Gender On Television: It's Like Feminism Never Happened

[BookWoman56]

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?

CoStar, from my perspective, at least, the problem isn't that any one individual character changes her mind. Some women decide immediately they want to continue the pregnancy; some women think about it for a few days and then make a decision; some women immediately decide they want to end the pregnancy; and yes, some women decide to have an abortion and then change their mind. The problem is when the default response is to have the woman decide x, and then change her mind at the last minute and decide y. For starters, no matter what the situation, that kind of vacillation implies that women really don't know what they want. When you apply that last-minute change of plans to the scenario of an unwanted pregnancy, and you do so on a pretty consistent basis, the implication is that women are making the decision to continue or terminate a pregnancy almost on a whim. That fairly consistent portrayal of the decision process around whether to have an abortion just doesn't match reality, as noted by the article about the demographics of women who have abortions. So while I don't object to the idea of an individual character first deciding to have an abortion but later changing her mind, it bothers me that such a large proportion of unwanted pregnancy storylines on TV use this resolution.

 

To give a different example, let's say one male character on a show is offered a significant promotion that will entail a lot of travel away from his family. He accepts the promotion but his spouse and children express disappointment that he will be gone so much, and then he decides at the last minute that he doesn't want to spend that much time away from his spouse and children. That one character's decision is not a problem. But if roughly 50% of the time, male characters who receive the same offer first accept and then decline the promotion, again, the constant vacillation implies that men don't know what they want, that they have to be reminded of how important it is to spend time with their families, etc. Meantime, the males who do accept the promotion are portrayed as career-focused guys who don't have the time or desire for much family interaction. Over time, the perception becomes that if you are a male who cares about his family, you'll turn down that promotion.

 

So whether the issue is a woman contemplating an abortion or a male being presented as an inept husband who can't boil water, it's less the individual character that is a problem and more the trend. If there were a diverse range of scenarios being presented for women who have unwanted pregnancies, I think this would be less of an issue. Meantime, though, the dichotomy that is presented via TV is that for the most part, only two types of women have to decide about an abortion: single women who are too young or too career-focused to want a child, and previously childless women who "need" to learn to love someone other than themselves. For female characters who are already married with children, the abortion decision seems to be resolved 99% of the time by it either being a false alarm or else menopause, in which the woman thinks about ending the pregnancy, decides that she really does want another child despite the physical and financial stress it would cause, and then she and her husband are disappointed that there is not a pregnancy after all.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

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.)

 

Jane Tennison from Prime Suspect also had an abortion, either because her lover was married or because she was dedicated to her career and didn't think a baby would fit into that plan. Is Britain (or at least British television) more liberal on the subject in general?

 

 

So whether the issue is a woman contemplating an abortion or a male being presented as an inept husband who can't boil water, it's less the individual character that is a problem and more the trend. If there were a diverse range of scenarios being presented for women who have unwanted pregnancies, I think this would be less of an issue. Meantime, though, the dichotomy that is presented via TV is that for the most part, only two types of women have to decide about an abortion: single women who are too young or too career-focused to want a child, and previously childless women who "need" to learn to love someone other than themselves. For female characters who are already married with children, the abortion decision seems to be resolved 99% of the time by it either being a false alarm or else menopause, in which the woman thinks about ending the pregnancy, decides that she really does want another child despite the physical and financial stress it would cause, and then she and her husband are disappointed that there is not a pregnancy after all.

 

I guess I'm confused about the logic here, which is not unusual. Years ago, there was an episode of My So-Called Life where Bess Armstrong's character believed she might be pregnant, and since she already had two daughters, one in junior high and one in middle school, she wasn't sure she wanted another kid. I can't recall if her ;period was just late or that she was pre-menopausal (Armstrong was forty-one at the time, so it seems unlikely that her character could have been that much older)but either way she turned out not to be pregnant. When her teenaged daughter heard that her mom thought she might have been pregnant again, she burst out laughing. Because teenagers either think its gross or hilarious that their parents might still be having sex.

 

Also, the fact is, without conflict there is no story. So is the issue that characters shouldn't be conflicted, that they should just make a decision and stick to it without regrets? Because if we're talking about real-life implications, the implication that women don't know what they want because they can't make up their minds about whether or not to terminate a pregnancy, I don't think the solution is to take away whatever conflict they might feel. It's possible to be conflicted and yet still make the decision that's right for you.

[BookWoman56]

For the women who are married with kids already, it's that there is no real decision with consequences, including possible regret. They almost always decide they do want the pregnancy to continue, but then they don't have to deal with the complications that a pregnancy would bring, because they turn out not to be really pregnant. And I have no issue with there being conflict, but would prefer that conflict take place prior to the actual decision. So, for example, a woman has an unexpected pregnancy and feels conflicted about whether to continue or terminate the pregnancy. I'm fine with that, because it's a decision that many women would struggle with. But once she's made her decision, then I do think that most of the time, she should stick to that decision, including possible regrets no matter what her choice is. What narrative purpose does it serve to have her be conflicted about the decision, make the decision, and then change her mind that could not be just as well served by having her be conflicted and then making a decision that she sticks with? In addition, while in the very few instances where a character does choose to have an abortion, it's common to show the character regretting that choice, you almost never see the reverse, where a character who contemplated an abortion but then changed her mind, later is shown to regret the choice to continue the pregnancy. Ultimately, I resent the unplanned pregnancy/possible abortion scenario being used as a litmus test for whether a female character ultimately chooses her career over having a family (meaning she's a cold heartless bitch) or instead considers an abortion but changes her mind because deep down, she really is a nurturing person who just needs someone to love.

 

I will freely admit this is a hot-button topic for me. I am alive today because when I was much younger, I was able to terminate a pregnancy that occurred while I was being treated for a very serious illness, and was told that in all likelihood, continuing the pregnancy would result in my death. And I am grateful that I was able to make the right choice for me, so that I survived the illness and was later able to carry a pregnancy to term. But with the way that abortion is currently treated on U.S. TV, I have no doubt that if my situation were to be fictionalized for a TV show, the TV version of me would elect instead to ignore the medical advice and proceed with the pregnancy, with the end result of both TV me and the baby surviving against the odds or TV me dying but it being presented that I was this brave, wonderful person who chose to sacrifice my own life to bring another life into the world.

[Demented Daisy]

Close.  She refused a caesarian section (because the baby only had an 80% chance of survival).

 

House MD S1E18 "Babies and Bathwater"

[paulvdb]

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.

The last ones I remember are Bird on Finding Carter and Ariel on This Life. But that last one is a Canadian series, so I don't know if you want to count that. Both of the episodes aired less than a month ago.

[Raja]

 

Jane Tennison from Prime Suspect also had an abortion, either because her lover was married or because she was dedicated to her career and didn't think a baby would fit into that plan. Is Britain (or at least British television) more liberal on the subject in general?

 

It was 20 years ago and broadcast TV has moved forward and backward on many issues in that time frame. With the "prestige" shows on cable more willing to handle such topics which even movies, looking at an international audience and different censorship boards, no longer tackle.

[Neurochick]

 

So whether the issue is a woman contemplating an abortion or a male being presented as an inept husband who can't boil water, it's less the individual character that is a problem and more the trend. If there were a diverse range of scenarios being presented for women who have unwanted pregnancies, I think this would be less of an issue. Meantime, though, the dichotomy that is presented via TV is that for the most part, only two types of women have to decide about an abortion: single women who are too young or too career-focused to want a child, and previously childless women who "need" to learn to love someone other than themselves. For female characters who are already married with children, the abortion decision seems to be resolved 99% of the time by it either being a false alarm or else menopause, in which the woman thinks about ending the pregnancy, decides that she really does want another child despite the physical and financial stress it would cause, and then she and her husband are disappointed that there is not a pregnancy after all.

 

A few seasons ago on Mad Men, Betty Draper got pregnant and went to her OB because she wanted to have an abortion.  The OB told her no, that she was "a married woman with means."  I thought that was interesting, and very realistic.

[Rick Kitchen]

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.

 

I stopped watching PLM after the first season because I hated every character except for Tom.

[SparedTurkey]

 

Is Britain (or at least British television) more liberal on the subject in general?

 

I was guessing that Australian tv doesn't quite the same take on the event that American tv tends to.

 

For what it is worth, Australia (and as far as I can tell, England) hasn't made abortion a political issue in the same way America has. Australia never decriminalised abortion and the last big debate I remember was in the 2000s about whether we would let people have access to RU486 (we did, eventually). But we don't have an Australian version of Roe v Wade that every political candidate has to go through. Our abortion clinics aren't blown up or shot at (though, we do also have better gun laws than America does but yeah). And there was no scandal about Please Like Me's storyline.

 

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?

Yes. As other people have pointed out fictional women are the creation of a writer's room (usually men) and their response to a pregnancy is to make whatever point the writer's want. And it's too much of a trope at this point for them to discuss abortion but not actually have a character go through it so as to not make the audience turn on her. Having their cake and eating it too

And you know, it would be nice to see it happen to someone, as a B story, where they find out they are pregnant and just get an abortion. No hand wringing, no soul searching - because trust me. Not every woman feels regret or needs to discuss whether or not she made the biggest mistake of her life. That is a story I would like to see.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Yes. As other people have pointed out fictional women are the creation of a writer's room (usually men) and their response to a pregnancy is to make whatever point the writer's want. And it's too much of a trope at this point for them to discuss abortion but not actually have a character go through it so as to not make the audience turn on her. Having their cake and eating it too.

Back in 2005, General Hospital did a storyline where a character had an abortion after sleeping with her married stepbrother. To make a very long story very short, they had a one-night stand, she got knocked up and decided to terminate the pregnancy, which she did. For ages (and I do mean ages) afterwards, it seemed like every other word out of her mouth was 'abortion', to the point that the GH section on the dearly departed TWOP picked it up and turned it into a meme - "Did you know that Lulu had an abortion?"

So the question is - is a happy medium possible? If, in fact, the character goes through with terminating a pregnancy, no matter how questionable or even sleazy* the circumstances that brought the pregnancy about were, without wringing her hands about it, is she (read: the writers) required to never mention it again? If the subject isn't cause for soul searching, it also shouldn't be a cause for shame. Because while the scenario you're suggesting is both realistic and pragmatic, it also doesn't make good fodder for drama.

Also, I don't believe that there are no female writers that are responsible for the day-to-day creation of characters of either gender, just like I don't believe that there are no POC in charge behind the scenes. It's a different matter as to whether or not men actually suck at writing for women, and I think there's plenty of evidence that some women can't write for women either, so maybe its a wash. Those who can, do, and those who can't....well, they do it anyway. YMMV.

*This does not indicate shaming. But in the specific case I'm talking about, between the being married thing and the being her stepbrother thing, it was not exactly the most kosher scenario.

Edited January 10, 2016 by Cobalt Stargazer

[Chaos Theory]

When it comes to tv you are never going to have a character have or not have an abortion and never talk about it again. Its television and if a character stubs his or her toe it will me milked for as long as possible. Abortion and pregnancy has slit of milking potential for writers. Soaps take it to the extreme but then they take everything to the extreme.

I remember AHS Asylum had Lana Winters consider abortion all the way until the last minute (and I do mean last minute) after her rape but ultimately decided to keep/put up the baby for adoption. Again drama purposes for this one as well. With tv it's less about the issue and more about the drama.

[UYI]

Back in 2005, General Hospital did a storyline where a character had an abortion after sleeping with her married stepbrother. To make a very long story very short, they had a one-night stand, she got knocked up and decided to terminate the pregnancy, which she did. For ages (and I do mean ages) afterwards, it seemed like every other word out of her mouth was 'abortion', to the point that the GH section on the dearly departed TWOP picked it up and turned it into a meme - "Did you know that Lulu had an abortion?"

I hate to be THAT person, but that storyline was actually in 2006. Julie Marie Berman (the first--and IMO, still the best--Lulu) didn't join the show until late 2005.

These scenes are from September 2006:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXXpwsZSE8c

ETA: WOW, Dillon was an ASSHOLE here (and, minor note, his hair sucked, too).

Edited January 10, 2016 by UYI

[UYI]

*This does not indicate shaming. But in the specific case I'm talking about, between the being married thing and the being her stepbrother thing, it was not exactly the most kosher scenario.

Not to mention that they were still, you know, teenagers (or very young adults, at least), and that he was married.

Edited January 10, 2016 by UYI

[SparedTurkey]

 

So the question is - is a happy medium possible? If, in fact, the character goes through with terminating a pregnancy, no matter how questionable or even sleazy* the circumstances that brought the pregnancy about were, without wringing her hands about it, is she (read: the writers) required to never mention it again? If the subject isn't cause for soul searching, it also shouldn't be a cause for shame. Because while the scenario you're suggesting is both realistic and pragmatic, it also doesn't make good fodder for drama.

First - the scenario I suggested has nothing to do with with 'shaming' a woman for having an abortion - just the opposite.

 

Regarding a happy medium, yes it is possible and largely comes down the most common refrain in this thread - variety. Sure it is dramatic to have a slow song over an actress crying, or having a dramatic discussion about her options etc. It however, is not the only experience. Why was Claire in Please Like Me written the way she was? Because Josh Thomas knew he knew nothing really about the subject and, wait for it, asked and researched. That's why it was different than most other depictions. We don't have to be satisfied with the one abortion trope getting repeated over and over just because its 'dramatic'.

 

Put it this way - if abortion was treated in the same was as a white male on television, you can bet we would have had a number of different portrayals of the experience.

[Bastet]

Regarding a happy medium, yes it is possible and largely comes down the most common refrain in this thread - variety. Sure it is dramatic to have a slow song over an actress crying, or having a dramatic discussion about her options etc. It however, is not the only experience. Why was Claire in Please Like Me written the way she was? Because Josh Thomas knew he knew nothing really about the subject and, wait for it, asked and researched. That's why it was different than most other depictions. We don't have to be satisfied with the one abortion trope getting repeated over and over just because its 'dramatic'.

Exactly. Time after time, polling of women who've had an abortion finds the majority saying their overriding emotion afterward (immediately, and in looking back) is "relief." Yet while that is the most common scenario in real life, it's hardly ever presented on television. Just from my personal viewing habits, I haven't seen it since Maude. The hand wringing, the mind changing, the regret -- those stories happen in real life and should be told on television. But alongside the opposite - and everything else in between - and with a frequency reasonably proportional to reality rather than as the norm.

Edited January 11, 2016 by Bastet

[Archery]

I recall an episode of  Spenser: For Hire (with Robert Urich), where Spenser's long-time girlfriend, Susan, had an abortion.  (Wikipedia tells me it was "Children of the Tempest Storm.") It was, IIRC, the B-story to the case of the week.  I remember there was real tension because they disagreed on the issue.  I do recall a scene where Susan is in a hospital bed afterward and she and Spenser have this really grown up conversation, and it's not at all clear in the show that the relationship will survive.  I just remember being impressed at the time by how it was handled. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

I recall an episode of  Spenser: For Hire (with Robert Urich), where Spenser's long-time girlfriend, Susan, had an abortion.  (Wikipedia tells me it was "Children of the Tempest Storm.") It was, IIRC, the B-story to the case of the week.  I remember there was real tension because they disagreed on the issue.  I do recall a scene where Susan is in a hospital bed afterward and she and Spenser have this really grown up conversation, and it's not at all clear in the show that the relationship will survive.  I just remember being impressed at the time by how it was handled. 

 

I remember this episode! She never told Spenser that she was pregnant, until after the abortion. They broke up over it. Amy Stock left the show; then we got Carolyn McKormick of Law & Order fame, for a year, and then Susan came back in the last season, and they got back together.

 

At least, I don't recall that she told him that she was pregnant.

[Archery]

I would love to see the episode again.  My memory was that she did tell him, and said she wasn't keeping it.  He asked her not to have the abortion, and she did anyway while he was busy on a case.  I just remember there being no good guy, no bad guy, and no way to compromise. I remember being impressed that they didn't make Susan out to be a terrible person, even though the series was from Spenser's point of view, but they were able to convey how hard the decision was for her and how betrayed he felt. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

I would love to see the episode again.  My memory was that she did tell him, and said she wasn't keeping it.  He asked her not to have the abortion, and she did anyway while he was busy on a case.  I just remember there being no good guy, no bad guy, and no way to compromise. I remember being impressed that they didn't make Susan out to be a terrible person, even though the series was from Spenser's point of view, but they were able to convey how hard the decision was for her and how betrayed he felt. 

 

I'll take your word for it! Because ultimately, you're right-that there was no bad guy/no good guy, so to speak. Done very well.

[Ms Blue Jay]

A perfect article for this topic in my opinion.

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/22/gillian-anderson-i-was-offered-half-duchovny-s-pay-for-the-x-files-revival.html

 

Gillian Anderson: I Was Offered Half Duchovny’s Pay for ‘The X-Files’ Revival

 

The work Anderson put into securing equal pay back in the ’90s seemingly came undone when it came time to negotiate pay for this year’s event series. Once again, Anderson was being offered “half” of what they would pay Duchovny.

 

“I’m surprised that more [interviewers] haven’t brought that up because it’s the truth,” Anderson says of the pay disparity, first disclosed in the Hollywood Reporter. “Especially in this climate of women talking about the reality of [unequal pay] in this business, I think it’s important that it gets heard and voiced. It was shocking to me, given all the work that I had done in the past to get us to be paid fairly. I worked really hard toward that and finally got somewhere with it.

 

“Even in interviews in the last few years, people have said to me, ‘I can’t believe that happened, how did you feel about it, that is insane.’ And my response always was, ‘That was then, this is now.’ And then it happened again! I don’t even know what to say about it.”

Edited January 23, 2016 by Ms Blue Jay

[Bastet]

That's what really gets me about this, that they tried to do it again.  I believe they got the same for the first movie, because the publicity about their pay discrepancy for the series was fresh.  I'm not sure about the second film; they both pretty much took peanuts up front in exchange for a percentage of the gross in order to stretch the measly budget, so that was probably at least an equal pile of peanuts.  But then here we go again with the six-episode revival. 

 

I love that when they made her an offer for this, she basically said, "No, you go negotiate David's deal, and then when that's done you pay me whatever that is.  Because when we do it this way, you try to pay me half."  And, sure enough, that's what they were offering.

[Ms Blue Jay]

I was young and uninterested in the series at the time, but my family members were huge fans.  Now, reading about Gillian, I admire her so much.  I can't believe the other things she says in the interview about being told to walk 2 feet behind David or whatever.  I mean what the fuck.

[zxy556575]

How does someone's pay become public knowledge, anyway?

 

I'd be curious to know how much women who are the leads in their shows (Rachel Nichols on Continuum, Brenda Blethyn on Vera, Debra Messing on Mysteries of Laura, etc.) make in relation to the second-banana male roles. Ensemble casts or stars with equal roles who negotiate together seem to be the exception rather than the rule.

[AimingforYoko]

When Elementary first started, Lucy Liu got nearly twice as much as the man playing Sherlock Holmes, Jonny Lee Miller. I'm sure he got a bump, so I have no idea of the discrepancy now.

[JBC344]

When Elementary first started, Lucy Liu got nearly twice as much as the man playing Sherlock Holmes, Jonny Lee Miller. I'm sure he got a bump, so I have no idea of the discrepancy now.

This is an interesting example of what I'm about to say. 

 

First off, I am really glad that Gillian Anderson got what David made because of the nature of the X-Files show.  With that said I think what is sort of being lost is that the pay scale that Hollywood operates on which can be unfair to women but also operates on "star power". 

 

For example, Lucy Lui in the Elementary example is paid more than Johnny because she is the "bigger" star.  She has more name recognition and much more television experience than he does.

 

Now is there a case to be made that David "deserves" more money, not because he is a man but because he has done more mainstream work than Gillian since X-Files has ended?

 

Personally I think that Gillian deserves more than half of what David makes for the show and am glad that they are being paid equal, but I have to admit I wouldn't consider it sexist if David made more than her, just on the basis of their work resume.

[Irlandesa]

Now is there a case to be made that David "deserves" more money, not because he is a man but because he has done more mainstream work than Gillian since X-Files has ended?

How do you define mainstream, though?  Californication?  A show that aired on a premium network and averaged fewer than a million live viewers?  Hannibal averaged more. 

 

I think it's insulting because Gillian had fought this fight before.  It's not like she went off to toil in obscurity while David went to open 100 million dollar movies.  They both continued to work.  David on Showtime.  Gillian in critically recognized programs.  I'm not an X-File fan but I've personally seen more things with Gillian Anderson post-X than David Duchovny. 

 

But it's also insulting because it doesn't matter what they've done post-X, they're equally valuable to the series. If one walks, the enthusiasm for the revival would severely diminish. Why not just offer them both the same thing? 

Edited January 24, 2016 by Irlandesa

[Bastet]

Exactly.  Their post-XF resumes are pretty equal (I'm far more familiar with hers, but a look at IMDb tells me he has done a lot of work, too), so they're coming into this revival with equal experience/cachet (although she has a lot more acting awards), but, more importantly, they are playing equal partners in a two-person show.  There is just straight-up sexism going on in approaching her with HALF his offer.

Edited January 24, 2016 by Bastet

[JBC344]

How do you define mainstream, though?  Californication?  A show that aired on a premium network and averaged fewer than a million live viewers?  Hannibal averaged more. 

I think it's insulting because Gillian had fought this fight before.  It's not like she went off to toil in obscurity while David went to open million dollar movies.  They both continued to work.  David on Showtime.  Gillian in critically recognized programs.  I'm not an X-File fan but I've personally more things with Gillian Anderson post-X than David Duchovny. 

 

But it's also insulting because it doesn't matter what they've done post-X, they're equally valuable to the series. If one walks, the enthusiasm for the revival would severely diminish. Why not just offer them both the same thing? 

Yes, I agree with you.  Their position in the series is why I am glad that Gillian is making the same amount. 

 

I don't think that automatically removes the question being asked about Hollywood pay scales vs sexism.  To me there is a big difference between the two. 

 

I find Gillian to be a better actor than David and I am far more likely to watch her projects than his but that doesn't discount David's work.  The reality is that his projects post X-Files have been more high profile and more mainstream than hers.  Californication while not a top ten network show,  being the lead of a successful (by cable standards) show that lasts seven seasons means something.  He is also currently the lead of a network show.  All of those things matter when it comes to salary.

 

As I mentioned in my previous post, I think her making half of his salary is sexist and wrong.  Him making a little more money than her to me isn't sexist that is a question of "pay scale".  My point is, it is important to separate the difference between the two.  \

 

With the example of the previous poster and Lucy Lui, she makes more money than Johnny not because she is more important to the show, not because she is a better actor than him, not because she gets more lines, but because she has more experience than him.  Now if Johnny Lee Miller said that was sexist I would disagree with him because to me that is a "pay scale" issue not a sexist one.

[Rick Kitchen]

How does someone's pay become public knowledge, anyway?

 

There's a new California state law allowing people to find out what their co-workers make.  It used to be a fireable offense to ask and to tell.  Now co-workers are encouraged to find out.

[JBC344]

Exactly.  Their post-XF resumes are pretty equal (I'm far more familiar with hers, but a look at IMDb tells me he has done a lot of work, too), so they're coming into this revival with equal experience/cachet (although she has a lot more acting awards), but, more importantly, they are playing equal partners in a two-person show.  The ONLY reason to pay him more at this point in the franchise is sexism.

I don't think that is true.  No one is saying that Gillian doesn't work.  My point is that is not how pay is measured in Hollywood.  If Gillian does 10 shows and David does 10 shows that isn't looked at as "even".  What is measured is popularity, success (financial), and placement in said projects. 

 

Don't get me wrong as I said I find Gillian to be the better actor and I am far more interested in the projects she does than Daivid's projects, but that is not how pay scales are measured in Hollywood. I do think Gillian deserves the same pay as David because of the placement and nature of the show.

[Bastet]

There are numerous factors affecting what an actor can command, as you noted, but they're rooted in evaluating what the actor brings to the table in terms of their ability to bring in viewers to that project.  (Which is how you can get an actor getting less than their typical price when they do something outside their usual range, because the studio doesn't have the same assurance audiences will flock to see her/him in that type of role.)  This show is a fairly perfect example of where two parties are equal in that ability.

Edited January 24, 2016 by Bastet

[Irlandesa]

I don't think that is true.  No one is saying that Gillian doesn't work.  My point is that is not how pay is measured in Hollywood.  If Gillian does 10 shows and David does 10 shows that isn't looked at as "even".  What is measured is popularity, success (financial), and placement in said projects.

I'm not discounting your argument because there is an element of people believed to be more commercial earning more.  But the difference between the Lucy Liu situation and this one is that Elementary was a new project and Lucy Liu was in demand.  Before they put a relatively unknown Brit in as the lead, they wanted to anchor the series with a known commodity.  That isn't the case here. 

 

But I admit part of the reason I'm pushing back on this notion of potential ROI influencing pay scale is because of the American Hustle situation where Amy Adams and Jennifer Lawrence were paid less than Bradley Cooper, Jeremy Renner and Christian Bale. And yet, Jennifer Lawrence was all over the advertising which indicated they thought she could bring butts to the seats but they didn't pay her as if they felt she was as much of a draw as the advertising did.

 

And there's also the element of there being sexism behind perception of box office draw.

Edited January 24, 2016 by Irlandesa

[JBC344]

I'm not discounting your argument because there is an element of people believed to be more commercial earning more.  But the difference between the Lucy Liu situation and this one is that Sherlock was a new project and Lucy Liu was in demand.  Before they put a relatively unknown Brit in as the lead, they wanted to anchor the series with a known commodity.  That isn't the case here. 

 

But I admit part of the reason I'm pushing back on this notion of potential ROI influencing pay scale is because of the American Hustle situation where Amy Adams and Jennifer Lawrence were paid less than Bradley Cooper, Jeremy Renner and Christian Bale. And yet, Jennifer Lawrence was all over the advertising which indicated they thought she could bring butts to the seats but they didn't pay her as if they felt she was as much of a draw as the advertising did.

Oh I completely agree with you on the Jennifer Lawrence issue.  To me that was a perfect example of sexism.  JLAW is just as big a star or even bigger than the male counterparts of American Hustle that to me is why it is a clear cut case of sexism.  What I am alluding to is that there isn't always a clear cut case.  I'm also trying to get to the point where we could realistically look at a situation and say this is sexism, and this is a pay scale issue.  To me it is important to recognize the difference so that the legitimate claims of sexism don't get lost in the shuffle. 

 

I guess that is where I am coming from in regards to Gillian.  For me, her getting half of David's salary is sexist.  Her getting slightly less than David to me is at least a situation where you can evaluate if there is a pay scale issue or a sexist issue.

[UYI]

That's one thing I appreciate Friends for: Because the six main cast members were determined to stick together and get the same salaries, that meant the three women were paid the same as the three men were (and their salaries were at $1 million during the last two seasons). I've always loved that. 

[Ms Blue Jay]

That was David Schwimmer's idea which seems pretty unselfish because he was one of the most , if not the most experienced in the cast having starred in The Pallbearer with Gwyneth Paltrow.  And I think he might have been the critical standout in Season 1.  In order for them not to have resentment towards each other he said they should all start to negotiate together and equally.

 

http://keithcalder.com/post/24689423844/how-did-the-cast-of-friends-manage-to-negotiate-a

[Wax Lion]

With The X-Files, Dutchovny had a more notable resume when he started but by the time it came to renegotiate contracts Dutchovny and Anderson were equal draws. For The X-Files movie they were paid the same (though I think I read they both took a big pay cut for the second one, in exchange for the back end).

[Kel Varnsen]

With all the variables that make up what an actor is worth it is usually hard for me to feel any kind of outrage over this sort of thing.

And even if there was a case where an actor and an actress were equal in every way, it's still a negotiation. The studios would generally prefer to pay everyone actor minimum wage. So if one person got paid less than there their costar i am not sure where the line between "sexism" and "you should have had a better agent" is.

In the case of the X-files i wonder if the fact that Duchnovy walked once already gave him some additional leverage.

[Minneapple]

News of the network lowballing Gillian Anderson annoyed me to no end because didn't we JUST GO THROUGH THIS with Jennifer Lawrence and the Sony hack? It plain makes the network look sexist.

 

It also annoys me because the news recently came out about the toy companies deliberately leaving Rey out of the Star Wars toy collections because they thought a boy wouldn't want to play with a girl action figure. Stupid, stupid, stupid! 

 

I just want to smack executives over the head sometimes.

[Irlandesa]

And even if there was a case where an actor and an actress were equal in every way, it's still a negotiation. The studios would generally prefer to pay everyone actor minimum wage. So if one person got paid less than there their costar i am not sure where the line between "sexism" and "you should have had a better agent" is.

I've seen the agent debate before and while there's a certain logic to it, I also find it kind of weak. It means that women have to not just find better agents, they need to have the best agents---or at least better agents than men have. 

 

These agents aren't negotiating up from a minimum wage offer, they're working off of an initial offer from the studio.  So if the studio lowballs an actress and offers more to her male co-star, then the agent has to do that much more work.  It is far easier for an agent to take an offer and say "we want 10% more" than it is for an agent to tell a studio "double it."

 

Women shouldn't have to have superagents in order to be paid fairly.

Edited January 25, 2016 by Irlandesa

[Bastet]

Both parties receiving the same offer and the male actor's agent negotiating up to a higher fee than the female actor's agent does speaks to the negotiating prowess of the two agents (of course, we also can't discount the role sexism may play in the studio being more open to an increase for the man), but agents aren't the cause of the studio's opening offer being 50% less for the woman.

[Trini]

Comprehensive Annenberg Report on Diversity; and Hollywood Reporter article about the findings. Even though it's a just a snapshot, the whole report is worth a read. Major findings relevant to this thread:

The film industry still functions as a straight, White, boy’s club. Girls and women are less than one-third of all speaking characters, and comprise a small percentage of directors and writers of the major studio and art house releases of 2014. Television/digital series are more balanced. Girls and women comprise 37.1% of characters and 42% of series regulars. Females also work more frequently behind the camera as directors and writers. Few women fill top leadership roles in media companies, though they are more prevalent in EVP and SVP positions. Thus, as power increases, female presence decreases.

[Spartan Girl]

I know The Simpsons is a comedy that should be taken with a grain of salt, and the fact that Marge is a "traditional" housewife is supposed to be a joke...but I don't find it funny. It's annoying. Especially how she tends to look down on women that choose not to be wives/mothers.

What bothers me even more is how she tries to force her lifestyle down Lisa's throat. She acts like there's something wrong with Lisa because she's a vegetarian. She's horrified when Lisa once said she isn't sure she'll ever want to get married. And instead of standing up for Lisa when Reverend Lovejoy called her a "devil daughter" for converting to Buddhism, she began a manipulative campaign to convert her back to Christianity. They've basically Flanderized Marge, and it's disgusting.

Another moment that bothered me back in the earlier (and better) seasons was in "A Streetcar Named Marge", when she plays Blanche in the play, and intitially doesn't see whats so wrong about the character of Stanley. You mean other than the fact that he RAPES BLANCHE?! That was just so wrong on so many levels.

The most troubling thing is that even despite all this, Marge is still celebrated as a character. Everyone worships her as this long-suffering Saint, never acknowledging the fact that she's a narrow-minded hypocrite.

[Mars477]

What do we make out of all these female tv characters getting killed off in the last two weeks? It almost feels as if male characters are immune to tv death these days.

Ricky Whittle's character got killed off The 100 recently. Of course, he's not white, so the immunity might not have transferred.

[vibeology]

With The 100, its all about shock value except at this point, death has stopped being shocking. I think they've killed a named character nearly every episode this season. (And if that's not quite true because I can think of episodes with several deaths, I'm sure if you calculate the average its at least one per episode.) It honestly doesn't mean anything anymore. Seeing Lincoln die made me feel nothing because you cannot go to that well every week and expect audiences to find it shocking and upsetting every time. Even with Lexa's big death that took over the internet, I wasn't upset that she died. I expect that; I was only bothered by the games the showrunner played with his fanbase.

 

I can't speak to some of the other shows mentioned because I don't watch them, but I do know that if you're killing someone every episode at some point your audience will stop caring.

[proserpina65]

With The 100, its all about shock value except at this point, death has stopped being shocking. I think they've killed a named character nearly every episode this season. (And if that's not quite true because I can think of episodes with several deaths, I'm sure if you calculate the average its at least one per episode.) It honestly doesn't mean anything anymore. Seeing Lincoln die made me feel nothing because you cannot go to that well every week and expect audiences to find it shocking and upsetting every time. Even with Lexa's big death that took over the internet, I wasn't upset that she died. I expect that; I was only bothered by the games the showrunner played with his fanbase.

 

I can't speak to some of the other shows mentioned because I don't watch them, but I do know that if you're killing someone every episode at some point your audience will stop caring.

True.  Hell, even Game of Thrones doesn't kill someone every week.

[Neurochick]

I would love to see the episode again.  My memory was that she did tell him, and said she wasn't keeping it.  He asked her not to have the abortion, and she did anyway while he was busy on a case.  I just remember there being no good guy, no bad guy, and no way to compromise. I remember being impressed that they didn't make Susan out to be a terrible person, even though the series was from Spenser's point of view, but they were able to convey how hard the decision was for her and how betrayed he felt. 

 

I remember that episode.  The thing is, it was very much in tune with who Spenser and Susan were in the books.  In one book, they attempt to live together and it doesn't work, so they agree that even though they love each other very much, they can never live together. 

 

In the books I believe Susan left for a job, but she came back to Boston.

 

True.  Hell, even Game of Thrones doesn't kill someone every week.

 

But, Game of Thrones will kill a bunch of people in one episode to make up for it. 

Edited April 14, 2016 by Neurochick

[Rick Kitchen]

I haven't watched GoT for quite a while, but isn't a previously-unknown character killed off at the beginning of every episode?

[proserpina65]

I haven't watched GoT for quite a while, but isn't a previously-unknown character killed off at the beginning of every episode?

Nah, like Neurochick said, they save up and kill a bunch of people every couple of episodes instead.  The fun is in guessing in advance which episodes will be the mass extinction ones.

[Chaos Theory]

What do we make out of all these female tv characters getting killed off in the last two weeks? It almost feels as if male characters are immune to tv death these days.

I think for the most part people see conspiracy theories where there are none. There are more female characters in lead rolls and supporting rolls every day and so done of them will get brutaly murdered especially on violent shows. There is a bit of a game I like to play. Let's say I want to write a tv show with lead characters. By the end of the first season 8 of them will be dead. So I don't offend or anger anyone do I make all the characters white men or do I include women, gays, and POC knowing that I will eventually kill them all.

[Trini]

When was the last time a male co-lead of a show got killed off?