Let's try this again
Aug. 31st, 2011 01:32 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
author_by_nightA few days ago, I posted a feminist rant on LJ about women as seen in the media. Only unfortunately LJ failed when I made an edit and the post disappeared. So I'm goin to try this again.
The following question was recently asked on Writer's Block: Are women now equal?
That's a hard call to make. I think that in the 1950s, women were better off than they were in the 1900s. I think that women in the 1900s were better off than they were in the 1840s. I think we're better off than we were in the 1950s, but that doesn't necessarily mean we're still respected or don't have limitations.
The media, I feel, is the biggest problem. When Bridesmaids came out, there was all this noise about how the movie portrayed women as human beings. They didn't forget how to breathe because they were so in love with their boyfriends, they didn't need sex to be happy (my review of Bridesmaids elaborates on that point a little), and it was generally "female positive." Sure, the female lead does get the guy - both of them do, seeing as one of them is getting married. But it's more of her subplot than her only goal.
Then you have everything else. Female friends are the kind of friends whose numbers you'd "lose" after a while, forty year old actresses - usually white, thin, and blonde or very dark haired - are married to sixty year old actors (Diane Keaton and Susan Sarandon seem to be the exceptions), and the women tend to be homemakers or the office hotties. Or just hotties. Or just normal ugly women who the audience is supposed to want to be hot so the guy will like them back, because nothing says "healthy relationship" like changing who you are to make a guy happy.
And then you have people who try not to be sexist but who still want to please the so-called "average audience." Nothing says strong female character like Buffy; nevermind that she's still a hot blond chick who initially wears a clothing line called Fan Service. Which is kind of gross, considering she's supposed to be fifteen in the first season. Now, I'm as much of a Whedonite as anyone, but come on - if Joss Whedon really loves strong female characters, why do all of them have to be attractive and sexy? I'm not saying there's anything wrong with attractive women, but I know not all actresses look like:
Sarah Michelle Gellar
Amy Acker
Eliza Dushku
Charisma Carpenter (well, okay, it's Cordelia so I guess she had to be attractie)
Jewel Staite
Morena Baccarin (in fairness, her character, like Cordelia, kind of called for being attractive)
Julie Benz
Robia LaMorte
Alyson Hannigan
Gina Torres
I mean, some of those characters are made to look plainer/more normal than they really are, but why not just hire a more average-looking actress? I'm not saying I don't think they do a great job in their roles, and I'm not bashing attractive women in general. I think that sort of thing is just as judgmental. But whoever does the casting - it might not be Joss Whedon - really couldn't find one naturally average looking woman, maybe even a slightly less than attractive woman?
The media is filled with these holes, let's be honest. Even when a woman is supposed to be strong and progressive, it's easier if she's strong and progressive with a nose job, botox and a bit of cleavage. One show I used to like, Ugly Betty, actually may have made a subtle statement about why this happens. I don't know for sure, it's just a theory, but many fans began to criticize the show for focusing mainly on Betty's sex life when it claimed to be a telenovela style show that made fun of telenovela shows and actually preaching strong women in earlier seasons. There's a scene where a coworker, Marc, tells her not to talk about feminism to her materialistic boss at a presentation because as soon as Betty starts talking about "female positive" things and being who you are, not who you should be, the boss would start checking her cellphone and lose all interest.
I may be reading too far into a dramedy based on a telenovela, but it seemed to me that the directors were actually talking to the fans - "hey, we'd love it if the show were about Betty rising up and not Betty being with at least one guy per season. But then we'd lose our audience." Is that true? Maybe it is. But maybe it's also time for directors, producers and writers to be brave. Because there's a whole slew of women like me who are tired of being portrayed as either hot blonde and sexy, good (young and pretty) Moms, or nothing. That's why we watch Mad Men - because the truth is, we've all seen Mad Men before. It's just that normally, we're not supposed to want the upper middle class housewife to leave her husband because he's a tool. (Aw, but he's a tool who tries!) We're not supposed to want Peggy Olson to be more like Joan Holloway. (Why not? She's prettier! For real, of course, she's awesome, but all we care about are the looks, right?)
I'm ready for better, stronger, more realistic women in shows, movies, and at that, literature. If a woman happens to be beautiful or sexual, hey, that's called a characteristic. But it shouldn't be her only characteristic, nor should she have to be those things to matter, or change herself to be those things so she's easier to applaud for at the movie's finish. (See: She's All That.) Women are people... write us like people, not Mom, Innocent Little Sis or Candi from the bar.
The following question was recently asked on Writer's Block: Are women now equal?
That's a hard call to make. I think that in the 1950s, women were better off than they were in the 1900s. I think that women in the 1900s were better off than they were in the 1840s. I think we're better off than we were in the 1950s, but that doesn't necessarily mean we're still respected or don't have limitations.
The media, I feel, is the biggest problem. When Bridesmaids came out, there was all this noise about how the movie portrayed women as human beings. They didn't forget how to breathe because they were so in love with their boyfriends, they didn't need sex to be happy (my review of Bridesmaids elaborates on that point a little), and it was generally "female positive." Sure, the female lead does get the guy - both of them do, seeing as one of them is getting married. But it's more of her subplot than her only goal.
Then you have everything else. Female friends are the kind of friends whose numbers you'd "lose" after a while, forty year old actresses - usually white, thin, and blonde or very dark haired - are married to sixty year old actors (Diane Keaton and Susan Sarandon seem to be the exceptions), and the women tend to be homemakers or the office hotties. Or just hotties. Or just normal ugly women who the audience is supposed to want to be hot so the guy will like them back, because nothing says "healthy relationship" like changing who you are to make a guy happy.
And then you have people who try not to be sexist but who still want to please the so-called "average audience." Nothing says strong female character like Buffy; nevermind that she's still a hot blond chick who initially wears a clothing line called Fan Service. Which is kind of gross, considering she's supposed to be fifteen in the first season. Now, I'm as much of a Whedonite as anyone, but come on - if Joss Whedon really loves strong female characters, why do all of them have to be attractive and sexy? I'm not saying there's anything wrong with attractive women, but I know not all actresses look like:
Sarah Michelle Gellar
Amy Acker
Eliza Dushku
Charisma Carpenter (well, okay, it's Cordelia so I guess she had to be attractie)
Jewel Staite
Morena Baccarin (in fairness, her character, like Cordelia, kind of called for being attractive)
Julie Benz
Robia LaMorte
Alyson Hannigan
Gina Torres
I mean, some of those characters are made to look plainer/more normal than they really are, but why not just hire a more average-looking actress? I'm not saying I don't think they do a great job in their roles, and I'm not bashing attractive women in general. I think that sort of thing is just as judgmental. But whoever does the casting - it might not be Joss Whedon - really couldn't find one naturally average looking woman, maybe even a slightly less than attractive woman?
The media is filled with these holes, let's be honest. Even when a woman is supposed to be strong and progressive, it's easier if she's strong and progressive with a nose job, botox and a bit of cleavage. One show I used to like, Ugly Betty, actually may have made a subtle statement about why this happens. I don't know for sure, it's just a theory, but many fans began to criticize the show for focusing mainly on Betty's sex life when it claimed to be a telenovela style show that made fun of telenovela shows and actually preaching strong women in earlier seasons. There's a scene where a coworker, Marc, tells her not to talk about feminism to her materialistic boss at a presentation because as soon as Betty starts talking about "female positive" things and being who you are, not who you should be, the boss would start checking her cellphone and lose all interest.
I may be reading too far into a dramedy based on a telenovela, but it seemed to me that the directors were actually talking to the fans - "hey, we'd love it if the show were about Betty rising up and not Betty being with at least one guy per season. But then we'd lose our audience." Is that true? Maybe it is. But maybe it's also time for directors, producers and writers to be brave. Because there's a whole slew of women like me who are tired of being portrayed as either hot blonde and sexy, good (young and pretty) Moms, or nothing. That's why we watch Mad Men - because the truth is, we've all seen Mad Men before. It's just that normally, we're not supposed to want the upper middle class housewife to leave her husband because he's a tool. (Aw, but he's a tool who tries!) We're not supposed to want Peggy Olson to be more like Joan Holloway. (Why not? She's prettier! For real, of course, she's awesome, but all we care about are the looks, right?)
I'm ready for better, stronger, more realistic women in shows, movies, and at that, literature. If a woman happens to be beautiful or sexual, hey, that's called a characteristic. But it shouldn't be her only characteristic, nor should she have to be those things to matter, or change herself to be those things so she's easier to applaud for at the movie's finish. (See: She's All That.) Women are people... write us like people, not Mom, Innocent Little Sis or Candi from the bar.
