarding dads on television for every bumbling dad we have a loving single dad so they balance each other out. I never understood why there were more single fathers on television when in real life single moms are more common.

[Wax Lion]

When I look at the bumbling dad trope, I don't see something oppressive to men. In the end the narrative at work is about how if a guy cares really deeply, it's okay to keep messing up and when your put-together wife who cleans up your messes shows the slightest bit of annoyance, she's an unbearable nag. I can't think of a mainstream series where the mom is a total screw-up but she cares about her kids so it's okay.

 

 

Isn't this a side-effect of the fact that most of the main characters (on shows where somebody might die) are men, so their significant others are more likely to be female? It is a way to make an otherwise strong character vulnerable. Plus, unattached characters are unhappy characters and stories are usually about overcoming something.

 

For me, there are two key factors behind "Women in Refrigerators."

 

One is that a lot of times these characters are just seen by writers by their relationship to a man. They're not characters on their own. For the most part, the audience aren't going to react because they've grown to like and will miss the character (save for the viewers who tend to be drawn to under-used characters). The audience's reaction to her death is all about how it makes her boyfriend feel. DearEvette put this nicely.

 

I think it was Masie Williams who mentioned recently how you'll see casting sheets go out where a male character is described by his skills and his personality, that same call sheet will describe his girlfriend just in terms of looks. He gets to be defined by his intelligence and medical training, she's defined by her ability to be cute and sexy at once. TV has had a few Boyfriends in Refrigerators and it too pinpoints bad writing.

 

However, as WiR starts with comics I think it says something about a male-dominated industry handing a female character in a shared universe. A lot of the characters on the WiR list were great under one writer and then they languished either under bad writing or were just ignored until they came up in "Who can we kill to give this story impact?" meetings.

 

There was a companion piece to WiR called Dead Men Defrosting and largely the point was that, yes, male characters in comics get killed too but they're far more likely to come back. I think that's where comics being male dominated matters, when you have mostly guys writing you're more likely to find someone passionate about bringing back that quirky d-list male character, but there are far less chance of a d-list female character having a champion. That's a dynamic that I think happens in a lot of male-dominated writers rooms for TV shows.