Love,
Zuzu
P.S.: They’re not too fond of women, either.
(or browse the Archives by date, category, tags etc)
get blog updates
Recent Comments
- Iany on Pete Hoekstra is super racist, doesn’t understand the word “satire”
- Iany on Pete Hoekstra is super racist, doesn’t understand the word “satire”
- Lauralot on This Is What Happened to CeCe
- Justamblingalong on This Is What Happened to CeCe
- Alara Rogers on Prudie on “real” rape
- Meg on This Is What Happened to CeCe
- Natilo Paennim on This Is What Happened to CeCe
- LotusBen on Prudie on “real” rape
- ginmar on Prudie on “real” rape
- ginmar on Prudie on “real” rape
Most Commented Recent Posts
- An Asexual Map for Sex-Positive Feminism (138)
- Women refuses to give raped daughter EC, brags about it on internet. (129)
- So should we just start calling high heels "body modification"? (128)
- Some Transformative Justice Links (127)
- Prudie on "real" rape (117)
- FNTT Season 8, Round 1: the "So a girl and a vibrator walk onto a plane..." edition (89)
- FNTT Season 8, Round 1: the REAL FEMINISTS edition (77)
- "Kill the Gays" Bill is Back in Uganda (74)
- Facts, myths, and blankety-blank lies about Planned Parenthood and the Susan G. Komen Foundation (65)
- FNTT Season 8, Round 1: The Baby-Killing Whores Edition (63)
Yes Means Yes!
Reproductive Health Matters
We’re in the Guardian
More of Feministe On
For wordpress.com support
just for you, a widget as requested
Sponsored By
Tried and Tested
The authors of this website have hand-selected these titles because we believe they may be of interest to a feminist audience.
Consider them for gifts to friends, family, or yourself! We do receive some income if you choose to order these titles based on our recommendations. All funds help support our costs to provide this space.
Consider them for gifts to friends, family, or yourself! We do receive some income if you choose to order these titles based on our recommendations. All funds help support our costs to provide this space.
Zuzu, Jill, have either of you caught Mad Men yet? It’s a delicious skewering of that idealized 50s/60s “golden-era” patriarchy.
You know what I hate? The idea that if these men aren’t as conventionally attractive as their wives or girlfriends, they don’t deserve them. A girl can be a total controlling bitch on these TV shows, but if she’s skinny and hot, he should be grateful for her.
For years comedies have made men/fathers look like hapless buffoons. But I’ve seen some of the new shows discussed and not all of them are terrible to men. The Closer and Saving Grace have strong women but the men are portrayed more as equals than some other shows. But some of what is mentioned in the article is going to hurt everybody… both men and women.
The way I see it, many men don’t see Feminism as a movement looking for equality between the sexes. Most men that aren’t reading feminst websites on a regular basis think that feminism is all about playing the victim and trying to gain priviledge over what men have. These shows will simply reinforce that idea of feminism because there is no equal peer/peer type of relationship.
Just my opinion though.
I’ve drastically reduced my viewing of television for work reasons, and Traister’s analysis provides validation for my choice. I particularly like Traister’s point to the effect that there is a way to deal with shifting/interchangeable roles in a way that interesting and that doesn’t turn the characters into caricatures, but it seems network television has been unable to do it. Where are the networks getting their writers?
Mike, you yourself actually believe that women have valid reasons to complain about being victims of oppression, men have had far too much privilege for far too long, and the attempts feminists try to undermine this privilege is going to look like were trying to gain privileges for women over men rather than just level the playing field right? All I say is: I hope so.
I dunno — Traister’s article made it sound as though the men on these shows were pretty much walking nightmares, yes. But isn’t the underlying message of this really aimed at women? IOW, they’re telling us, “If you stand up for yourselves, achieve economic independence, etc., you can look forward either to living with one of these walking nightmares or being all alone. So don’t get too uppity there, missy.”
Meowser, I think that is partly what the article is saying. But it seems to me to be more along the lines of “be careful what you wish for.”
Jennifer, I’m new to this blog and those like it. I will say that I’m not totally sold on what feminism is trying to achieve. That’s why I’m here… trying to understand it. I want women to have be equals and have equal opportunities as men… however, I don’t want to see it swing the other way and have my son not have the same opportunities as my daughter. Obviously, this is a much longer discussion and I don’t want to hijack the thread.
Mike, might I suggest: Finally, A Feminism 101 Blog.
I second FashionablyEvil’s suggestion. This is not a Feminism 101 blog, and you’re woefully misinformed about the basics. So do all of us a favor and go to that link FashionablyEvil provided and read the FAQ. Poke around a bit. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if your question is answered there.
Ta now!
That’s an interesting take. See, I read it as, “Why does one gender have to be treated poorly for the other to be treated fairly?”
I think that’s a pretty basic feminist message.
Well, there is one form of femininity that “works”: the submissive kind!
Gah. This isn’t just an anti-men, anti-strong women message; it’s an anti-feminism message. “We men need women to make us adults! If you women have lives and interests outside of making men grow up, you’re responsible for making us children! So don’t be feminists, because you’ll hurt men!”
Do couples who genuinely like each other just not make for good television?
anna, how often do you see a woman who is not conventionally hot looking and skinny playing any kind of wife?
I have not expected television to represent my values for a long time, for the simple reason that people with my values have extremely little time for television.
I had composed a longer rant on the same theme, but will pass instead.
I’ve always tried to emulate the long-suffering dad on Married with Children, myself — whose localized version is apparently very popular in Russia, according to the NY Times.
Look at who’s running the commercials on those shows — those sitcoms are designed to appeal to women. If that means putting men down, so be it.
Yeah, too bad Roseanne was such a critical and popular failure.
Oh, come on. They’re all on the model of The Honeymooners. Only they didn’t quite get what made that show work.
The constant threat of domestic violence?
One of these days, Alice, one of these days… bang… zoom. To the moon!
j/k
It’s not a feminist ideal (though it’s better than the vaaast majority of stuff on TV, and hilarious to boot) but on Scrubs, one of the main couples, Turk & Carla, has been together since Season One, married since Season 3, and parents since the second episode of Season Six (the most recent one) and while they have had their problems, their fights, their moments where it almost seemed like calling it quits, they are still together, and at the end of it all still quite happy. And I happen to think that seeing a mature couple work their way through the challenges of forming a lasting relationship makes for very compelling TV, especially since JD, the main character, has never had a relationship last longer than four episodes.
Jordan & Dr. Cox are also an adorable couple, but they sort of hate each other and are happily divorced (hee).
Incidentally (and if this comment doesn’t make sense it’s because my previous one is in moderation) Turk is also a character who has problems dealing with modern women (he was upset when Carla told him she wanted to keep her last name, and also when she wanted to return to work shortly after giving birth), but the show pokes fun at his insecurities while keeping him very likeable by basically sending the message that these are his issues to get over, and because it’s Scrubs and someone has to learn something every episode, he always does.
Galvanising the sides in the gender wars.
Anti-feminists like to tell me that feminism is responsible for this emasculation of men in the media. I find that funny for two reasons. On the one hand, it betrays their assumption that men should never be portrayed as anything less than dignified and in control (a sentiment I’m positive they don’t think applies to women). On the other, it betrays their total ignorance of feminism and inability to regard people as human if their identity politics differ. No one bothers to ask me what I think of shows like this. They just say I’m part of the problem.
Which is funny because I hate watching men lose their dignity as much as anyone. I think it’s stripping dignity from any group of human beings is horrific. But no one asks…
Also, they seem to think that the presence of powerful, successful, self possessed women necessarily means that the other gender has to fall to the subordinate position. At least, that’s what it sounds like.
That article confused me. The language in on the first page was full of the same old sexism, but on the second and third pages we get:
and
and
and the kicker
I’m glad I kept reading past the first page. It’s like ninja feminism! It pulls you in by using sexist language and then sucker-punches you with a feminist fist of fury!
Cola Johnson, the anti-feminists seem incapable of seeing any situation as other than a zero-sum game. If women get ahead, then men must necessarily lose something.
As for blaming you for what they perceive as insulting treatment in the media, well of course. We feminists are the scapegoats for everything from latchkey kids, to pornified images of women, to any imagined problem that men and boys are having, in addition to any difficulty that anti-feminist women are encountering. Surprising, since feminism is being declared dead and irrelevant on a fairly regular basis.
Amazing how such a marginal, passe, and ineffectual movement manages to wreak such continuous havoc on humanity, isn’t it?
I want to see numbers.
It is obvious to the most casual observer that the number of female leads in roles that are functionally equivalent to roles traditionally held by men is rising.
But I am also mindful of all the buzz, pro and con, several years back about the huge number of openly gay roles on primetime (and on the anti- side, how horrendously immoral television was becoming) when something on the order of 15 major characters were gay. Or how blacks were taking over TV because the Cosby franchise added another spinoff.
What are the actual numbers? (I don’t really need anyone actually counting, it’s a rhetorical point.) Is this an accurate perception that the number of women in such roles has, say, doubled, but if so, from what percentage to what percentage?
And, of course, all that presupposes that there is any reason whatsoever to care if the numbers are “unrealistically” skewed. So what if networks seem to have noticed that women make interesting characters too? Even if realism has value, (say, a cop show) realism isn’t about whether 50% of the LEADS are female, but whether the percentages of all characters, including the extras match up to reality (which is generally highly overrated in the first place.) And complaining about reality in shows with the body counts these shows have is moot to begin with. (Would, for example, any sane person have ever stayed in the room with Jessica Fletcher?)
Sure, I notice the gay characters, and welcome them, but it is easy to overlook the other hundred or thousand non-gay characters in these shows (I think of Charmed, which took place in an alternate universe where San Francisco had witches and demons but not a single gay person.)
Peter, numbers are one thing, but portrayals are quite important as well.
>>>I notice the gay characters, and welcome them…
I don’t watch much prime-time tv, but it seems to me that since “Will and Grace” ended, the general trend seems to be that shows about Brides and Babies are the new “gay.”
(inserts index finger into mouth)
Roseanne and ‘Mad About You’ are the only sitcoms I can think of where I honestly thought the husband and wife cared about each other.
It makes me sad :(