author_by_night | Let's try this again

Entry tags:

Let's try this again

A 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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Sorry for how long this ended up getting...

I agree with everything you've said here. I get the feeling that Joss doesn't really sit in much on casting sessions (not that I really think he's as big a feminist as people say he is, but still) - there is a general bias in casting towards symmetrical faces and fit bodies. They should be just different enough to be called "unusual", so people will remember their name, but they should all be...pretty. At least, that's the general feeling I get from TV and movies in general these days. I feel like, even in comedy, the women they play off as "homely" are just dressed down so that they CAN have that big "She's All That" reveal if they want it, and they woman they play off as "ugly" are usually what normal, everyday, attractive women look like.

I think the main problem here is that... a lot of women want to be Sarah Michelle Gellar, or Charisma Carpenter, or Eliza Dushku, or even Kristen Bell, because they kick ass and take names and get their man, and subconsciously a lot of times that image comes with a "hot chick" picture.

I have a hard time finding decently written females in any media - all of my favorites are repressed, and at least supposed to be nearly a-sexual Victorian era women who, lets face it, are NOT todays standard. And I wouldn't want to be them, knowing what life is like today. The closest I've come in a good long while are all, surprisingly, from YA lit. Nearly every female in Harry Potter is rounded out as a PERSON, and CHARACTER, and not as a chick, and I think that's one of the greatest things about JK Rowling's rise to fame. And the other, although this is probably an unpopular opinion, is Katniss Everdeen, who will likely get torn apart in the movies but who, as a female character, was strong, independent, and rounded out as a person. I don't necessarily like Katniss, but I don't actually like a lot of real people either, and I enjoy that I dislike her not because of Mary Sue-ness but because I actually DO NOT like her as a person.

And, actually, while I'm thinking about it, Rookie Blue is doing a pretty good job of it. Not with Andy, really, most of the time, because she's ALL the telenova that show ever needs, but with women like Noelle Williams and Traci Nash, they've got these women who can balance their lives and their jobs and their relationships and be cool gals and have friends and have emotions but still be...people.

I agree with everything you've said here. I get the feeling that Joss doesn't really sit in much on casting sessions (not that I really think he's as big a feminist as people say he is, but still) -

Yeah, that's the thing - I'm not sure he's really as progressive as he likes to think, though I do still think he genuienly wants these strong women as opposed to damsels in distress and I appreciate him for that - but he's also got to work with studios and executives who might not just beg to differ, but differ very loudly. That Angel episode where Angel's a puppet certainly implies that's how he felt.

I think the main problem here is that... a lot of women want to be Sarah Michelle Gellar, or Charisma Carpenter, or Eliza Dushku, or even Kristen Bell, because they kick ass and take names and get their man, and subconsciously a lot of times that image comes with a "hot chick" picture.

True. I'd just like something to make the point that being hot /=/ being kickass and vice versa.

And the other, although this is probably an unpopular opinion, is Katniss Everdeen, who will likely get torn apart in the movies but who, as a female character, was strong, independent, and rounded out as a person. I don't necessarily like Katniss, but I don't actually like a lot of real people either, and I enjoy that I dislike her not because of Mary Sue-ness but because I actually DO NOT like her as a person.

I've never read those books so I have no idea how valid or not valid this is, but maybe that adds to the appeal. She's a real person who isn't likable but still serves as the heroine, in much the same way male heroes can be near impossible to like but you still want them to win when push comes to shove. /Uninformed opinion.

True. I'd just like something to make the point that being hot /=/ being kickass and vice versa.

This was one reason why it was so nice to see Miracle Laurie on Dollhouse. She wasn't stick-thin AND she got to be a kickass sleeper agent! She's beautiful, of course, but the nice thing about that is that you can show someone who's still considered to be beautiful despite not being stick-thin.

Too bad Laurie is the exception on TV these days. Melissa McCarthy has her own show now, after being the sidekick on Gilmore Girls and Samantha Who?, which is progress, but the show is kind of all about how heavy she and her guy are. The only other non-skinny women on TV tend to--again--play sidekicks/bestbuds, moms, or people who've had their sexuality completely stripped from them, so it doesn't matter that they're heavy, no one wants to have sex with them anyway. (Which shouldn't be the only reason a character exists, obviously, but I've simply noticed how sexually neutered characters are who have a certain "look" about them--or who lack a certain look.)

There are lots of reasons why I don't watch broadcast TV. The lack of decent roles for women is one of them.

Unfortunately, pretty much as long as TV and movies have been around, if you were a women, you had to fit a pretty narrow description of conventional beauty. You had to be what the studio execs thought was beautiful to stand a chance.

The few break-outs that deviated from what studio execs thought were beautiful, tended to already have a made a name elsewhere that drew an audience to them. (I'm primarily thinking Roseanne Barr and Nell carter).

If you are willing to play villains or do comedy, it's okay if you're a little less of a standard beauty.

Right now, the only demographic that matters is the 18-30-whatever aged men. The execs think they have the most disposable income and so we will continue to be bombarded with juvenile comedies that make my skin crawl and slasher flicks that are cheap to make and bring in the coveted viewers.

I'm hoping that more people who are dissatisfied with current media offerings, start doing it themselves. There's plenty of room on the web for shows that mainstream media would never touch.

There's plenty of room on the web for shows that mainstream media would never touch.

Yeah, I don't think web shows have quite taken off yet, especially as a lot of them tend to be short lived, but I think they will become a stronger and more popular concept, and I hope people who have felt like mainstream television annoying take advantage of it. I'd write a web show myself if I knew how to write screenplays, and if I knew anyone who'd do it with me.

There's also all kinds of other female-related problems that the media chooses to focus on or not focus on that bothers me. Abortion comes to mind at the moment, since I've never seen an abortion shown positively on film or a show. Knocked Up and Juno both had the women carry the baby full term, and I can't imagine a huge film showing an abortion in a positive way without people feeling really shocked.

Abortion's one of those issues movies try and work around, but sometimes when trying to be subtle they aren't at all. I don't remember Knocked Up being like that, but Juno certainly came close to being pro-life, although honestly I thought that anti-abortion protester was supposed to be a joke, like really they were making fun of characters like that, but they also did have Juno change her mind very quickly when hearing that the embryo has certain physical features (fingernails, I believe?) So... yeah, that was a little uncomfortable. Either be brave or don't have the issue come up whatsoever.

I thought that anti-abortion protester was supposed to be a joke, like really they were making fun of characters like that, but they also did have Juno change her mind very quickly when hearing that the embryo has certain physical features (fingernails, I believe?) So... yeah, that was a little uncomfortable. Either be brave or don't have the issue come up whatsoever.

Juno was a fantasy. But it wasn't presented as a fantasy. Because, you know, it would be amazing if teenagers who got pregnant could expect supportive families and nice people to adopt their babies (or to be supported to keep the kid and keep going to school, if they wanted) and a cute indie soundtrack and a boyfriend who got back together with them afterwards. But real life is...not so much like that. Juno was presented as this whole quirky indie story but it endorsed the mainstream (have the baby! you owe it to the nice people who can't wait to adopt it! abortion is bad because they have FINGERNAILS!) in every way possible. That's what really disappointed me about it.

(Plus, their depiction of the PP clinic was just creepy. I pretty much grew up in a FPA - our equivalent of PP - clinic. They're not creepy. Nor are the staff. Just...no.)

But real life is...not so much like that. Juno was presented as this whole quirky indie story but it endorsed the mainstream (have the baby! you owe it to the nice people who can't wait to adopt it! abortion is bad because they have FINGERNAILS!) in every way possible. That's what really disappointed me about it.

Huh, that's not at all how I took it, but that's interesting. I guess I just have family members who were adopted, so the "go to nice people" thing didn't really faze me as much as to me, that IS realistic - although definitely not always the case. But you're right that there was certainly no other option presented positively, with Juno just choosing to go for adoption for reasons not related to fingernails. Abortion shouldn't be treated as this big taboo, because a woman does have the right to choose without being stigmatized.

I guess I just have family members who were adopted, so the "go to nice people" thing didn't really faze me as much as to me, that IS realistic - although definitely not always the case.

Oh, I'm not knocking adoption as a thing; it can work out really well. It's just not a guarantee the kid will be OK, and it's usually mostly a guarantee if you have a healthy white female baby you want to put up for adoption immediately. And it usually doesn't involve putting an ad in the paper and finding the right people. Hence "fantasy".

Argh, that was me.

Oh, I hate when LJ does that!

Yeah, it isn't always a guarantee and usually not that easy. And when I think about it, I'm not sure I'd trust someone who came through the paper anyway... on either end of it. Babies aren't a litter of puppies or kittens, you know?

Juno certainly came close to being pro-life

I kind of felt that way too. The protester was a joke, but she was cute and harmless and changed Juno's mind. Whereas the nurse who remarked that teenage girls generally aren't able to take care of their baby was NASTY and JUDGING.

The Cider House Rules. I was so pleased when Irving won an Oscar for adapting his book into the screenplay because it's really a pro-choice story in so many ways--and a character who is anti-abortion during most of the film is even converted to believing in the necessity of its being available and safe for women who've make that choice (plus he agrees to help women who've made this choice).

Beyond that, I know I've recently seen/read another place where it was treated positively but I'm drawing a blank right now on the name. It was a girl in college who was faced with the decision and her choosing not to have the baby was presented positively. Now if only I didn't have such a poor excuse for a memory!

And then there's Revolutionary Road, which ends up being more pro-choice than you think it's going to be. Actually, folks on both side of the fence could each end up thinking the film is taking their side. It all depends on how you view the events that precipitate the climax of the film. But I got a definite pro-choice vibe from it.

Interestingly enough, in her very first novel, published in the late 1940s, Madeleine L'Engle wrote about a teenaged girl whose stepmother helped her to get an abortion. And the fact that she got an abortion was presented as a good thing. (I think she was only 15.) Plus it really helped the daughter to begin to accept her stepmother. That was about 25 years before Roe v. Wade! So my memory isn't completely lame, because I do remember the L'Engle book (A Soft Rain, probably available used on Powell's).

I notice the woman-needs-a-man thing a lot in Japanese TV shows too. The one that made me the angriest was when they adapted A Little Princess and turned Becky into a boy, presumably so that Sara would end up with him. Because it's not a story unless the girl gets a guy. Ugh.

Because it's not a story unless the girl gets a guy. Ugh.

But if the guy just has a steady bromance, that's fine, right?

What bothers me too is that female friendships tend to be downplayed. I'm watching a show called Happy Endings, which is a really good show... except the characters are kind of cliche, but even worse, the relationship between the women is really underplayed. There's several episodes where one of the characters needs a pep talk because she hates being single - and fair enough, I know women who probably could use one or could have used one at some point. But it's always a male character (albeit a certain male character) doing the talking, even though one of the female characters is certainly supposed to be the type who wouldn't be shy about forcing reality onto this girl.

I mean, I'm not saying they have to do it like some books or shows do it, where the women are essentially one celestial body divided into four earthly bodies. Nothing wrong with that, but that extreme's not necessarily realistic. On the other hand, women ARE capable of being strong support systems for one another, especially if they're portrayed as being close friends. And no, there's nothing wrong with male friendships, but does the guy always have to be the one lifting the sobbing maiden off the floor and carrying her away from emotional danger?

One little aspect of your rant (which I approve on in general terms, I just haven't thought through it all yet) is the reason why I prefer British TV to American TV. British actresses look like actual people.

I'm of the opinion that all women can be beautiful, it's just that beauty has a much, much more general definition than Hollywood gives it: good demeanor, flattering clothes, flattering hairstyle. Whether that demeanor is forthright, or the clothes are modest, and the hair is short isn't the point.

Now, the BBC can be just as bad about clothes as anybody, but I love that the actresses haven't had tons of plastic surgery and can, y'know, act. Doctor Who has almost-50-year-old Alex Kingston with her frizzy hair and strong nose playing naughty/sexy River Song, and I'm not the only one who thinks she's gorgeous.

So yeah, I'd settle for actresses that aren't eerily alike, for starters.

Sadly though, I've heard River actually gets a lot of hate for those things. I personally like River and don't think she takes from the show - she's no more dangerously close to being like the Doctor than Jack Harkness, who I'd even argue comes closer.

And you're right, River is attractive, but in a very true to life way. She's aged, but well, and frizzy hair works for her.

Oh, I remember her from ER! Really good actress, with a younger Helen Mirren vibe about her looks. (Too bad they couldn't actually have hired someone who looked like a younger Helen for The Debt.) She's always sported frizzy hair, and it's always worked for her.

Actresses in Britain come a lot closer to looking like real people. Lauren Socha, on Misfits, would probably never get a job on American television. The standard here is just too focused on model-like looks, and whether someone has any talent is only considered after that (if at all).

I agree with a lot of this. I won't get into it now though because I have half a brain to go to sleep, but yes. Women in media are so very one-sided/one dimensional, ALWAYS have to have the happy ending...

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Let's try this again

Long Rant is long....

Re: Long Rant is long....

Re: Long Rant is long....

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject