Gender On Television: It's Like Feminism Never Happened

[SparedTurkey]

 

In the realm of sex and gender, men are privileged...The idea that we shouldn't play Oppression Olympics works when we're talking about two different minority groups...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.

I just wanted to point out that I really loved everything you said - because it is a lot more eloquent than the way I have been phrasing it.

 

 

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.

First off, in NO way are there enough portrayals of minorities on television for that to be a valid argument. Second, what I have said is that to get a full understanding, the bumbling dad trope cannot be looked at without reference to the big picture. Like Irlandesa said below - when it comes to white fathers, they are so well represented that it isn't 'problematic' for a few shows to have had a bumbling dad trope. It isn't opressive and it isn't even likely to start an opression movement against white men.

 

Which brings me back to my other point - It makes me furious when any discussion of feminism (or racism, or LGBTQI representation) turns into a discussion of how white men are becoming oppressed. It just isn't true. It takes focus away from the real issues - being a lack of representation of minorities in this particular case - because for some reason we are coded to soothe their egos and make sure they know they will be taken care off. I don't see it as 'marginalising' white men to point out that when it comes to portrayals of them in the media - they don't have a problem. Never have. Women, black people, Asian people, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer, muslims etc. - they DO still have problems even getting on screen and THAT is the main issue.  And yes, before you ask, I will fight for all of them to be taken better care of in all ways, including media portrayals (in this case being TV)

 

 

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.

 

Except that the 'black thug' trope is completely coded in racist stereotypes and was the one portrayal of a black person on television for many many years (still is often). White men have never had to face racism nor sexism. Plus, I don't know what television you are watching but the numbers these days wouldn't really support that trope anyway.

 

While I would love for us all to be dickering over the quality of media portrayals (as with anti-bumbling dads) most of us are still waiting to be represented enough on television to be able to join those arguments. For that reason I say we need to look at our priorities.

[kili]

Except that the 'black thug' trope is completely coded in racist stereotypes and was the one portrayal of a black person on television for many many years (still is often). White men have never had to face racism nor sexism.

Why speak in such absolutes? This is what gets the "Not all <whatever>" people chiming in. When one sees a statement like "was the one portrayal of a black person on television" it makes one start wondering when that time is?  All I can do is roll through my head of black characters in every era that were not thugs. It's not even hard to do. When somebody hears "White men have never had to face racism nor sexism" that's patently ridiculous (unless one lives in a box, everyone can probably site some example where they were treated as a stereotype).  

 

All that has to happen is to change "one" to "almost always"/"frequently" and "never" to "rarely".  Then it takes that nonsense off the table. 

 

And its not about placating and its not about soothing egos, it's about reasonable debate and standard advice on how to have a discussion that doesn't degrade into tangents. If we want to take "Not all <whatever>" off the table, we need to stop serving it up on a platter.

[Irlandesa]

And its not about placating and its not about soothing egos, it's about reasonable debate and standard advice on how to have a discussion that doesn't degrade into tangents. If we want to take "Not all <whatever>" off the table, we need to stop serving it up on a platter.

This is the difference beween systematic racism/sexism vs. anecdotal misandry.  I think much of the discussion of gender (and racism and LGBTQ issues) focuses  on the systematic aspect and in that there is implicit room for "Not all...."  I don't need it to be said for me to know it's there.   And most of the systems are still controlled by white men in the US.

[kili]

I think much of the discussion of gender (and racism and LGBTQ issues) focuses  on the systematic aspect and in that there is implicit room for "Not all...."  I don't need it to be said for me to know it's there.  

If the debate is treated that way, it can remain focused on that. It's when absolutes like "the one portrayal" and "never"  that derails the conversation. 

 

I work in an industry where we have to convince people to change their minds every day. Where we have to tell them "there is a better way" or even "you are wrong". So, there is a lot of focus on how you say that efficiently without being dragged off onto tangents, so it's something I think about. If people are getting furious about "Not all <whatever>" tangents being dragged in, the thing to do is to stop setting up the perfect environment for that to happen (or be prepared to be angry a lot of the time). 

 

The majority of people are hardwired to examine truths that are put before them. Absolutes that are easily proved wrong (even with exceptions) are setting up an atmosphere that encourages the tangent. Any relationship counsellor is going to tell their clients that starting out an argument with "You always" is going to end up in a mess. 

 

I'm not denying that systematic sexism/racism is not a problem. It very much is. 

Edited October 19, 2015 by kili

[Cobalt Stargazer]

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.

 

Except Phil isn't really non-bumbling, IMO. I remember an episode of Modern Family where Claire took their son Luke to a psychiatrist or something because, in her own words, "I'm afraid he's becoming like you, Phil!" Her talking head segment says, "I knew I was wrong the moment I said the words, but sometimes.......I wonder." They go on to show Phil and Luke watching one of those paint-mixing machines while shimmying their upper bodies back and forth, and Luke says, "Hey, Mom, he's right, it does look like it isn't moving!" Maybe that's not so much "bumbling" as it is just being weird, but I can't imagine serious-and-more-than-a-little-anal-retentive Claire doing the same thing. And I doubt anyone would laugh if she did.

 

 

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.

 

Then Buffy Summers has Man-Pain? Since she put a sword through Angel's chest and all, and it didn't even take, more's the pity. More than that, it caused the character to become mired (IMO) in the idea that love equals misery, which is why her lighter relationship with Riley didn't work out. His insecurities over her not crying about him aside, she never really let him get that close to her in the wake of Angel's departure. And that's not even bringing up Spike's self-serving crap.

 

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.

 

Didn't Michionne's introduction on The Walking Dead involve her leading her zombie-fied boyfriend around on a leash, having removed his lower jaw so he couldn't eat anyone?

 

As for whether or not men are being persecuted, I don't see why they would have to be. As others have said, Reverse Whatever might not be as much of a problem, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist at all.

Edited October 23, 2015 by Cobalt Stargazer

[SparedTurkey]

 

Except Phil isn't really non-bumbling, IMO. I remember an episode of Modern Family where Claire took their son Luke to a psychiatrist or something because, in her own words, "I'm afraid he's becoming like you, Phil!" Her talking head segment says, "I knew I was wrong the moment I said the words, but sometimes.......I wonder." They go on to show Phil and Luke watching one of those paint-mixing machines while shimmying their upper bodies back and forth, and Luke says, "Hey, Mom, he's right, it does look like it isn't moving!" Maybe that's not so much "bumbling" as it is just being weird, but I can't imagine serious-and-more-than-a-little-anal-retentive Claire doing the same thing. And I doubt anyone would laugh if she did.

Phil and Claire are one of the oldest romantic tropes in the book - someone uptight with someone messy. But Phil is too attentive, too involved with his kids and doesn't screw up on the regular to be considered as an example of a bumbling trope. Worth considering what the reaction would be if it was Claire that was the messy one. Doubt it would be as positive as the feedback Phil gets.

[Wax Lion]

Except Phil isn't really non-bumbling, IMO.

 

 

Phil and Luke Dunphy are different from Ray Barone in that Ray got flandarized while Modern Family has explored these characters further. As the show progressed, the POV is more that they have an unusual approach to the world and sometimes that's what you need. It's kinda like Hayley who started as a superficial dim bulb but they show has shown her thriving in her world.

 

 

Then Buffy Summers has Man-Pain? Since she put a sword through Angel's chest and all, and it didn't even take, more's the pity.

 

Angel's death wasn't all about her feelings, it was the conclusion to an arc about Angel who was a pretty complicated character at that point. You might argue some of Buffy's other boyfriends were fridged (ones that lasted an episode or two) but Angel is not a fridged character. Plus since he came back pretty quickly he'd fall in the Dead Men Defrosting list.

 

 

More than that, it caused the character to become mired (IMO) in the idea that love equals misery, which is why her lighter relationship with Riley didn't work out

 

I liked Riley. I thought he could have a Wonder Woman/Steve Trevor dynamic, she may be strong but he's got (pseudo, in Riley's case) military resources and tactics that should have complimented her slayer powers.

 

But I always thought that was the real problem with the relationship. I don't know if the writers are to blame or if it started with the audience but we've gone backwards on the idea of accepting a romance where the man is physically weaker. By now, we're several decades into the idea that the Wonder Woman/Steve Trevor relationship "just doesn't make sense" and shipping her with Superman. It's ridiculous that we still think a man in a relationship with a much stronger woman is emasculated as if physical strength is all he can bring to an opposite-sex relationship.

[Wax Lion]

I wanted to see if anyone in this thread has been watching Crazy Ex-Girlfriend which has been amazing.

 

First let's talk about the title and the terrible marketing, which looks like the show is build on a "Bitches be crazy" trope. It's giving me a bad flashback to how all those ads with Maggie Q in something skimpy prompted a lot of people who would have loved Nikita to initially skip it. (Oh, CW, do you have a clue to how to market a show?)

 

There are a few missteps but it's not close to being a misogynistic show. Brilliantly, the first episode included a musical number about the double standards in what we expect out of men and women to keep up their appearances. It gets the message across while being entertaining.

 

 

Unfortunately, that doesn't include the coda to the episode where Nipsey Hussle goes through his "bitches to apologize to" list.

 

In the second episode, it introduces Valencia, the girlfriend of the guy the lead character uproots her life over. For a single episode, she gets a surprising amount of development. She starts out like a stereotype of the superficial California airhead (except nonwhite) but the show treats her like there's someone worth knowing if you take the time, including a moment when Rebecca tries to get Valencia to realize she was molested by a teacher. (And that scene really managed to be funny even with the dark topic.)

 

Overall, the show is pretty sympathetic to its "crazy ex-girlfriend" character, even while seeing her as someone who has major mental health problems (though everyone is turning out to be their own kind of crazy). It reminds me a bit of Girls, except the terrible behavior doesn't make me hate them all.

[Raja]

I wanted to see if anyone in this thread has been watching Crazy Ex-Girlfriend which has been amazing.

 

First let's talk about the title and the terrible marketing, which looks like the show is build on a "Bitches be crazy" trope. It's giving me a bad flashback to how all those ads with Maggie Q in something skimpy prompted a lot of people who would have loved Nikita to initially skip it. (Oh, CW, do you have a clue to how to market a show?)

 

 

I remember that first scene on Nikita and it was the man fallen all over skinny Maggie with all of the equally clad Maxim model extras running around which flipped my strange reason to give up on this show switch.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

From the Unpopular Opinions thread, since discussion of it better fits this thread.

 

But that's one of the things that pisses me off about 'the moonlighting curse' - when they try to keep the two of them apart, the writers (generally a room full of boys who generally can't write women for shit anyway) almost always seem to go to the women being horrible because that fits into their crippled view of relationships. 

 

Open question - is there really some mystery/secret recipe for writing a female character? I've heard that there are rules for it, but I don't think anyone's ever said what those rules are. I'm not in the TV industry, but I do write creatively, and I think my female characters are just as well-rounded as the male ones, and that there isn't some formula you have to follow. But outside of what I (still) consider an obnoxious generalization that men's perspective on relationships is crippled, I'm interested to hear from other people about what ostensibly makes writing a female character so difficult.

[Chaos Theory]

From the Unpopular Opinions thread, since discussion of it better fits this thread.

 

 

Open question - is there really some mystery/secret recipe for writing a female character? I've heard that there are rules for it, but I don't think anyone's ever said what those rules are. I'm not in the TV industry, but I do write creatively, and I think my female characters are just as well-rounded as the male ones, and that there isn't some formula you have to follow. But outside of what I (still) consider an obnoxious generalization that men's perspective on relationships is crippled, I'm interested to hear from other people about what ostensibly makes writing a female character so difficult.

 

 

Well writing a strong woman is more complicated then writing a strong man.   I have heard it said from multiple sources both on and off my television;  men can have it all,  women can't.   One of the reasons I enjoyed the first couple of seasons of Scandal was the strong central lead and her career was given center stage and her romance was given second billing but lately she hardly if ever goest work and it is all about the romance.    In Once Upon A Time there was a potential for a juicy story about Emma being the Dark One but instead they wrote a trite romance and then gave the male Hook the truly big bad stuff to do.      

 

Writing a female character is a lot harder because you are never going to make everyone happy.   I have no problem with writing romance into plots for female characters if they don't drown out what else is going on.  For better or worse I think Pretty Little Liars does a fair job of it.  Yes each of the main girls have love interests but the main ship is their friendship.    Same with Jessica Jones (even if it is the first season)  Jessica and Trish both had romantic interests but neither got in the way of who they are or took over the plot of the story.  

 

I think that is my major requirement for a love interest for a female lead.    They can't change who the character really is.  They can't make the character someone I don't recognize.   

[Julia]

outside of what I (still) consider an obnoxious generalization that men's perspective on relationships is crippled

Actually, the generalization was, as I believe I touched on in the response you chose not to move, about male writer's rooms, not men in general. As I pointed out there, I assume that given the power to be the only voice in the room, women would impose their own cheap stereotypes.

Accuracy is a big help when writing women's voices, I find :)

[Jack Shaftoe]

 

Writing a female character is a lot harder because you are never going to make everyone happy.

 

Isn't that case for male characters too? I have yet to see a character of any importance without their fair share of detractors.

 

Anyway, it's not like the predominantly male screenwriters in Hollywood are much better at writing male characters in romantic situations than female ones.  It's a mess all around and I suspect it has more to do with what they think the viewers are looking for in terms of romance on screen than with the writers not knowing how to properly write female (or male) characters. And, as much as it pains me to say it, considering how many people would immediately claim "sizzling chemistry" when two characters insult each other all the time and (for me) the inexplicable popularity of protracted love triangles, the writers might up to something, alas.

 

Also, when writers try to prolong the will then or won't then nonsense for years, I haven't noticed the female characters being any more OOC than the male ones. Like the famous example of Ross and Rachel from Friends - both of them acted like complete idiots time and again, so that this sorry excuse of a relationship would remain in limbo for years.

[myril]

Well writing a strong woman is more complicated then writing a strong man.

 

Is it? I disagree, at least from a mere writing point of view. Writing an interesting, complex  character, what seems to be the definition for strong here, and an interesting, engaging story for them is always something that takes skills and hard work and is not done in a minute, regardless what gender or if human or alien or whatever. So many movies and shows are made with male protagonists driving the narrative, that writers and audience are used to see that point of view and those stories, and that just statistically the chance is already higher, that we get well written strong male characters. That is all that there is IMO. There are plenty of not so strong male characters around when looking at being interesting and complex, despite that the movies and shows still might be sold quite okay. Think the problem is not to write them, the problem is perception and expectation, and that a lot of people seem to tense up because of that, feeling they have to deliver better if writing a strong female character than if writing just the more or less usual strong male character. For me it's quite simple: Write more female protagonists. Some will be great strong characters, and if we have more of female protagonists overall I expect the number of interesting, complex aka strong female characters to grow rather by the way.

Edited December 13, 2015 by myril

[Irlandesa]

I wanted to see if anyone in this thread has been watching Crazy Ex-Girlfriend which has been amazing.

I agree.  And it's a great example of a character considered being a "strong" character even though she does so much that makes the feminist in me cringe.  But a strong character isn't "feminist hero" but rather a well rounded character and that she is.  She's a mess.  She has fantasy issues.  She has family issues.  She has issues.  She is not simply defined by the one action that sent her to West Covina. 

[UYI]

I'll say this much:

 

As far as daytime soaps go, there is NO guarantee, unfortunately, that female characters and/or the actresses themselves are going to be treated any better just because women are writing or producing the show. Some of the most infamous EPs/HWs in daytime history are women, women who seem to have a vendetta against their own gender. There have been plenty of men who have crapped on female characters/actresses in soaps, but also quite a few of them who wrote and treated them fairly. Meanwhile, I have PLENTY of examples of Jill Farren Phelps treated women/female characters like crap all throughout her history producing soaps (she's produced, in order: Santa Barbara, Guiding Light, Another World, One Life to Live, General Hospital, and The Young and the Restless). And some of those stories involve letting go pregnant actresses, too.

 

Granted, that's just an example of one genre, but it's something that needed to be pointed out.

Edited December 14, 2015 by UYI

[Wax Lion]

Sorry you pressed my button. Even though she's worked with different writers, every time Jill Faren Phelps took over a show the heroines became delicate damsels who inspire men to become stalkers (and in at least one case, a serial rapist -- even better, it was a storyline that got all smug about rapemance in soaps) and need their men to rescue them. The ones who don't get their strength taken away end up getting killed in some pretty violent storylines. Again, she may work with different writers every time but the same themes showing up again and again suggest she's directing the writing to those stories. I understand on Y&R there's doing an evil twin storyline that mirrors the Justine stupidity that happened when she was in charge of AW.

 

She has often left a soap in such a mess no one who follows in her footsteps can figure out how to fix things ( I can't think of a single show that got its fans back once she got her hands on it). I've learned her name so that I know to give up once she gets put in charge of a show, I know it's going to be terrible. (drawn in to her old shows.) Somehow the misogyny she brings to her shows tend to linger.

 

However, she keeps getting hired so I'd guess that the people who hire her want their shows to head in that direction.

[Dejana]

Soap writing has been its own unique disaster for the past decade, at least. Even before the daytime drama death spiral, most of the writers weren't fans of the genre themselves, regarded the (predominantly female) viewers as stupid and wrote accordingly. There was also severe lack of new blood, so the same terrible writers and producers got chance after chance. Networks spent decades blaming the ratings freefall of soaps entirely on outside factors (OJ trial, cable competition, working women) so shoddy show running got a monumental pass. Primetime TV has its own issues when it comes to women, to be certain, but I have more hopes for them than soaps.

[UYI]

Sorry you pressed my button. Even though she's worked with different writers, every time Jill Faren Phelps took over a show the heroines became delicate damsels who inspire men to become stalkers (and in at least one case, a serial rapist -- even better, it was a storyline that got all smug about rapemance in soaps) and need their men to rescue them. The ones who don't get their strength taken away end up getting killed in some pretty violent storylines. Again, she may work with different writers every time but the same themes showing up again and again suggest she's directing the writing to those stories. I understand on Y&R there's doing an evil twin storyline that mirrors the Justine stupidity that happened when she was in charge of AW.

 

She has often left a soap in such a mess no one who follows in her footsteps can figure out how to fix things ( I can't think of a single show that got its fans back once she got her hands on it). I've learned her name so that I know to give up once she gets put in charge of a show, I know it's going to be terrible. (drawn in to her old shows.) Somehow the misogyny she brings to her shows tend to linger.

 

However, she keeps getting hired so I'd guess that the people who hire her want their shows to head in that direction.

 

One thing that's always struck me as weird is how JFP has had at least three different characters named Courtney on three different soaps (AW, GH and Y&R), and all three of them have been dramatically/violently/painfully killed off. I bring this up because Courtney is actually her daughter's name (any soap fan familiar with JFP at the Daytime Emmys would recognize the quote "I LOVE YOU COURTNEY PHELPS"--and yes, said just like that.). Now, I think each Courtney was not particularly liked (with the exception of the one on GH--although she had enough detractors that on the GH forum she's known as She Who Shall Not Be Named [sWSNBN for short]), which might justify each offing, but it DOES sort of make me wonder what her relationship with her daughter is like that they are all killed off instead of simply leaving town, LOL.

Soap writing has been its own unique disaster for the past decade, at least. Even before the daytime drama death spiral, most of the writers weren't fans of the genre themselves, regarded the (predominantly female) viewers as stupid and wrote accordingly. There was also severe lack of new blood, so the same terrible writers and producers got chance after chance. Networks spent decades blaming the ratings freefall of soaps entirely on outside factors (OJ trial, cable competition, working women) so shoddy show running got a monumental pass. Primetime TV has its own issues when it comes to women, to be certain, but I have more hopes for them than soaps.

 

Which is weird because, in some ways, women decades back on soaps were probably written far better than they are now, despite women being more equal than ever (relatively speaking to some extent, but still), probably being more progressive than a lot of primetime in regards to women. It really is a shame, in that regard, how things have changed.

Edited December 14, 2015 by UYI

[Wax Lion]

Sadly, I feel the 80s was the peak time for women on scripted daytime TV. Not only did you have some great soap writers who could create compelling female characters (the late great Doug Marland, Bridget Dobson, Pam Long, Claire Labine even Harding Lemay came back for a minute) there was a short boom in animated programming that was pretty good to female characters. Robotech was written with a very mature perspective and characters like Lisa Hayes, Miriya Sterling and Rook Bartley felt like a big change to how heroines were presented to kids (it probably explains why the kids I knew who loved Robotech was pretty mixed in gender). Meanwhile GI Joe and Jemm and the Holograms were also pretty trailblazing. She-Ra was a lot more gendered but even that gave kids a strong female and let girls have their character in an action show.

 

Wow, for all the problems I have with JFP I did not notice the Courtney thing. That's amazing.

[Eucrid]

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

 

Exactly but these are stereotypes that feed each other. Someone above used Phil Dunphy as an example of not a bumbling Dad but he is and in turn that makes Claire the nag. That tends to make him a loveable fool and her annoying which feeds back to why the woman mentioned above prefers male characters. The bumbling Dad trope is sexist and feeds the ridiculous notion that women are better carers and should be at home with their kids.

[UYI]

Replying to Colbalt Stargazer from the Race & Ethnicity thread, because age among female love interests came up:

 

I remember an interview several years ago with Bitty Schram (Sharona from Monk) where she talked about how she's the same age as Johnny Depp, so it would make sense for them to be paired up together onscreen, but of course it's very rare to see that happen. So seeing/hearing of examples like the on Grandfathered is really nice. Of course, I'm also happy to hear about older woman/younger man couples--Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz were actually an example of this on I Love Lucy--Lucy was six years older than him (she was born in 1911, he was born in 1917), and they would occasionally give their birth year in interviews  as both being in 1914, so they had less of a stigma on them for being a married couple where the woman was older than the man (what's funny is that her second husband, Gary Morton, was even younger than Desi).

 

A funny (and completely coincidential, I'm sure) example of a TV couple being the same age are Michael Gross and Meredith Baxter on Family Ties--not only are they the exact same age, they even have the same birthday: June 21st, 1947. 

Edited December 21, 2015 by UYI

[Chaos Theory]

I have an honest question and it's one I am curious about. CBS Stalker got cancelled in large part due to negative reviews on it being very unfemale friendly. I watched it and although not a particularly good show I didn't see it as an offensive one either.

My question is that would popular shows like Law & Order SVU and Criminal Minds have gotten past the pilot phase is today's political climate. Both of them having so much worse?

Or was Stalker just a badly written show?

Edited December 21, 2015 by Chaos Theory

[Cobalt Stargazer]

This isn't precisely what you asked, but its related. I don't think Criminal Minds is as bad as some people think it is, and if anything, the show has swung too far in the opposite direction in an attempt to prove how equality minded the people behind the scenes are.

 

They've upped both the number of female serial killers and male victims, when in real life its the other way around. And then there's JJ, and....well...you know the argument there. I suppose I have to say I think their hearts are in the right place about it, but trying to satisfy some PC idea of female empowerment by annoying a fair-sized portion of the viewers is not the way to go about it, IMO.

 

As for SVU, I mostly gave up on the new episodes once the show became The Perils of Olivia Benson. I still like Rollins and Fin, but seeing them isn't worth enduring the all knowing, all seeing Benson. I've taken to pretending they're on a separate show.

 

I was one of the few people who liked Stalker, so of course it was doomed to be cancelled. I guess it depends on what's considered "unfriendly to females" in this (in my probably unpopular) overly sensitive climate.

[izabella]

I'm 48, so I remember pre-PC tv, lol.  There was less violence in general on tv, and there was far less graphic violence.

 

I never saw Stalker, so can't compare it to anything.  But I do know that there have been series pilots that I have turned off after the first few minutes because they start out with some kind of graphic, horrific murder, rape, or both rape and murder of a woman.  While there may be other shows I watch that do the same, apparently, I reach a saturation point and can't take it anymore, and do not want to add yet another show about women being raped and killed. 

[Cobalt Stargazer]

I'm 48, so I remember pre-PC tv, lol.  There was less violence in general on tv, and there was far less graphic violence.

 

Hey, I turned 48 this year, so I remember it too. But as I once said in the CM forum on this very site, if sex sells, so does violence. Particularly on American television because our standards are so backwards. We take out the sex and leave in the violence, which is why you can watch Saving Private Ryan with its many scenes of people killing each other and other battle-related gore on TNT, but women on TV have sex with their bras on. Unless you're watching HBO, which is another matter for another time.

 

I mostly watched Stalker because I love Maggie Q, but there always seems to be some kind of dissonance with shows like this, I don't think there's any evidence that says people like seeing women (or men, for that matter) hurt and killed. I mean, unless you're a psychotic, seeing pain inflicted on others isn't going to make you happy. But remember the old-school Lifetime movies, which were actually marketed towards women? How many times can you watch I Worked For My Stalker, I Lived Next Door To My Stalker, I Married My Stalker before you start to notice a theme? I find it very difficult to believe that A) men were the ones watching those movies and B) that men were responsible for making all of those movies.

Edited December 22, 2015 by Cobalt Stargazer

[ParadoxLost]

I have an honest question and it's one I am curious about. CBS Stalker got cancelled in large part due to negative reviews on it being very unfemale friendly. I watched it and although not a particularly good show I didn't see it as an offensive one either.

My question is that would popular shows like Law & Order SVU and Criminal Minds have gotten past the pilot phase is today's political climate. Both of them having so much worse?

Or was Stalker just a badly written show?

 

I don't think the comparison to CM and L&O SVU is apt.

 

I think Stalker failed because from the pilot, the male lead was demonstrating stalker behavior with his ex-wife and kid.  It gave a very 'anyone could become a stalker under certain circumstances' vibe to the show which was 1) annoying as hell and 2) made it impossible to like certain characters and team dynamics.

 

Generally speaking, procedurals require crime stories and tight friendship bonds bordering on familial amongst the investigative teams.  CM and SVU had/have this and Stalker didn't up until the time I gave up.  In the pilot, I remember thinking that Dylan McDermot's character would either learn not to be a stalker based on Maggie Q's stalker situation or would eventually get obsessed with her depending on whether they thought they were a broadcast procedural or were trying to be a cable show.

 

But actually, the blinds are what made me turn off in disgust.  It annoyed me that anyone would wake up every morning and open every blind in their home just so they could go to work and come home and close the blinds.  Every episode I saw ended that way; and I saw more than a few.  People with stalkers don't do that.  Hell, people don't do that.  It was such a manufactured way to try to create suspense.

 

So my vote is bad writing.

[proserpina65]

But actually, the blinds are what made me turn off in disgust.  It annoyed me that anyone would wake up every morning and open every blind in their home just so they could go to work and come home and close the blinds.  Every episode I saw ended that way; and I saw more than a few.  People with stalkers don't do that.  Hell, people don't do that.  It was such a manufactured way to try to create suspense.

 

Admittedly I have never been stalked, but I open almost all the blinds in my house every morning before I leave for work (except the ones in my bedroom which I practically never open no matter the time of day/year) and close them all at some point in the evening before I go to bed.  I open them primarily to let in light during the day - and so my cats can look out the windows without damaging the blinds - and then close them to keep my evening activities from being visible to passersby.  I didn't realize this was unusual behavior.

[possibilities]

I actually thought you were supposed to open all your curtains in the morning, and close them at nightfall, to the extent that I actually feel guilty when I don't do it, like it means I'm lazy and a slob.

 

When I'm on my game, I open them so my plants get light during the day, and close them for privacy at night.

[Chaos Theory]

My blinds fell off a year ago I haven't bothered to buy new ones. I live in an apartment so it might be different but I need other stuff and up until recently blinds were low on my list. I get the point about opening and closing them but it does depend on your own personal views. My sister liked letting sun in during the day so she opened her blinds most days just to let the sun in and closed them at night so she could sleep.

Edited December 23, 2015 by Chaos Theory

[topanga]

My blinds fell off a year ago I haven't bothered to buy new ones. I live in an apartment so it might be different but I need other stuff and up until recently blinds were low on my list. I get the point about opening and closing them but it does depend on your own personal views. My sister liked letting sun in during the day so she opened her blinds most days just to let the sun in and closed them at night so she could sleep.

True, but would you do that if you had a stalker? It's like the celebrity on Ray Donovan who had a stalker but did yoga on her balcony. 

[Chaos Theory]

True, but would you do that if you had a stalker? It's like the celebrity on Ray Donovan who had a stalker but did yoga on her balcony.

Well no but (and i hate to use this as an excuse) it's tv and there is real life stupid and tv stupid. Criminal shows wouldn't be able to progress at all if characters behaved in as real people behave. The question always is whether it's necessary stupid to progress the plot or stupid for the sake of stupid.

Opening blinds furthers the plot regardless of how stalky you are being.

Edited December 23, 2015 by Chaos Theory

[Trini]

Abortions on TV Don’t Reflect Reality:

For a study published in the journal Contraception, researchers looked at depictions of abortion on all U.S. television shows (including networks, premium channels, and streaming services) from 2005 to 2014 and identified 78 plotlines where characters considered abortion, including 40 where a woman had one. They found that women on TV who had abortions were younger, whiter, wealthier, and less likely to already have children than the average American woman who ends a pregnancy.

"All these factors work together to build an interesting social myth, which is that women who get abortions aren't mothers and they don't want to be mothers," study co-author Gretchen Sisson told NPR. More often, these women are already parents who can't afford or care for another child.

[Bastet]

This is one area in which we have hideously regressed over the decades (although abortion on TV has never reflected reality on several key fronts).

[Jack Shaftoe]

I am rather surprised that apparently in more than 50 percent of the studied abortion related plotlines, the character in question actually went through with it. In my TV viewing experience, this percentage is much lower.

[selkie]

Though it's a show about unmarried twentysomethings, "Please Like Me" did a quite good abortion episode this year where Claire was actually in character the whole time. Annoyingly the episode ('Pancakes with Faces' -almost all the episode names are about food) has apparently gone off Pivot's web site but an article on it-

 

http://www.avclub.com/tvclub/friendship-shines-please-me-228777

 

http://www.refinery29.com/2015/11/98172/please-like-me-abortion

Edited December 25, 2015 by selkie

[possibilities]

Hulu used to have it. Not sure if they still do.

 

The key to PLM's successful portrayal seems to be that (despite being a show headed up by a man), he actually asked women for input. Proves anyone can write, whether or not they've had direct personal experience, if they give a shit about doing a good job. Also, they're not made in the USA so probably didn't have the same level of "network interference" and political/advertiser pressure that we are used to here.

[selkie]

Hulu's got the first two seasons of PLM right now, and will probably pick up season three in a few months. In the USA, it also airs on a network not many people have even heard of, which is really a shame because it's evolved into a great little show. Seems like it's the kind of program that would have a ton of buzz about it if it had gotten a deal with Netflix for first run distribution instead

 

For all that it's got its share of good slapstick, PLM does its research when it's going to discuss something that's an issue or has some controversy to it, and it wasn't surprising to see Josh be very thorough when he decided to do an abortion episode.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

I think it's kind of funny that we are celebrating "age-appropriate" casting with 52 year old Stamos and 45 year old actresses. If the lead was a 52 year old woman and her love interests were 45, we'd be celebrating an older woman/younger man coupling on TV.

 

And it doesn't work the other way around. It just doesn't. If the man is older, the age difference is ostensibly favoring him, although I think if Grandfathered had given Stamos' character a younger love interest (of any color) people would have been talking about how pathetic he is for dating women in their twenties, no matter that he's a young-looking fifty-two.

[UYI]

I am rather surprised that apparently in more than 50 percent of the studied abortion related plotlines, the character in question actually went through with it. In my TV viewing experience, this percentage is much lower.

 

I wonder if that took into account daytime soaps, where a few characters have had abortions--and a few of them were years before primetime would even touch that issue (outside of Maude, which took it on pretty famously).

 

Of course, I don't know how they would factor in Erica's abortion on AMC, which a decade ago was infamously retconned and became an "unabortion", which was a slap in the face to the place in TV history that story had beforehand. 

[BookWoman56]

I am rather surprised that apparently in more than 50 percent of the studied abortion related plotlines, the character in question actually went through with it. In my TV viewing experience, this percentage is much lower.

I'm so used to the scenario of a woman having an unexpected pregnancy, considering an abortion, and then ultimately deciding that she wants to have the baby instead, that I would be in shock to see the situation play out differently. It seems as if many tv writers want to reference that the woman has a choice, but abortions are for other women, not the characters in the show. I literally cannot remember the last time I saw a show that featured a woman going through with an abortion. I do remember an episode of Sex and the City in which Miranda considers having an abortion, only to change her mind at the last minute, but two major characters indicated they had previously had an abortion. 

[selkie]

Or alternately, the well-timed miscarriage the day before the abortion is scheduled. (see Christina Yang on Grey's the first time around.)

 

PLM left viewers with a week between Claire announcing she was going to get one at the end of an episode and then going through with it in the next one. I figured that it was decent odds she would go through with it since they'd already done a Josh and a baby storyline the previous season when he had to do some babysitting his half-sister and I was guessing that Australian tv doesn't quite the same take on the event that American tv tends to.

[Irlandesa]

Or alternately, the well-timed miscarriage the day before the abortion is scheduled. (see Christina Yang on Grey's the first time around.)

Ugh.  Girls did this too.  (Or was it a surprise period?)  Either way, I was disappointed. 

 

The last abortion I saw was Olivia on Scandal so at least Shonda was willing to go through with one.

 

I wonder if that took into account daytime soaps, where a few characters have had abortions

While some characters on soaps have gone through with their abortions, most don't. One reason is that unplanned and inconvenient pregnancies are story generators on soaps and getting rid of them wouldn't do much for the "who's the daddy" plots.   But another reason is that soap viewership tends to be more conservative--or at least the people who produce soaps believe they're more conservative and have a tough time telling stories about gays, abortion ot interracial romances. 

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Or alternately, the well-timed miscarriage the day before the abortion is scheduled. (see Christina Yang on Grey's the first time around.)

 

 

Ugh.  Girls did this too.  (Or was it a surprise period?)  Either way, I was disappointed. 

 

The last abortion I saw was Olivia on Scandal so at least Shonda was willing to go through with one

 

Y'know, maybe its just my inner Abbie Carmichael talking, but I'm pro-choice and am still a little uncomfortable at the turn this discussion is taking. Far be it for me to suggest that all women change their minds about carrying pregnancies to term, but is it really that unbelievable that many women do, even fictional women?

[Irlandesa]

I think it has more to do with how abortion is portrayed in fiction overall which is why we're talking about this the way we are.

Needless to say, fictional pregnancies are different than real life pregnancies in that there are no accidental fictional pregnancies. Every pregnancy is a choice by some writer and there is meaning attached to every pregnancy. The writers want to go somewhere with it.

Having a character get pregnant that is not intended to go to term, having them lean towards abortion and having them lose the baby before they go through with it feels like a cop out. It feels almost as if there is a concession that people might not like the character if they go through with it or there's something wrong about it so the writers will make sure the audience won't have to wrestle with their feelings about it. It's writers having it both ways. They're pro-choice in theory but not having to be so in practice.

And don't even get me started on what happens for the fertility of characters who do have abortions.

Edited January 4, 2016 by Irlandesa

[Haleth]

But another reason is that soap viewership tends to be more conservative--or at least the people who produce soaps believe they're more conservative and have a tough time telling stories about gays, abortion ot interracial romances.

But no one has a problem with serial cheaters, double digit marriages, or multiple fathers for the children. LOL Edited January 4, 2016 by Haleth

[proserpina65]

I literally cannot remember the last time I saw a show that featured a woman going through with an abortion.

 

The last one I remember on a show I actually watched was Cristina Yang, the second time she accidentally got pregnant.  (You'd think she'd have been a bit more careful about birth control after the first pregnancy.)

[Jack Shaftoe]

I think it has more to do with how abortion is portrayed in fiction overall which is why we're talking about this the way we are.

Needless to say, fictional pregnancies are different than real life pregnancies in that there are no accidental fictional pregnancies. Every pregnancy is a choice by some writer and there is meaning attached to every pregnancy. The writers want to go somewhere with it.

Having a character get pregnant that is not intended to go to term, having them lean towards abortion and having them lose the baby before they go through with it feels like a cop out. It feels almost as if there is a concession that people might not like the character if they go through with it or there's something wrong about it so the writers will make sure the audience won't have to wrestle with their feelings about it. It's writers having it both ways. They're pro-choice in theory but not having to be so in practice.

 

Well said. The most hilariously dumb example that comes to mind is from the Buffy the Vampire Slayer comics (technically not a TV show but written primarily by TV scriptwriters, so I think the same cliches apply). It featured Buffy deciding to go through with an abortion, Joss Whedon and other writers literally giving interviews on the very day the issue in question came out, patting themselves on the back as to how progressive they were (as Joss is prone to do). A bit later in the story it turned out that not only Buffy was not going to go through with it but she was never pregnant in the first place by virtue of, wait for it, having had her consciousness transferred to a robotic body which, for some extremely contrived reason, managed to be "pregnant" enough to produce positive results on the pregnancy test. Of course, Joss being his usual self was undaunted by the naysayers and continued trumpeting about how he had raised such an important issue so bravely, seemingly not getting how his desire to want to have it both ways managed to piss off both those who thought Buffy going through with the abortion had the potential to be a very interesting storyline and those who thought an abortion storyline had no place in that comic.

 

 

Y'know, maybe its just my inner Abbie Carmichael talking, but I'm pro-choice and am still a little uncomfortable at the turn this discussion is taking. Far be it for me to suggest that all women change their minds about carrying pregnancies to term, but is it really that unbelievable that many women do, even fictional women?

 

Of course not, the unbelievable part is that unlike in the real world the vast majority of fictional women do change their mind.

[izabella]

The characters I can recall from recent years who went through with an abortion are Becky on Friday Night Lights, Drew's girlfriend on Parenthood, Zach's girlfriend on The Good Wife (though that was a very minor story line we barely saw), Lena on The Fosters (for medical reasons), and Claire on Six Feet Under.

 

That's not a lot considering how many pregnancies on tv are unplanned and unwanted.

[Wax Lion]

It's funny because I recall UK soap Hollyoaks doing a storyline where a woman had an abortion because she thought the father had abandoned her and she didn't want to raise the child alone (or risk that she'd treat the child badly because the father abandoned her). It was all just fuel for drama since her brother-in-law thought the father might be dead and that she might feel differently about raising the child as a widow than as an abandoned wife. (The father eventually turned out to be alive and the abortion fueled more drama, none of it having to do with her feeling guilt or regret over the abortion, just anger at not being told what was going on when she made the decision.)

 

Hollyoaks is not at all a responsibly feminist show. A few weeks later they did a storyline where a girl lies about being raped rather than admit she's was cheating on her boyfriend.* She was also pressured to declare it rape by one of the show's more moralizing characters, too, and the whole town treated her boyfriend badly. And, elsewhere, a male teacher was raped by one of his students, who temporarily got away with it by faking evidence that the teacher was molesting him and his friend. Good thing it's apparently easy to get erased from the sex offender list in that village.

 

Abortion just isn't such a loaded issue there.

 

* OTOH the boyfriend had an eating disorder and she was cheating on him with a much hotter guy. Finding out about the affair fueled his body dismorphia, making him think it wouldn't have happened if he had abs like the other guy, which is a surprisingly good example of how Hollyoaks can combine an issue storyline with the soapy drama.

Edited January 4, 2016 by Wax Lion