Recently in Television Category

We're all familiar with the stereotypical "nice guy" who complains that "women" don't appreciate him because he's too nice, women only date jerks, etc., etc., blah, blah, blah. Of course it's sexist from the start because the guy's making claims about women as a monolithic group, but these guys generally display a host of other behaviors that are certainly not "Nice."

So I couldn't help but laugh as I was watching Bones the other night, and the killer's self-professed motive was that the victim didn't appreciate him, only wanted to date good looking jerks, and that he was too nice of a guy for her to want to date. Which was why he brutally murdered her, after which he kept insisting, "But I'm a nice guy!"

I love Shonda Rhime's Grey's Anatomy and out of loyalty to the creator of a great show that has some pretty complex female characters in it, I also watch the spin off show, Private Practice. 

I realize Shonda doesn't write every episode, but, she is the creator. I wonder how the creator of Grey's can, time and again, manage to ruffle my feminist feathers with Private Practice.

Last night, the lead character of the show, Dr. Montgomery tells a pregnant, in labor character, (paraphrasing as I didn't write it down immediately) "If I die no one will notice, but, if you die, your husband will be broken".  In other words, the patients life was more important becuase she is loved by a man!?!?!?!! and the DOCTOR's life is not as important because she is single and doesn't have children. WTF?!?!?!

Oh Shonda, are you fricken kidding me?!?!?!!

This was actually a quite decent report on yahoo to my surprise (but not surprised it didn't make the "over exposed celebrity teens" on the top five highlighted articles of the day...).

I laughed at the end where he says "It's the parents fault" and saying its just some "way to fit their own ideas". We'll, usually I would agree but how is wanting to lessen the image of violence against women and young girls an "idea". I'm sure if it concerned the violence against "blacks" or whatever color, the president would say "We have grown as a society to know not to take THAT seriously, but we will make steps to improve that image." (Bullshit usually) Interesting the president didn't even try to fluff it, he just plain out said "Psh, no I want my ratings and I don't care if your kid happens to be watching a show that depicts violence against women, who cares" sort of thing. The reporter also pointed out Fox being the main offender. Ha.

I'm sort of iffy that the reporter may have left out some key quotes as usual, as well as the two sources being male. What about the women in the media--I'm sure SHE has something to say about it on either side. No no, let a guy answer he's the boss.

Don't be mistaken, I am against most censorship, but where is the line now a days?

What could be done about this?

Thats the tagline of an advertisement I saw for a really shitty sounding new tv series... apparently its a musical too (?).

Heres the horrible Wikipedia article on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Kissed_a_Vampire

Why are so many new shows (not just stupid sounding, but) so misogynistic and stereotyped? Isn't Hollywood supposed to be coming up with not super old and worn out storylines (of the dominant male character chasing after the hot but innocent chicks who are all submissive and don't do much, and plus the sweet guy who actually cares about the hot but innocent chicks and will come gallantly to her rescue).

Okay, its an I-tunes series. I don't know what that means, but I guess its like a TV series... that's why I tagged it television, I don't know... But still, its offensive, and to an idiotic degree. 

It was the 19th century that Engels wrote The Origin of the Family and etc... and women's suffrage was what, 80-90 years ago, and the women's lib movement was 50 years ago. Isn't it about time that people get it into their heads that women aren't weak, helpless and hapless virgins with large tits and need a male to complete/save them? 

Link (possibly NSFW).

Came across this while looking through my caption blogs this morning. It has really upset me. I guess mostly because even a wonderfully successful and funny and level-headed women liks Kari Byron can get roped into the male-gaze performance. And this really hurts and saddens me because I've always looked up to her. If I had to pick a television role-model it would be Kari, since she always seems a lot like me on the show personality wise (and we dress pretty similiar, just kinda ecclectic and whatever seems cool at the moment. I love her style on the show.).

But apparently my world will be full of dissapointments this week. Any thoughts on the picture for anyone out there who's a Mythbusters fan?

Drop Dead Diva is a new series (premiered in August) on Lifetime: a skinny, "dumb blonde" model dies in a car crash, and is reborn in the body of a fat, smart lawyer. Comedy and drama ensue with this ever-so-popular-women-can-be-pigeonholed-for-a-simple-storyline formula.

I must admit--I watch it.

Now that I've gotten that out of the way, I wanted to talk about the hype and acclaim it's been getting.

A recent article in the NYTimes lauds the series for tackling series issues about body image.

The show's creator is, no surprise, a man, who tells the Times "I don't believe it[weight] is about willpower"--score one for the fatties! However, while he appears to get it right at first, he quickly falls into: "Everyone has different needs and desires. If someone finds a doughnut to be comforting, who are we to judge them?" He somehow manages to turn being fat into some kind of coping mechanism--which we see often on DDD as the protagonist's assistant sprays cheez-wiz into her boss' mouth in a time of panic--that fat people all eat to deal with stress. He kind of counteracts his positive statement with this judgmental one; it's hypocritical to say weight is not about willpower in the same breath that you say doughnuts are like baby blankets. There's something fishy about claiming autonomy/agency, while also turning food into a dysfunction. And plus--weight isn't about "junk food." Eating doughnuts doesn't make you fat, and not every fat person eat doughnuts.

I consider myself a pretty big fan of Craig Ferguson's show. In the past, there's been an occassional joke at the expense of gays that made me cringe, but since it's nearly impossible to find a show on cable that doesn't use some homophobia, in the past I'd try to overlook what was usually one joke amongst lots of jokes I did not find offensive. However, lately Craig's REALLY been on Eric Brewer, the transgendered mayor of East Cleveland.

Last night's show was almost entirely devoted to mocking Brewer. Repeatedly, photos of Brewer in lingere were shown for comedic effect (Men in panties! So silly!). Then the photos were altered to include some celebrities standing next to Brewer (because it's bad to be seen with a transgendered person!). And then for the remainder of the show, Craig (and even his guest) made jokes about wearing women's underwear (but just for lolz! They wouldn't REALLY do it!). The entire thing was disgusting.

So feel free to email Craig to let him know just how you feel about his hour-long transgender shame fest.

Note- I used "he" because I'm not sure what Brewer's preferred pronouns are, but if someone knows differently, please let me know and I will change the note accordingly.

We've all heard about and talked about the problems with Seth McFarlane's humor, most notably his unfunny rape jokes.  So I wasn't planning on watching the first episode of his latest spinoff, Cleveland, featuring the token black character of that name from Family Guy in a wacky new situation.  But I got talked into giving it a fair chance to be funny without pissing me off, so I ended up watching about half of it.  Before I left the room to cope with the dry heaves. 

The first thing that struck me was that Cleveland's son had magically morphed from thin and hyperactive to basically spherical and lethargic.  I'm not sure what to make of this other than the fact that the new family he meets up with later in the episode already has one thin boy, who needs to be set up for the joke about how fat people are staying at his house without his prior consent.  Hilarious. 

Despite plans to go to California, Cleveland and his son end up in Virginia [enter wisecrack about the south HERE].  This is set up as Cleveland's home town, which he intends to visit only.  (All American blacks, of course, are from the south).  Then he meets up with an old flame, and promptly moves in with her to become the patriarch she was obviously missing. 

Seriously.  She was a black single mom, and her kids were struggling (the son was a thug and the daughter a slut, who would've seen that coming?) and Cleveland tells her she just needs a man in the house to set things right.  Then he proceeds to systematically set things right. 

The son was kicked out of school for some sort of misbehavior, so Cleveland teaches him that it's ok to look up girls' skirts, he just has to create some excuse (like dropping his pencil) so it doesn't LOOK like he's being a perv.  Problem solved! 

The daughter's problem that she's a slut.  Cleveland says to her mother "Have you tried genital mutilation?"  And I don't know what happened after that, because that's when I walked out of the room. 

I assume, based on commercials for the show, that the mom decides Cleveland's manliness is exactly what's been missing from her life and invites him to move in permanently.  Like you do. 

I'm sure there are more angles to this, especially with regards to race.  Anybody else catch it, and have any thoughts?

I've become obsessed with Al Jazeera English for a lot of world news that simply does not get reported in North America. On their YouTube channel, I came across an interesting piece from their show "Witness", that I wanted to share with people.

Called "Sari Stories", it's about a community project in rural India, where a group of women are given video cameras and go about filming day to day life.

They concentrate on the issue of child marriage, since it seems that is something all the women in the program have in common.

I've embedded Part 1, if you have any trouble viewing the second part, click here.

I don't know if anyoen else was excited as I was last night when America's Best Dance Crew but I sure as hell was. I was already excited the Sunday before, when it turned out that no matter what group got chosen they would FINALLY be a group that had women in it. FINALLY. Three seasons with groups that were completely guys was getting boring to me. Especially after the incredible disappointment that was the defeat of the Beat Freaks last season, I pretty much gave up hope that We Are Heroes would get anywhere this season (or be pulled all the way to the end only to lose). I was holding out that maybe one of the groups that had at least one or two women in it would win, or maybe Vogue Evolution (a group I loved but apparently after Lil' Mama's comments America decided to vote them off EVER AFTER THAT EXCELLENT PERFORMANCE! That made me so very very angry.). And generally I find my backing on any reality TV contestant tends to give them bad luck. Fanny Pack and Beat Freaks and Vogue Evolution... Hell, I don't even hope too had when it comes to my favorites on America's Next Top Model anymore.

But finally the male b-boy reign is over! :D We had a finale with two wonderful groups and I'm so glad Afroborique (?) stayed as long as they did. They were a really freakin' awesome salsa/hip hop group. And they danced super well with We Are Heroes. And I think I shall have another victory dance for We Are Heroes! :D

As a former drama geek and ardent lover of musical theater, the prospect of a new show about a group of misfit high schoolers struggling to find their place in the teenage hierarchy under the guidance of their earnest, wide-eyed Spanish teacher, Will, left me positively giddy. And last Spring, when FOX opted to preview the series premiere of Glee , I was not disappointed.  There was pep, punch, a slight quirkiness that left me wanting more ...

... and there was feminisism.

Since Glee 's return to the fall circuit a few weeks ago, relevant feminist topics have been mentioned in both episodes. 

Last week, one of the central characters, Rachel, a talented and outspoken young woman, attended a Celibacy Club meeting in the hopes of becoming closer to a boy she liked.  Repulsed by the real-life personification of the virginity myth she found, Rachel spoke out, telling her peers, "This is a joke!  Did you know most studies have shown that celibacy doesn't work in high schools?  Our hormones are driving us too crazy to abstain! ... The only way to deal with teen sexuality is to be prepared.  That's what contraception is for ... You want to know a dirty little secret? ... Girls want sex just as much as guys do!"

Speaking out against abstinence-only education, and tearing down the sexual myths of our gendered society... um, can I get a "Hell yeah!"?

But that's not all! 

In this week's episode, one of the central plot lines dealt with a high schooler student's sexual identity, and navigating the waters of coming out.  Also, it should be noted that Rachel, the comprehensive sex-ed advocate, is the daughter of two gay men.

The show also satirizes the consumer-driven aspects of the heteronormative nuclear marriage (the Spanish teacher's wife, a shrill, superficial, Pottery-Barn-ahololic, is not cast in a good light), and simultaneously encourages empowerment, stressing the importance of finding yourself and respecting yourself enough not to conform.

Today, in a world where teen television is ruled by sexy-vampires and Gossip Girl s it's both refreshing and inspiring to see a television show take an openly liberal stance on reproductive education and LGBTQ rights, while simulatneously advocating less political, but equally pertinent topics, such as the importance of confidence, bravery, and kindness.

So last nignt on the MTV Video Music Awards, Madonna opened the show with a long speech about Michael Jackson. The full text of this speech can be found here . Everyone seems to be talking about how heartfelt it was, what a beautiful tribute, etc etc etc. But frankly, I was shocked, and kind of appalled by the direction she chose to take with it. Because she didn't just talk about what an amazing artist the man was; she didn't just share fond personal memories of him. She stood up there and made a speech that basically proclaimed him innocent of the crimes he was never proved to have or have not committed. And as if that in and of itself isn't inappropriate enough for the event, she did it by justifying his--perhaps legal, but definitely questionable--behavior with children. She begins:

Michael Jackson was born in August 1958. So was I. Michael Jackson grew up in the suburbs of the Midwest. So did I. Michael Jackson had eight brothers and sisters. So do I. When Michael Jackson was six, he became a superstar, and was perhaps the world’s most beloved child. When I was six, my mother died. I think he got the shorter end of the stick. I never had a mother, but he never had a childhood. And when you never get to have something, you become obsessed by it.

She goes on to call Jackson a "hero," and refers to the "witchhunt" and "lynchmob" that plagued him.

Now, I don't know, obviously, if Michael Jackson ever molested any children. But neither does Madonna. We all know that he engaged in some objectively inappropriate behavior with young people (I don't care how pure your intentions are, having sleepovers with adolescents is not acceptable to me). And yes, that behavior was probably prompted by a traumatizing childhood that left him emotionally damaged. But does that merit a speech justifying a man's questionable behavior with children who are too young to understand intent or boundaries? Simply put: did she HAVE to go there?

I don't have a problem with people memorializing and praising Jackson the artist, and reflecting on what a profound impact he had on their lives and the music industry. But I can't help but imagine a survivor of childhood sexual abuse watching Madonna up on that screen talking about witchhunts and thinking "is that what people will think if I tell?"

I think I may have found one of those rare gems, a feminist female lead- in a cop show, no less!

I may be jumping the gun, as I've only seen the first 3 episodes but BBC's Ashes to Ashes is fantastic! It follows on from the earlier series Life on Mars where the male protagonist traveled back to the 1960's; here, the protagonist is female and the year is 1982, but she is working with the same horrendously sexist (but ultimately good-hearted, I believe we're meant to feel) team.

Recently, thanks to mentions on this blog, I've begun watching MTV's 16 and Pregnant on their website. I wasn't particularly impressed by any of the episodes, really, but then, this came to my attention, one episode from good ol' True Life.

Spoiler Alert

The episode is about adoption, but includes a sexually fluid young woman who considers having a loving gay couple adopt her child. Usually, sexually fluid and gay people have to wait for the "gay version" in order to be included in a show, but here, we queer folks were treated to top-bill mainstream inclusion. I don't know if I'm just too cynical, but I was very surprised. Additionally, she decides that being a mother just isn't for her. I had expected for her to be portrayed in a negative light because of that, but instead, the facts are simply stated: she isn't ready to be a mommy, the baby's father (who wanted to keep the child in the first place and was the one who dissuaded her from giving the baby to the gay couple) is one taking primary responsibility for her, and she does hope to be more involved in the baby's life someday. Little in the way of judgment or prefacing, just the facts of what occurred in the young woman's words. Of course, there are a few problematic aspects (the fact that the young woman breaks up with her girlfriend, probably due to the pressures of the pregnancy, just makes me sad), but overall, kudos to MTV for this.

End Spoiler Alert

I think that MTV needs to stop being cool. I need to resume my proper hipster hatred of it.

On of my favorite TV shows is The Closer on TNT. Kyra Sedgwick is just awesome and she plays the character of Brenda Leigh Johnson which such depth and strength it's a pleasure to watch. For those that are not familiar, Deputy Chief Johnson is in charge of the Major Crimes Division in Los Angeles (I think that's what it's called now, the name changed recently due to perceived racial bias...also an interesting episode!). Her squad treats her with the utmost respect (although they all have fun with each other too) because she is hard-working and gets the job done. And she has a knack of figuring out what has happened before any one else has a clue. The idea of "The Closer" is that she gets a confession out of the murder suspect before they lawyer up. This is her special talent. Anyway, that's the background of the show.

*Spoilers about last night's episode after the jump*

The following is crossposted from the FeministCampus Blog . I'm hoping for more input and thoughts, so I welcome comments!

----

I have a somewhat vexed relationship with reality TV. Some days, there's nothing more enjoyable than collapsing on the futon and flipping to Bravo to watch mindless, ridiculous (and often staged) drama unfold.

However, I'd like to think I have my standards. You know, certain lines in the sand that I draw with the crappy-tv-world. When I first heard about FOX's new show, More to Love , I had suspicions that this would, tragically, be one of those series that crosses said line. Unfortunately, my suspicions were realized when I sat down to watch the first episode on Tuesday evening. Check out a trailer/clip below:

For those not familiar, here's the description of this new gem from FOX's website :

The tragic part is that this sounds like it could be okay. If I put aside my general disdain for dating shows, it seems like this could be a step in the right direction - breaking open the definition of what the public sees as desirable and even "normal." The show's trailers frequently made mention of the fact that the average American woman is a size 14, as opposed to the size 2 stars of most reality TV. Three cheers for But the issue here is that More to Love seems to fall prey to the binary standards of acceptance and tolerance it (hopefully?) sought to debunk. Here's a few examples:

1) Whenever the women are speaking solo (both introducing themselves and commenting on their experience) the caption beneath them states their name, age, occupation, hometown, and - get this - their height and weight . Now, in my experience, the best way to reify a concept of 'normalcy' is to shore up an 'other'. Excuse the dusty women's studies vocab, but I have trouble thinking of any other reason for the women's height and weight to be included other than to make sure that the audience knows that these folks don't fit the social standards of your "normal" bachelorettes.

2) The introductions were the most painful. Primarily because, with a few self-assured exceptions, the women introduced themselves by way of heartwrenching stories of unrequited love, failed relationships, and prom night agonies. All of this, of course, on account of their size.

Okay. As mentioned before, I really don't like dating shows in general - they seem to feature women as a) utterly weak and pathetic or b) extremely cutthroat. Also, these shows equate a relationship with happiness - ignoring the reality of both extraordinarily unhappy relationships and perfectly happy single people.

I'm starting to think, maybe I was giving this genre of TV and FOX itself too much credit here, with the assumption that by producing this show they would be carrying the message that "it's possible to be happy and to be greater than a size 2." Throughout the show, I was disappointed that most of the women spoke about their size and love lives with such disgust and sadness. If we're really trying to increase personal and social acceptance, it makes me cringe to see women giving credence to a flawed, arbitrary concept of normal and in fact blaming their lack of compliance for their misery. Isn't this just another way of underscoring the notion that living within a socially constructed norm equates with happiness, while everything outside of that will mean a life of unfulfilled misery? Awesome.

3) Also, I struggle with the choice of bachelor and emphasis placed upon his also-greater-than-"normal" size. With terrible euphemisms related to the size of both bachelor Luke and the women competing for his attentions, the show describes itself. "This brawny prince is searching for one curvy Cinderella to take on the romantic adventure of a lifetime." (Thank you, FOX, for your clever usage of a thesaurus and deliberate avoidance of the descriptor "fat.")

This gives me qualms. I am totally for increasing size acceptance for both men and women alike, but I'm struggling a little bit with the connotation here. Are viewers to take away the message that the only way a fat woman can be happy is if she's in a relationship with a fat man?

It seems to me that if we did the same for any other physical attribute, it'd be at best, silly, and at worst, extremely offensive. If I suggested a show where only black women competed for the affections of a black man, I'd be thrown to the dogs - and rightly so. What if we restricted the field of bachelors/bachelorettes based on ability? Or ethnicity? Hair color? And is it any better to restrict based on the trait of fatness than it was for the other reality shows to (tacitly) restrict the pool based on thinness?

Like I said, I'm a little torn over this one. Overall, obviously not impressed with More to Love. I'm disappointed because I wanted to believe it would exceed my expectations, and I'm anxious because I worry about the message it sends to viewers and to society. What are your thoughts?

We often discuss how people on TV, especially women, are almost always very thin. Similar to this, I can't help but notice how nobody on TV has acne. Not even one zit. Nobody has anything other than perfect skin, unless a point is being made of it, and this is almost always in the form of that cliched storyline of children's sitcoms (think Nickelodeon shows) where a teenage female character gets one zit on her face before a date and spends days in her room sobbing that her life is over. I didn't use to watch that much TV as a child, but I still remember this storyline on many different kid's programmes of that decade, like 'Sister, sister', and this has also shown up on British children's channels CITV and CBBC programmes (I remember seeing it in 'Custer's last standup' and another in 'Bailey Kipper's POV', both truly awful shows, and even more because they had to resort to this awful cliche) My mother tells me this goes way back, she can remember it happening on 'The Brady bunch'. Apart from these programmes for pre-teens, no characters have acne at all.

TV adverts and articles in teen magazines follow the same pattern: teens - usually female - with absolutely immaculate skin, get one, isolated pink dot on their skin and freak out. In the fantasy land, this is solved by putting some product on your face. As we know, this is not the way acne works; unless you're very lucky you will not only have a little pimple like an island in a perfect face, but you will have a sea of red marks, discolouration and blackheads, even after you've got rid of your pimples. And if getting rid of them were that easy, no one would have them. If you were to watch TV and never meet a real person, you would not only think that fat, menstruation, leg hair and STIs are non-existent, but also that acne is almost unheard of. Even female characters in books who are supposed to have acne, or be fat, or not conventionally attractive, are cast in TV or movie adaptations with conventionally good-looking actors with good skin, and thin.

Why do I believe this is a feminist issue? Because women are held up to a much higher standard than men when it comes to skin, and this is just one more thing in a continuum of prejudice against people who look perfectly normal, which causes unnecessary worry. Boys also get insecure about acne, it's true, and I can see WHY they would use actors with good skin. But women are told that, not only should it be blemish-free, but it also must be hair-free, line-free, SHINE-free (and yet moisturized), and 'glowing' (whatever that means). A phrase which comes up more and more in adverts is 'virtually poreless' which seems ridiculous not to mention kinda creepy. Can anyone imagine a man being told he should be virtually poreless, have a radiant and shine-free complexion? Can you imagine the classic kids-sitcom-girl-gets-zit-and-her-life-is-over storyline being played out with a male character? It would just seem pathetic and unrealistic. Which it is.

Today I sat down in front of my new Sky tv and chose to watch two sitcoms that I've heard high praise for from others; one was Everybody Loves Raymond and the other was Two and a Half Men. I was shocked at the level of sexism in both these supposedly funny shows.

In the first one the only two female members of the cast are both housewives and both seem fine with their fat lazy do-nothing-and-then-moan-about-it husbands. Is this really the type of message the show wants to send? That it's OK to act like a gigantic arsehole (if you're a man) because the women will put up with this until you say some remotely placatory statement designed to shut them up and they'll be happy? Please feel free to tell me if I'm missing some ironic point here, I have only watched one episode.

In the second sitcom, Two and a Half Men the entire premise of the show seems to be based around the fact that unbelievably attractive women are willing to throw themselves at an aging (I'm sorry but he is) Charlie Sheen while his Nice Guy brother (I open doors for women, I respect them, why won't they have sex with me?) has a shrill harpy wife who of course plugs him for all the child support money she can in her wicked woman way. Is it just me or are these shows really as sexist as they first appear?? All comments welcome x

This is a nostalgic and meandering trip I took analyzing the 1998-2002 WB series Felicity, a show I found to be very feminist at turns and rather unfeminist at others. Some of the discussion here is for pure unfeminist fun and obsession, but my thoughts about gender roles, masculinity/femininity, and relationship equality continually creep in.

Crossposted at: Library Cat

(Spoiler warnings)

This summer I marathoned the entire Felicity series with my sister. I was in college during its 1998-2002 run, but she, seven years younger, had never seen the show (and barely heard of it, actually). I hadn't seen it in years, save for a few re-runs on the WE network, although I had always, without question, reserved for it a special place in my heart. I wasn't quite sure how she would react to it, being a devotee of more recent shows like The OC, One Tree Hill, and Grey's Anatomy, and I basically had to twist her arm to get her to watch it at all. She was skeptical, it turns out. But as we popped in disc one, and freshman year started to unfold, she was sucked in -- immediately. And then we both spiraled into a DVD-fueled obsession that would. not. die.

So, here's the thing. I still love the show. I adore it, actually, probably more so than any other series, except for maybe Brothers & Sisters. Like B&S, the characters on Felicity are so well-crafted, flawed, and endearing, and the dialogue so smart, funny, and insightful, it's hard for me not to worship this show even when I admit I'm not in love with every storyline (cough, David, cough, Maggie, cough, Natalie, cough), or when I'm despising the second theme song (as much as I treasured the first) and fast forwarding through it as if to save my own life.

As we plowed through, I discovered my memory of each season was a bit hazy. It's amazing what you can forget over time, even about your favorite show. But, there were two things I remembered clear as day -- that she ended up with Ben, and that she and Noel never got back together.

I thought maybe that my feelings about these two facts -- being rather intense at that time, while I myself was in college -- might have lessened. But upon revisiting the Ben-Noel question all these years later, I found that my already-intense (thought dormant) feelings had only intensified.

Why the hell didn't she end up with Noel? (And I willingly admit that it's probably unfeminist even to think this! So, okay, why did she have to end up with anybody at all?)

I still -- I don't get that. In my eyes, although Ben had endearing qualities and had his own path of growth to follow as a character, and while I didn't even mind him and Felicity dating in order to answer some questions and satisfy Felicity's insufferable high school obsession (which, come on, you never end up with that person), it just always seemed to me that she and Noel had the best possible thing -- real, lasting love based on an amazing, solid friendship.

Think about it. Felicity and Ben were all grand disappointments and unrealistic expectations (as the "popular" guy and the "brainiac" girl, they were stuck in high school categories that made them insecure), while Noel and Felicity were more about idiosyncratic flaws, humor, and realistic possibilities (they could relate to each other on an equal level, in which mutual honesty about their individual shortcomings actually made them stronger). Okay, well, that's just my take on it. I know everyone can't -- and won't -- agree.

Both couples were charming, I'll admit that, but I can't help but register a major injustice when a show glorifies the most unrealistic type of relationship, while throwing away the one that could actually work. And it's not just Felicity that does this -- television and movies do it all the time, ad nauseam. I mean, talk about expectations! No wonder there's this screwed-up cultural obsession with fairy tales -- they're perpetuated every single day. As a feminist, I recognize a fundamental problem in the way a show like Felicity emphasizes the main female character's relationships with men above all else -- yet, I can't help but feel this factor could be mitigated somewhat were the main character to choose (if she must) a less stereotypically masculine, more nontraditional type of guy. Or, gasp, a girl.

And so here's where I admit that despite my love for Felicity, or maybe because of it, this show breaks my heart every time. And simultaneously pisses me off. And not just in that Felicity and Noel don't end up together. I would have enjoyed (and probably preferred) a more open-ended finale in which Felicity asserted her independence yet the possibility of a future relationship still remained for them, and in which the egalitarian nature of their relationship/friendship was stressed as romantically valuable over time (rather than as inferior to the Felicity/Ben tug of war, that so-called "force," which tended to be fueled by drama and rooted in the crisis of the moment). Because that's what Felicity and Noel felt like to me -- the real deal. Future life partners who respected (and admired) each other's spaces and choices. So when they married Noel off to Zoe and Felicity forgave Ben once again after another charismatic apology (orchestrated through the elaborate time travel dream in which Noel ends up dead, which I guess was supposed to resign us to an unquestionable Felicity/Ben "destiny" but only ended up feeling cruel for Noel, unsettling for Felicity (uh, how can she ever trust Ben again?), and bitter in that Ben seems to get everything he wants, without true sacrifice (meaning, Arizona was Lauren's chosen location, not his, so Ben "following" Felicity to his own hometown after Lauren magically agrees to move there just does NOT feel like a legitimate hardship)) -- well, that was a crushing blow, a sour pill to swallow. And hard to forgive, quite honestly.

Truth is, I've found it's almost too painful to watch the whole series beginning to end anymore. The fact that Noel ends up in therapy and on depression meds, and Felicity in a psych ward by the end of season 4, seems entirely appropriate given that by then that's also where I feel I belong. In a mental hospital. Because as I get caught up in the stories and the way the romantic arcs were set up, starting in season 1, the same thing happens -- every time. I get hopeful. Just about the time Felicity and Noel confess their love during "Docuventary," and they kind of, almost, get back together then -- I have hope. But then Ben swoops in under the pretense that he "likes" her, whoopee!, and Felicity and Ben take that mysterious road trip together, only to come back in the fall to find that Ben's utterly incompetent to be in a relationship... Well, but then hope returns in early season 2 when Felicity cuts her hair, drops pre-med, drops Ben, and wants Noel back -- well, at that point it all feels inevitable. Surely, these two must get back together. Even if they don't stay together, they must get back together at some point.

Except they don't. Although there are a few close calls, many endearing scenes, and even time travel, they never really get back together. Look in the freaking drawer, already. Damn it. But she doesn't. Or she does, but slams it shut. And so that unresolved suspense of the Felicity-Noel relationship, never satisfied, is a very particular form of storytelling torture. I think it's called hell.

It's like zoning out to your favorite song only to have the original artist come along and smash your iPod to the pavement before you can savor those last few notes of satisfying resolution.

Or, you know, it's like a held breath -- you're always waiting for them to get back together and they never do (those time travel episodes help ease the pain a little, at first, but are ultimately a bucket of salt in the wound, let's be honest). So you suffocate. You never exhale.

This all might sound a bit dramatic or overly analytical, but I have to say, in a TV landscape littered with McDreamys and Mr. Bigs, there was something really special about witnessing a relationship based on unconditional friendship and chemistry at the same time. Ben was definitely a McDreamy, a Mr. Big. But Noel was... Noel. I'm really not sure there is, still, any other male character quite like him. Not in my mind, anyway. He sort of transcends gender categories of masculinity/femininity in that he was the funny guy/computer geek/best friend/adorable boyfriend who wasn't a sexist "nice guy" and who wasn't afraid to be kind. Or talk about things. McDreamys, Bens, and Mr. Bigs -- they don't open up because at some level they're fundamentally freaked out about who they are. Which always seems to become, unfairly, the chief problem of the person they're dating, and not a problem they stand up and own and deal with themselves. In a word, they're cowards; yet because of their masculine charisma, they get away with it. Over and over again. Noel wasn't like that.

I will say, I think the appeal of Noel has a lot do with the way Scott Foley portrayed him. He was really incredible in that role. The character was written well and with depth, especially by J.J. Abrams, but I think Scott Foley was the clinching factor, in that he has that intangible something. A genuine, authentic quality that goes beyond gender. And even my sister confessed in the middle of our marathon that on most similar shows, she would have been all about the Ben/McDreamy/Mr. Big character, no questions asked... But on Felicity she was all about Noel. Swoon.

These gripes aside, in general I feel like the show has aged well. I still, overall, adore it. The themes -- self-discovery, survival, embracing and maintaining your independence, the definition of love, finding your way, finding your passions -- still ring true, even at age 30. There were also a few amazingly blatant feminisms, such as when Felicity leads a sit-in at health services to fight for the morning-after pill, not to mention a few episodes later when she runs for student council president. And who could forget that super short hair cut, or Felicity and Elena taking a self-defense class together? These empowerments, over time, sort of cancelled out the fact that she had followed high school crush Ben to New York in the first place.

But, more than anything, since I was in college while the show was running (1998-2002), Felicity also holds this intense nostalgia that will forever be bound up with my own college years. The music, the clothes, the hair. My god. Those plaid flannels, the Lilith Fair references, the lack of cell phones, subplots involving Episode I and Late Night with Conan O'Brien. These details make Felicity priceless to me, no matter how much of a malcontent I can be about the Noel question or the mixed bag of feminisms throughout the series.

Hi all,

Later this week I'm going to be interviewing Patti Stanger, the Millionaire Matchmaker featured on Bravo, and the very first (Un)Feminisit Guilty Pleasure . There were a lot of comments on that post about Patti's unfeminist ways, and I wondered if anyone had any questions they'd like her to answer. I want it to be a respectful interview, but if anyone has suggestions of things to ask her I'd love to hear them. I hope this is an opportunity to ask her some tough (but not rude) questions, but I'm having trouble coming up with anything amazing. I'll also be interviewing other kinds of matchmakers, so if you have any matchmaker questions that are more general, I'd love to hear those, too.

Can't wait to hear from you!

Best,

Tamar

Is anyone else as disturbed by the new TLC show "Real Simple. Real Life." as I am? Maybe I'm just sensitive but... doesn't it reek of 1950's bitter nostalgia? Sort of like those mini cocktail wieners. Of course there are your standard style shows, cooking shows, and home improvement shows. But this one differentiates itself from the slew of "life improvement" shows by having all the "experts" rolled up into one show. Now, if you can't organize your cupboards OR dress yourself, you needn't apply for many shows. There's one that covers it all.

This is where it begins to haunt me. The women who come on this show are usually very busy moms. Their husbands all work, and some of women do too. Take for instance "Gabi". She is a mother, wife, and Major in the air force. But as TLC helpfully points out on their website, "she's had to juggle several roles, leaving her home, style and confidence out of balance." Please, let's ignore for one moment the glaring question "why can't her husband help with the home?" and ask ourselves... why is it that a woman who is obviously very smart and successful balances her level of confidence on how her house and style look? How is it possible that this woman can rise to a high rank in a male-dominated profession, have children, run a home, and then feel insecure because her STYLE is out-of-date? Does anyone else agree that something is wrong here? Then she goes on national television and allows these so-called experts to rip her up on TV, and then build her into a brand-spanking new Mom.

The tearing down, then building up closely resembles the method the armed forces use to train cadets. It's the notion that if you break them all down together, they will be completely unified when they come back up. Except these women aren't training to go to war. They are simply running a household. But really, how could you ever be satisfied with yourself when there are garbage television shows on all day long that tell you what you're doing isn't good enough. You can do it better. Cleaner. Faster. Cuter.

TLC also proclaims that the hour long episodes will "share strategies to help make life easier." So, supposedly one might draw from this the conclusion that if you are a woman, you should learn how to run a household while looking gorgeous every second of the day, and then your life will be easier? Now, I agree, organizing your closet would probably make your life easier. A pair of great fitting jeans does make you feel more confident. Learning how to make healthy meals for you and your family does probably make you feel like a more responsible parent. Of course it does. But why must this show be marketed ONLY to women? Do men not feel better in a pair of jeans that makes their ass look great? Aren't there single dads out there who might want to learn to cook for their children? Again, of course there are! But they would never watch such a show. Perhaps because these shows are BORING. Perhaps because it would never be acceptable in our society for a man to watch such a show unless it was all machoed-up. (Case in point- "Guy's Big Bite.")

Haven't we come a long way baby? So why are there shows on television (that take themselves seriously) teaching women how to be Stepford Wives? This show seems one step away from The Handmaid's Tale. Not only does the show tell women that unless they can mother, partner, work, cook, and clean perfectly, all while wearing a sassy dress, they should have no confidence.

I see people roll their eyes when I say I'm a feminist. "What are you talking about? Women are equal." they say. How can I possibly explain that the bastards are grinding us down by making us watch shit on TV? Get skinny. Dress pretty. Clean the goddamn house. Aren't you fulfilled yet?

"Gravity will tell the story of a multi-national team of eight astronauts, who undertake a six-year mission in space. Although its base is science fiction, the story will be told in "a female-friendly way," according to David Madden, whose company is one of the producers of the series, which also will air in Great Britain, Germany and Canada."

What is this assumption that even though it's science fiction, they'll stories friendly to women ?  Did I miss that thing where BSG, The X-Files, and other sci-fi themed shows had huge female audiences?  What exactly does David Madden mean by "female-friendly"? 

I'm a woman.  I grew up with sci-fi.  I started with SeaQuest DSV, Space: Above and Beyond, Star Trek: TNG, Babylon 5, and of course, Star Wars.  I never stopped loving sci-fi.  For me, the most interesting female characters were on sci-fi shows.  But if David Madden assumes that I liked these characters because they had lots of relationship issues with men that seemed to override most plotlines concerning their careers and personal goals (which is how I currently perceive Grey's Anatomy), he's making an ass out of...well, just him. 

Intelligent, engaging storylines are genderless, at least for this viewer.

If you couldn't get enough of the Lonely Island parody Jizz in My Pants (If you can't tell by the title...seriously NSFW) You'll spazz out with your vag out over Ms. Taken's answer to it. (Also NSFW.) 

On one hand, I'm happy that there are women in comedy out there making wickedly hilarious videos like this in the first place and I'm seriously jealous that I didn't think of think of this particular parody myself.

On the other hand, check out Ms. Taken's website and you'll see it hawks a fake wedding ring that you can put on to ward off skeezers when you're out at clubs. I fail to see how pretending to be some dude's property (that is the whole point, right? That a potential sleazoid will see that you "belong" to some other dude and back off?)  is an at all empowering answer to male douchebaggery.

As someone who has enjoyed documentaries since she was knee high to a grasshopper I often check Discovery, History, NG and Animal Planet for interesting shows, two shows I've seen recently have knocked me right out of the mood for watching them with patriarchal and downright misogynist voice over descriptions.

First off was a program on the re-introduction of Przewalski’s horses. A new male was introduced and the previous stallion was removed after difficulties during the first winter. The previous lead mare was still pregnant from the previous stallion and would not accept the new one. The voice over construed this as the female being loyal to her previous mate ‘but would eventually bow to the new stallion's dominion’ or some such.

'So You Think You Can Dance?' is one of the most popular summer shows on television. Arguably this competition show, among others, has brought the art of dance back into spotlight as a powerful medium of expression and for that many of us fans are thankful. But over the past four seasons of the US version of the show there has been a disturbing trend of gender-bashing and homophobia.

Competitors are praised for their versatility to master various styles of dance from Cha-Cha to Hip Hop. When female dancers take on a more contemporary dance style such as Hip-Hop or Krumping and exhibit strength, anger, power, ect the judges can't contain their praise for the dancer's ability to take on the character of a more 'masculine' dance style. They may use words like 'ghetto', 'street', or 'thug' to describe what they like about the dance (the class/'race' issues deserve their own posts alone) but what they are saying is that women can act like boys (as long as its just for this dance and as long as they slip back into a Salsa mini-skirt 20 minutes later) and bring those 'masculine' qualities to the table and show their versatility as dancers.

To the Rachel Maddow show,

I really enjoy your show- and watch it almost every night online. I've been watching it less in the past few days because of the new add on your website. You are a show that attracts many liberal and feminist viewers, and yet your current add is one that portrays women as whiny, wedding obsessed and more interested in the superficial aesthetics of their wedding than the relationship they are entering: the bride gets a replacement stunt groom to avoid missing a few seconds of perfect lighting for her photos.

I am not saying that sprint does not have a right to air such a commercial- they most certainly do. I just question their wisdom at airing a sexist commercial to advertise their product to Rachel Maddow's audience- adds that dont offend will surely generate more business. Im sure the show could return to some of sprint's less sexist adds. In the meantime, I will hold off from watching the show. Media is so saturated with sexist advertising, I would hope that Rachel Maddow show would be a reprieve from that world. Its not a boycott- its just that sitting through several sexist adds really cancels out my enjoyment of the show. And Im sure you can do better.

sincerely,

MS

***non-important Fringe spoilers***

Normally, I'm kind of pissed when a show that isn't Buffy brings in the chaste girl-on-girl action for titillation and show-stimulation. Buffy has an excuse - it started the lesbian kiss on the television screen. It was revolutionary.

But I was pissed when Grey's Anatomy did it, even though I liked the actresses. And Sara Ramirez is a lesbian favorite on AfterEllen.com, so the show has a significant lesbian following. But it still felt less like a lesbian shout out and more like something to attract more male viewers (or keep them interested).

I was pissed when they did it on Bones , even though I can see why it fits Angela's character, and I still love the show (and Bones's philosophy on relationships ... I hope they don't change it ... there have been suggestions).

It just seemed like the shows were trying to make themselves edgy by implementing a socially acceptable form of gayness (not very many men kissing in mainstream television). The men will be interested. The lesbian and female bisexual fans will be appeased, although most of the female viewership is going to roll its eyes and think "boys will be boys." But the viewership of Grey's Anatomy is probably primarily female. Bones probably has pretty equal viewership between men and women. But it still always seems to be the whole "girl-on-girl-for-guy" kind of vibe. It doesn't help that every lesbian kiss on mainstream shows now seems to be the same exact tender kiss. And the kiss isn't intended for my eyes. It's weird how you always know. I can tell in most girl-on-girl porn intended for men. I always feel like the third wheel, not the audience.

It was different for Buffy . Willow and Tara's first kiss in Season Five was the first lesbian kiss on television (and there's was the first open lesbian relationship on television, too, if I'm not mistaken). It began as a kiss of comfort when Buffy's mom died rather than one of romance, which made it very different from the lesbian kisses on the above two shows. It always seemed more real and less choreographed when Willow and Tara were kissing (less so when Kennedy came along... that's another rant).

So why - when Fringe has a viewership that is probably majority male and provides a pseudolesbian scene (rather than an actual lesbian scene) with Olivia as a mental proxy for the male subject - am I not pissed?

I can't say. Part of it is that it didn't seem to be made a big deal of - no romantic music, no typical "lesbian" tenderness. No tongue, just lips and cautious sexuality. It seemed to be organic to the plot in that the same man-proxy-Olivia who accidentally murdered also accidentally stimulated another. But part of me knows that the scene, because it wasn't even a woman kissing a woman in the plot, was mostly titillation for the audience.

I know why I'm aroused. But why am I not pissed?

For all of my Whedonites out there I found this wonderful article discussing the issues of complicity and ambiguity in the show Dollhouse. The author even gasp, claims to have hated Buffy.

I think its very well thought-out and looks at the question of consent from a whole different angle, as I know many feminists have been struggling with the very real portrayal of gray rape and sexual slavery in this show. I would love to hear other people's thoughts on how successful you think the show is in dealing with these issues.

At the Miss America pageant last night, Miss California was asked a question about gay marriage:

“Vermont recently became the 4th state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit. Why or why not?”

To which she responded:

“Well I think its great that Americans are able to choose one or the other,” she said. “We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you very much.”

There is plenty to say about the ordeal, from the Miss America pageant as a whole to her answer to the crowd's reaction.  I would like to highlight two things that struck me:

The classic, "No offense, but..."  I hear this comment all the time from colleagues, who are about to say something entirely sexist, homophopic, racist, you name it.  With this disclaimer, the reaction of the person/people at whom the statement is directed is devalued, because they aren't supposed to feel offended by offensive comments. (Especially if such comments are really people just standing up for what they believe in, like Miss California is apparently doing.)

More notably, I'm finding (in discussions such as that on the CSmonitor ) the theme, "why bring up such a controversial topic in such a wholesome program?"  Since when is controversial and wholesome mutually exclusive?  God forbid these "wholesome" women be expected to be able to articulate thoughtful arguments about meaningful topics.  They shouldn't be thinking human beings with agency, but rather pretty and one-dimensional.  And why bring up "controversial" topics like same-sex marriage at all?  Why not just silence the entire discussion?

I have a new TV addiction: Being Erica. If you haven't heard of it, it's an hour-long drama produced by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and airing on Canadian television since early January. Here in the States, I've been watching it on SoapNet, where it has quickly absorbed the Thursday night anticipation I usually reserve for Grey's Anatomy (a show that has steadily slipped in my must-see lineup the last couple years). Being Erica airs on SoapNet Thursdays at 10/9 Central.

The premise is this: Erica Strange, a 32-year-old single Jewish woman living in Toronto, periodically goes back in time to address the regrets of her life. In this endeavor she is assisted by her psychiatrist, Dr. Tom, who acts as a mentor-type character, showing up in various disguises and roles to offer her words of wisdom. He's been a janitor, bondage-style bouncer, dog-walker, and all-around lurker, in addition to his usual place behind a huge desk in a huge, dim, musty office where Erica sits opposite him during their sessions, entering and exiting abruptly due to her time-traveling (which he instigates).

Although I haven't even gotten into exactly what I like about the show yet, this is perhaps the one aspect I don't like about it. Although Dr. Tom has his enjoyable moments, overall the positioning of an older male as Erica's spiritual/psychiatric mentor creates a creepy paternalistic vibe that brings to mind the unhappy history of women being subjected to male psychiatrists who supposedly understand them better than they understand themselves. See Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique, Erica Jong's Fear of Flying, or the character of Betty Draper in the first season of the TV series Mad Men. And if Erica and Dr. Tom somehow end up together at the end of all this, that would probably ruin the entire show for me. I don't think that's going to happen, but still, yuck.

That said, there is a lot I love about this show. One of the blurbs SoapNet likes to flash around compares it to Sex and the City. I don't really agree with this, however, though it's not necessarily a bad thing. But Sex and the City was clearly a show focused on opposite-sex relationships and same-sex friendships, rather than the influences of family or life choices as a whole. Carrie was the main character, nudged slightly ahead of the other three friends, but it felt like you really only knew her through a certain scattered lens, and saw her from one particular angle that presented an incomplete picture of the character. (Did she have siblings? Did she go to college?) And of course, there was all that shoe shopping.

The character of Erica Strange feels more holistic to me... and less superficial. For one thing, Erica has a family. And that (often troubled) family takes center stage just as often, if not more so, than any of her romantic interests. We learn that Erica had an older brother Leo who died thirteen years ago; not long after that, for multiple reasons, her parents divorced. Erica also has a younger sister Sam, and the ups & downs of their sister relationship, as well as the mother-daughter/father-daughter angles, has been a major part of the family storylines. And because of the time travel flashbacks, we are able to get to know the brother Leo and see his relationship with Erica and the rest of the family. There's also a bit of a mystery angle here, since we don't have complete information at all times, and details of the past fill in gradually. As a result, the family element feels complex and layered.

The show also deals quite a bit with Erica's struggle to find a career path she can be happy with. One of the main issues examined here is how do you reconcile your true self with the compromises you often have to make in order to be successful? Erica regrets that she wasn't as cutthroat and ambitious in college as she could have been -- as a literature major, she was more into cultivating her interests, writing poetry, and finding herself, rather than lining up a solid job future. (As an English major myself, I can totally relate to this.) Yet, when she goes back in time to do just that, she finds she is unable to force herself to be someone she's not.

My boyfriend and I were having a discussion recently about "I Love Lucy", which is easily one of my favorite shows of all time.  We disagreed as to whether the show was an overall positive portrayal of women, or negative.

Considering that the show was produced in the 50s, when a married couple couldn't even be shown in bed together and nobody ever said "pregnant" on tv, I feel that Lucy was had more feminist friendly aspects than not.  She was a very quick thinker, and rather rebellious.  She wasn't content as a housewife alone, and wanted to get into show business.  Ricky usually tried to prevent her, which seemed somewhat unfounded.  Her horrible sounding voice was used for comedic effect, but when she would manage to make it into his show, she proved to be a talented at comedy sketches (i.e. the clown act with the cello).  Even with Ricky's objections, she often outsmarted him and made it into the show anyway. There were sometimes problems that were no fault of her own that caused things to go awry, like getting her eyes dilated or the Vitameatavegamin containing a lot of alcohol, but these situations weren't the result of a silly woman mistake, they were outside factors, and the humor was in how she reacted to them.

There were also a number of episodes that touched on male and female roles as well.  There was one where the men and women switched roles, with Lucy and Ethel getting jobs, while Ricky and Fred took care of the house.  The show ended up with the famous chocolates on the conveyor belt scene, indicated how inept Lucy and Ethel were at a job they weren't remotely trained for.  However, back at the apartment, Ricky and Fred realize they have no idea how to take care of a house and cooking.  They realize that women's "jobs" aren't so easy either.

My boyfriend argued that Lucy was portrayed as childlike and her antics were used to make fun of her and her "woman mind."  She cries and whines when she can't get what she wants and then tries to take it into her own hands, leaving Ricky to often bail her out.  Which I think could be valid points.  He also pointed out that I might be a little biased, because It's a show I've loved since I was pretty young. 

So what do you think?  I think there are valid arguments on either side, but the show was overall more woman positive than not.

P.S.  I know I didn't represent my bf's side very well.  He's actually a lurker and occasional commenter who might come out of the woodwork during the discussion to make up for my inability to play devil's advocate against myself.

We can always rely on MTV for a daily dose of objectified women gyrating to the latest hit in less than substantial clothing. I for one loathe their reality TV shows which further propagate the image of females as solely sexual beings.

But, can we finally expect something more?

For April (STI awarness month) MTV has paired with Planned Parenthood and the Kaiser Family foundation to inform young people about STI's. They will also be running a campaign to promote users to get tested and know their status.

At least they are promoting young adults to do something responsibly.

Apparently a guy spanking a girl in a ShowGirl costume= kinky and fun, funnily enough the very next dance is the 4 women dancing and shaking their 'booties'... this apparently TOO hoochie.

Thing is they have cheered the women shaking their asses before, when they're dancing with a partner... Heck one judge can't go an act without commenting that a woman, be it the announcer or the dancers is 'looking so hot/sexy tonight'.

It brought to mind a blog post I read about another Channel 10 show, which was 'Search for the Next Doll'. Richie sums it up rather nicely:

"They're allowed to be sexy, because sexiness - Pussycat sexiness, anyway, not the good kind - is a passive thing that onlookers can get off on without engaging the Dolls themselves, but Brittany's fucked it up by being sexual , if only just. The Dolls might have visible ass cheeks, fishnets, stilettos and bare midriffs, but are for all intents and purposes chaste , which is what they really mean by "Classy". They danced in glass cases , for fuck's sake; doesn't that say it all?

Brittany, though, went slightly too far, and wasn't passive enough to work as a piece of T&A window-dressing."

You can read the whole blog piece here.

Maybe they weren't passive enough, maybe it's because they were wearing more casual clothes and didn't add up to 'fantasy' material, maybe watching the women dance in that way for a full routine was a bit too confronting and made them a bit too aware of how a lot of the dance pieces objectify the female partner. (There was one routine where the female partner was a doll and the male partner basically humped her as an inanimate object... I don't remember there being any complaints then...)

In short: Dear SYTYCD You can't have it both ways!

Check out this new ad by Edge Shave Gel. I saw it in a dining hall on campus yesterday and suddenly lost my appetite.

I don't even know why I watch Maury, since it pisses me off so much sometimes. It's one of the most sexist shows on television. One of Maury's signature topics is teen girls gone wild. You know, teenage girls who have sex with older guys, steal, join gangs, and get into fights. I don't know where the wild teen boys are, but that apparently doesn't matter, and that's not what this post is really about.

What bugs me is how the wild teen girls are treated. They embarrass themselves on stage. They never get to really delve into their psychological issues. Then they're taken to jail to be "scared straight." Most of the girls do engage in illegal behavior, like prostitution, drug use, and truancy. But some of them don't. Some of them just have sex. One of the teens, I think she was 15 years old, didn't do anything illegal. She hardly even lied. She was asked three questions on the lie detector test and told the truth about two of them. She lied about how many people she slept with (she said 2, but the lie detector determined it was 5). She admitted that she's had unprotected sex five times, and she was telling the truth when she said she never received money or gifts for sex. It's still troubling that this teen had unprotected sex, but it's not a crime. Except if you're on Maury. Then you get sent to a woman's prison in New Jersey and get yelled at by inmates and spend some time in solitary confinement. That's standard procedure for girls whose only "crime" was having sex with a man twice her age.

Another popular topic on Maury is controlling men who enslave, beat, and rape their wives. Last I checked, slavery, battery, and rape were serious crimes that can get you serious prison sentences. They're definitely more serious than the victimless crimes of prostitution and drug use. Now, I commend Maury for exposing abusive mates and raising awareness about domestic violence and marital rape. But the one thing that the show doesn't do with these abusive criminal men is send them to jail. These men can probably be questioned, if not arrested, based on the Maury show footage. So why not send them to jail to give these men a taste of what would happen if their mates called the police? These men are CRIMINALS, and Maury treats them like they're just regular guys that have lost their way.

If Maury made the laws, statutory rape would be a crime for the underage victim. If Maury made the laws, having unprotected sex would warrant a prison sentence. If Maury made the laws, perpetrators of sexual assault, battery, and slavery would be treated like victims. They'd be treated with kid gloves. It's atrocious.

Cycle 12 of America's Next Top Model aired it's two hour premiere last night with themes of greek goddesses and girly innocence. As someone who came within inches of getting the opportunity to strut my stuff out there, I watched transfixed with skepticism (that Rockville girl with the bad attitude took MY spot?), and wonderment (did Tyra just self identify as the Goddess of Fierce?).

The high notes of this week are mostly centered around the picking of the girls who will live in the house and becoming familiar with their characters. The notable ones include a Texan street preacher, a wide eyed girl with blood lust, the requisite "plus sized" model that looks like everyone I know, and perhaps Tyra's proudest catch, a burn survivor. Tahlia (the burn survivor) and Kortnie (the "plus sized" model) serve as the shows' underdogs and token characters that Tyra can point to so that the show can't be criticized by the mainstream as only catering to a certain body type or look.

I just finished watching the third episode of Joss Whedon's (of Buffy, Angel, and Firefly fame) newest show, Dollhouse.  It stars Eliza Dushku as Echo, an "Active," a blank slate of a woman who can be imprinted with any personality or skill-set desired by the client who hires her.

My initial reaction to the show before seeing any of the episodes was "ick."  The promos for it were so sexualized and I especially hate the image of naked Dushku as a city-scape at the beginning of Dollhouse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OinD4UZgZaM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snLEZoMmop4

P.S. Spoiler alert if you haven't seen the episode.

I'll admit it. I love American Idol. I watched it since the second season, and I've been to two American Idol Lives concerts. It's almost scary. But I haven't let my love for American Idol cloud my heterosexism radar. That's still very much intact. It beeps extra loud when performers change gender pronouns to connote a heterosexual relationship.

Two examples of this come to mind, and in my opinion, the performance suffered from the change of lyrics. Last season, Syesha Mercado sang "Me and Mrs. Jones," a really great song. But she changed "Mrs." to "Mr." Yesterday, Casey Carlson sang "Every Little Thing She Does is Magic," which is one of my favorite songs by The Police. She changed "she" to "he." Also yesterday, Anoop Desai (my favorite contestant so far) sang "Angel of Mine" by Monica and changed all the "boys" to "girls."

Come on. We all know these aren't their own songs. They're singing someone else's song and should sing the lyrics that the original performer sang. If it sparks any rumors about their sexuality, who cares? The only people who would make that leap are idiots whose opinion don't matter. Are these contestants really that insecure and afraid?

Disney XD, a new Disney offshoot channel that is targeted directly at young boys, launched last week to soaring ratings. Of course, anything that attempts to tell either sex what it should (and thereby should not) be interested in watching/doing/being instantly gets my attention, so I decided to check out the programming. The shows on the station are all about active, adventuresome boys. Aaron Stone is a show about a video gamer who becomes a real crime-fighting character. There's a show about two teenage boys who set out to become the world's best skateboarders, a number of animated adventure shows featuring boys who fight alien cats, battle with robots and become dragons, plus plenty of other "male-oriented" shows and movies.

This new station has been touted as being something good for boys. To give them something of their own among the "fantasy princess" majority of Disney's programming. While I haven't watched the shows on this station yet, the branding of it plays very much into the masculine stereotypes: rough, dirty, outdoors, active, aggressive. None of the shows seem to focus on emotional development, friendship, or anything outside the realm of what society has deemed is okay for boys to be interested in. Does every young boy only care about sports, comic books, video games and fantasy adventures? No. Just like all girls don't just care about shopping, beauty, boys and home décor. This seems like it could have been an interesting opportunity to give boys some variety of programming which might encourage their creative, emotional or giving instincts. Instead, I think it is going down the same path that later in life leads to Spike TV and the Playboy Channel.

So I don't know if anyone watched the Colbert Report on Tuesday, but Stephen totally mocked Rush Limbaugh's comments on feminism and how "it was a way for ugle women to gain access to mainstream society."  I was ecstatic seeing this episode. He also comments on the Obama vs. Rush Limbaugh comments that have been circling the news reels all week long.  watch: 1:31 - 2:30 if you're lazy.

First, I just want to say that I am new to this community blog. In fact, I just signed up about five minutes ago. I'm kind of nervous about the whole posting my ideas thing, but I knew I wanted get feedback about an episode of the infamous "House" that I saw a few nights ago.

I was flipping, belligerently through the endless array of night time television. I stopped at House, considering I had liked what I'd previously seen a couple of months ago.

I couldn't even really finish it, however, because the entire premise was seemingly insightful to the writer's idea of the working woman.

The opening scene depicted a business woman becoming hysterical with delusion during a business meeting. Upon being rushed the hospital, the whole diagnosis for her mental breakdown was the fact she was "overworked." I can also distinctly remember the "f" word being thrown out when talking about her occupation.

Yesterday, I watched Sex and the City for the first time, under the influence of a few dorm-mates (yes, I do live under a rock.) While I was expecting it to be a half-hour of anti-feministic sexist stereotypes, it wasn't. The show does portray the women as fashion-obsessed 'uptown girls,' but besides that, they're not gold-diggers (they all seem to be settled into their own careers,) virgins, or women who divulge all their self worth into 'getting/keeping a man.' Plus it shows some feministic things that society deems 'unacceptable.' In the few episodes I did see, I saw two women having sex (and not fake-hot lesbian sex designed to get men to join), a woman using a dildo, and a woman using a hand mirror to see her vagina. While I don't think this show is feministic, I don't find it anti feministic.

So, of fans or critics of the show, what do you think? Is Sex and the City a feminist's dream or worst nightmare?

Through a really, really vague connection, I'm friends with an MTV cameraperson on facebook. (I had a friend who was on an MTV reality show episode; but I won't divulge.) I usually never think twice about MTV, until I got a request to join this facebook group , which is about a casting call for a new MTV show 'Hot Chicks with Bad Boys.' ...

We all know MTV is sexist with every bit of programming, from 'A Shot at Love' (which I believe there's an old community post about, though I don't know who wrote it) to the most normal of music video programs (which are becoming more girls-gone-wild and less music-video-esque.) But seriously, that title just screams dumb sexism. As if a girl has no value other than being hot and boys' only interests are getting with hot girls (and of course, hetero-normative dating standards.)

There's more info about the show at this casting call website , but honestly the title pretty much speaks for itself.

Is it just me, or does this ad campaign cross the line?

I know Pepsi is known for appropriating any cultural idea, value, or icon that they think will sell more product, but please.  And I thought "peace, love, the Gap" was bad.

VH1's latest foray into trashy reality television, TOOL ACADEMY, actually answers that question better than you think.

In case you missed the dazzling preview, here it is:

The premise is pretty basic: nine MAJORLY sorry excuses for men are sent to compete on what they think is a show called "Mr. Awesome." What they don't know -- and don't find out until they get there -- is that their "loving girlfriends" have sent them to compete on a show called "Tool Academy," basically because they act, well, like tools. The object of the show is to compete, with their girlfriends, in a series of competitions in an effort to "de-tool" (for lack of a better word) themselves, and the one who makes the most improvement wins $100,000.

Wow.
Just...wow.

First of all, it bears stating: NO ONE, outside of a majorly self-serving jerk, would even THINK of competing in a show called "Mr. Awesome." The most awesome people I know -- male AND female -- don't walk around declaring their awesomeness...they simply ARE, and everyone around them knows it.

Second, lest you think these guys just lack basic Victorian-era manners (which, in my opinion, isn't necessarily a "tool" qualifier -- one can have Victorian-era manners and still be a tool, and one can lack these social graces and still be awesome), these guys are tools because they do things like cheat on their girlfriends, take their money and lie slugabed about the house, lie to them, demean them...you know, all those fun things that make a guy just "so awesome"!

Third, while it's encouraging that society (at least on the surface) seems to no longer encourage men to act like jerks, it's mighty disappointing that these guys only seem "embarrassed" by their behavior AFTER their girlfriends were shown the videotape of them acting like the aforementioned jerks that they are (meanwhile, they seemed MIGHTY proud of themselves on the tape).

But while I can't say enough bad things about these guys who participate in this trainwreck -- where, even if you argue that "reality TV" isn't really "real," it speaks volumes that these men would allow themselves to be portrayed in this way -- it's the WOMEN on this show who make me even more ashamed.

Now, I know that some would argue that these women are the "victims" of these emotionally abusive jerks. And, to a degree, that is certainly correct: it's obvious that a vast majority of these women have serious self-esteem issues, and these men obviously took the opportunity that was presented to them.

However, part of the point of being a feminist is to be empowered, and this empowerment includes shunning victimization, especially in situations like these where victimization can be prevented.

I wish I could feel sorry for women who end up in relationships with guys like these -- and, certainly, in my younger years, I myself got caught up in relationships like these. Then I wised up -- and realized that one is only a victim in these circumstances when they ALLOW it.

If you, as a person, allow ANYONE (as a person, whatever they define themselves as, and IF they define themselves at all) to mistreat you, to disrespect you, and to run roughshod on your integrity and self-esteem, they will...but DEMAND respect, and SHOW it in return, and you will be treated as the empowered person that you are.

(And if that person DOESN'T treat you the way you deserve to be treated, the bonus is that you're empowered enough to realize it, and kick them to the gutter where they belong...this goes for professional relationships, too. In all my professional years, especially in the entertainment industry, I was NEVER told I couldn't do something simply because I was a woman, nor was I EVER given a demeaning tag -- i.e., "groupie" -- by fellow professionals, and ESPECIALLY not by the men in my field. Of course, I had a mother who was President of a Teamster local, so it's not like professionally empowered women were only on the pages of MS. in my world...)

Unfortunately, it seems to be a near-epidemic in this country amongst young girls and women: that they must, simply MUST, get their self-worth validated through men, regardless of the cost to their self-esteem or dignity.

Where have we gone wrong, as women, to allow this to happen?

What happened to the women of the new feminist movement -- the women who, in the 60's and 70's, marched for our right to be paid equally, who burned their bras in salute to the patriarchy, who refused to be treated like little more than property?

Are THESE the daughters they raised?

Who's more foolish...these guys, or the women that put up with them?

In closing, I just have to say...it's all about self-respect. Either you're lucky enough to have parents who teach you to have some, or you acquire it along the way. Either way, it's an empowering thing...it prevents you from being, and being around, a tool.

An advertisement of Mother's Choice some years ago in Hong Kong.

I just heard that FOX is developing a series about female werewolves called "Bitches."

I would like to think that the show will be about the lives of women who happen to be werewolves, but I'm reasonably sure that it will just be an excuse for the women to run around naked. The line quoted on www.comingsoon.net says "How can you date and fall in love with someone when you're a werewolf and you start to turn when you're aroused?"

When was the last time you saw a feminist television show that features a female lead character who is intelligent, independent, strong and accomplished, yet at the same time is also compassionate and caring, able to cry and wants social justice? If you're like me, you probably haven't seen any in recent times, and so it was surprising for me to, as an accident, pick up a DVD of the television series "Bones," a few weeks ago at Blockbuster, and now, I am hooked. I wanted to share with you how awesome this show is.

The lead character is a cultural anthropologist who works alongside the FBI to solve crimes by examining bones of the remains of victims. Like other shows, this show involves a series of investigations in which, at the end, the murderer is caught.

Yet, that's where the similarities end. Just as this show features a powerful woman as a lead character, the boss is also a woman - an African-American woman at that. While the show does not attempt to be politically correct, it does bring a diversity of people in leading/powerful positions. Below are also a series of other reasons the show is feminist.

Did anyone watch John Stewart last night?  He held his own to a certain degree while disagreeing with Huckabee about gay marriage.  He could have come back at the "marriage is for procreation" line of B.S. Huckabee was shoveling with something like, "Really, what about couples who are infertile or don't want children?  Can they get married?"  He did point out that gay couples could be good parents, and better at parenting than two Celebes that he named. On that issue, he did a great job.

Good for John- let me find a cookie to share.

Oh, but wait, hold the cookie!  He not only failed to defend a woman's choice, but, went as far as saying, "I get it" implying that he understands the social conservatives anti-choice stance.  He said abortion is something we should work to reduce the numbers of.  OK, that's something we can all agree with.  He didn't go after the "head in the sand" anti-choice position that ignores the historical fact of abortion before it was legal.  He didn't mention that abortion not only occurred long before Roe V Wade, before the United States for that matter, but, that it often left women (some mothers) mangled or dead.  He didn't defend our choice AT ALL.

As John Stewart sat across a man who wrote a book that claims we can all do without govt. interference if we just learn to "Do unto others."  I'm glad he represented for gay marriage activism (I was hooting and hollering). I just wish he had pointed out how insane pro-lifers can be in their oppressive beliefs.  That some anti-choicer's are terrorists & many are bully's.   He could have pointed out that the "do unto others and the world will be just peachy" attitude should not include forcing women to give birth.  Or even how absurd it is to believe that is all it takes and suddenly alcoholism, drug addiction, abuse of others and self, greed, etc. will just magically go away as soon as liberals join social conservatives in "Doing unto others".  I'm glad for a lot of what he said to the sexist homophobe on his show last night, now if only he could stand up for women's rights as well.

Don't even read the comments; your head will truly explode.

Get ready for a rant friends cause I am in rare form over this.

It seemed, truly, for the first like 98% of the time, that maybe there would be an ending to that that didn't make me feel like a materialistic idiot awed by shiny things into forgetting the really offensive, perverse, gross, or flat out mean things someone did to me. OOHH DIAMONDS! GO AHEAD CALL ME FAT SHINY SHINY SHINY. The assumption that my stupid ass lady brain is distracted enough by glitter, or that material goods are an equal trade-off for truly offensive and cruel behavior is just horrendously offensive.

And yet, I wanted to laugh. And I felt so so guilty about it. It seems that there is a huge gray area concerning things which are offensive and humor. carlos mencia (blech) springs to mind and that guy with the puppets, whatever his name, pisses me the hell off. Every time i complain about these comedians (or ads, or songs, etc etc etc) that use racist and sexist images or concepts for humor i hear the 'but it brings us together by laughing about the absurdity of reality' argument. of course it isn't usually worded so nicely but i digress.

The movie Bamboozled certainly sums up my feelings on things like this. Quick background if you haven't seen it. which if you haven't I HIGHLY recommend it but watch it either with a friend or with serious tissues handy. few times have i seen movies which actually make me sob; wrack my body with those sharp sort of inhalations that happen when you've received a big shock or really horrible news. it's terrible but worth the thinking it makes you do.

Law & Order: Special Victims Unit isn't often talked about on Feministing or other feminist blogs that I read from time to time. This surprises me, because I think it's the most feminist show on television. That might not be such a hard thing considering the anti-woman crap that's on the tube all hours of the day, but I still think SVU is the most pro-woman show. In fact, it's the only fictional show on TV that makes me tear up almost every week. Even though it's a fictional show, the problems it exposes are very real.

Have you ever read something on this site and thought, "That wouldn't have happened if Olivia Benson and Elliot Stabler were around"? I know I have, and it's too bad that these two aren't real. Because they just plain rule. Elliot Stabler, the ultimate man's man, dedicates his life to helping kids and survivors of sexual assault and putting asshole rapists in prison. Elliot, get out of my TV and into my bed (to maybe eat popcorn and play Crazy 8s). We need more Elliot Stablers everywhere. We need more Olivia Bensons too. She really puts her life on the line for the victims. Did anyone see that episode last season where Olivia goes undercover in the women's prison to expose rampant sexual assault by the guards? Who else would do that? I totally cried after watching that episode.

The show is in its 10th season, so why am I just talking about it now? Well, this season is a little different. The pro-feminist messages are more overt than in previous seasons, in my opinion. For one, the new ADA, Kim Greylek, wants to make rape a hate crime. Rape -- a hate crime! *choir of angels sing* But the last two episodes have been particularly feminist.

Has anyone noticed a social conservative trend on ABC/ Disney ?

First, they put a Fox News, parrot next to Barbara Walters on the View.

She made what can be taken, at least,  as a dismissive comment about Deepak Chopra recently.  I don't watch the show, I read about that in an interview on the Huff post.  Deepak saw it as a racist comment.  So did I.

3 weeks ago, they killed a storyline that included a lesbian love affair between two Doctors.  They killed it abruptly, firing an actres who was contributing a great character to the show, lesbian or not.

Last night on Private Practice, they portrayed anti- choice as  somehow more feeling.   They went as far as to end the episode with a sad grief filled moment.  A Doctor looking out the window experiencing sadness and disbeleif (maybe tears?) delivered the line, " a baby died here today". I immediately took the show off my DVR list.

Does anyone have ideas on contacting ABC/ Disney about this trend?

Did Rupert Murdoch buy ABC?

What is going on and what can we do about it?

I've been a fan of Family Guy since its first season came on. I've always found it funny, but at the same time, I've always found it sexist. And the rate at which it degrades women only seems to be increasing.

Generally, as with most things, I try to enjoy the good in the show, and when something that offends me occurs I try to think "yes, it's offensive, but the rest of the show's good. I can overlook this." Tonight's episode, however, was inexcusable.

Tonight, a character on the show said, "this is as useless as Aquaman," and then cut to a scene of a woman being raped, with Aquaman standing idly by.

Let me repeat that.

A woman was raped for comedic effect.

I was speechless.

How could this possibly have been justified? Who was it that thought, "tonight we're going to have a woman be raped on prime time television, and we're all going to laugh at it, because it's just a joke?"

I'm at a loss right now. Do I stop watching a show I previously liked because of this? Do I tell my friends I'm not a fan anymore, and risk being told I have no sense of humor? Or that it's just one episode, and I should lighten up?

But more importantly, why is this tolerated? The episode just premiered an hour ago. Tomorrow will I turn on the news and find out that the writers of Family Guy are apologizing for such disgusting content? Will anyone else be writing letters of outrage? The next time I get together with friends, will I hear outrage, or will that incident be completely overlooked?

In our society, I'm lost. I enjoy a lot of television shows and video games which put women in a negative light, because it seems almost unavoidable to find something which contains no sexism. But when rape begins edging onto prime time television as something to laugh at, what's next?

I realize this isn't the first rape joke, or the first act of sexism on television, but considering its time slot and wide appeal, I can't understand how it made its way into the episode. And I can't figure out how I should react, either.

I must admit I do like South Park most of the time. Last night's episode, however was really out of control, featuring several graphic rape scenes. This episode made my male roommates uncomfortable too. I was expecting someone to have posted on this already, but I'm really interested in reactions to this episode. I tried to find it online, but viacom is really strict with its videos on youtube.

While politicians are planning to bribe poor women into getting their tubes tied, a family with 17 children and one on the way gets their own television series on The Learning Channel. Part of the description reads:

With values rooted in their strong personal faith, Jim Bob and Michelle firmly believe that every child is a gift to be cherished.

What the hell kind of name is Jim Bob? Anyway, Michelle has been pregnant for 12 years of her life, they spend $2,000 a month on groceries, and their house is like 6 houses put together (yet, all the boys sleep in one room, and all the girls sleep in another -- weird).

I wouldn't give 90,000 diapers in crap about this family if members of the government and society at large weren't racist and classist when it comes to family planning. When it's Black women working minimum wage, it's called a drain on the economy and the height of irresponsibility. But when it's a White Southern Baptist family, it's porno for fundies.

I was just at one of my girlfriends houses, relaxing in between classes when I saw a commercial for some gps locator (I can't remember which brand. sorry) that was designed to keep parents informed and teenage drivers safe, because the car would alert the parents if the kids went outside of the boundaries. Now, maybe it's because I'm only 21, dont have kids, blah blah blah,  but this just seems wrong. Because whose making sure that it isnt abusive members of a relationship, or stalkers placing this gps locator on the vehicles? My dad and I have placed locators on our offroad vehicles when we're in the woods in case they break down and have to bail, all you do is stick the locator to a protected (hidden) part of the car. I guess it just scares me. How do you feel?

I was crying.

I was actually crying. Watching the Cho Show had made me cry because it was brilliant, hilarious, and felt so connected with Margaret as she made me see that I'm truly not alone in feeling alienated by parents and by community.

Being half-Korean, I can't say that I can fully identify with Margaret's struggles but I still can sympathize with a lot of the things she's been through. Especially with demanding Korean parents who have a vision set for their children and fully expect their children to follow that "Doctor/Lawyer" or other professional career path as they see it as a true marker of success in America.

I heard about a new reality TV series on the radio coming home from work today.  It's called "Gadget or the Girl," and the premise is what you can expect from the title.  Male contestants get to choose between a super-awesome high-tech gadget or a weekend vacation with the girl of their choice.

While this is on Playboy TV (so what can we really expect from a company who's business is exploiting and objectifying women), it makes some assumptions about women that are disgusting to me.  Firstly, that women are the equivalent to an object (otherwise it wouldn't be a very tough decision).  Secondly, that women's affections can be bought and sold (or won in this case).  And thirdly, that only men are truly interesting in these high-tech gadgets (they'd have to make them pink for girls to be interested in them at all). 

It's just sad that our society still accepts these out-dated ideas of women.  This show was advertised on the local "family-friendly" radio station in my town.  People just don't see the problem with women being used as available commodities.  This isn't just a problem with this particular game show.  Most games shows either use women as prizes (like many of the "dating" ones do) or use them as objects in the show (to show of prizes or just to stand around and be pretty).  It's sick and reaffirms my decision to stop watching television.

Lately, I've been thinking about writing a feminist deconstruction of the hit '90s show, "Saved By The Bell." I remember watching this show as a ten-year-old and feeling so annoyed with the character, Jessie Spano. I remember thinking to myself, "God, I never want to be a feminist!" She made it seem so whiney (plus I was ten at the time). Of course, I now know that her character was obviously developed by a man who knew little about feminism. I feel like other young women (and men) must have felt annoyed with Jessie's character as well. She shared many stereotypical traits that are placed upon feminists: she wasn't any "fun", she couldn't take a joke, she was a bit of a prude, etc. The show consistently mocked feminism. Anytime A.C. Slater (horrible hair) made some sexist quip, the audience laughed and even Jessie would make a face to show it was all okay. No one took her (or the subject matter) seriously. Take this quote for example, Jessie: "Slater, haven't you heard of the Women's Movement?" Slater: "Sure... put on something cute and move it into the kitchen" (cue audience). Of course, the viewer sides with the beefy, latin chauvinist. Oh, and here's another good 1950's-esque sexist quote, Jessie: "Slater, since we're together I think we should share the household chores." Slater: "Sure, you cook and I'll eat." 

For now, I'll leave it at that. What does everyone else think?

Dear Iliza Shlesinger:

Thank you for having the presence of mind in your moment of triumph to say, "it's not about being a girl, it's about being a funny comic," when asked on national television what it felt like to be a female in comedy. Thank you for looking appropriately shocked that THAT would be the question you were asked when you won. I was not the only one who was blown away by that question and I stood up and shouted at the screen "Why didn't you just ask Marc what it was like to lose to a girl, you fuckers!" You won every challenge, every time, you laughed gracefully when that stupid plastic dog made jokes about your boobs while it merely commented on the other contestants talent, and you nailed the "non-specific native armband tattoo" joke to the wall.

Thank you Iliza, for being a hilarious, non-gender specific, comedian.

Apparently this is the Lifetime Television Network's "Fallen Angels Week". While they are advertising for this, they show clips from various movies and televsion shows. All of their "fallen angels" are drug users, pregnant girls, girls who got married really young, etc.

I caught this lovely little show a few nights ago and literally stared opened-mouthed at one segment before feeling nauseous enough to change the channel.

Think this is bad? This is only 1 of many videos that are on youtube. I think this is a prime example of how gender stereotypes and roles end up hurting men too. A lot of the "manswers" they give have to do with not getting arrested for drug or alcohol related crimes. Because real men make bad decisions about illegal substances and need to know how to use their boyish charm to get out of trouble. And then of course they must celebrate by going to the country where you'll get the most sex, duh!

This seriously makes me ill.

I have been wanting to say something about this for some time now, but it wasn't until I read this post at Feministing that I decided to add my two cents to the mix. The show has already aired, but it feels good to have this out.

What triggered me was this ad for a particular episode of "Reality Bites Back," a showed designed to parody typical reality shows:

Ok, so I had a little mini-addiction involving a tween soap opera, but it's about to come to an end.

I'm sure you've all heard the buzz about the new show, "The Secret Life of the American Teenager" on ABC family. I know most of you will have issues with the subject of abortion in it and how it's portrayed (see previous post "On Abortion and Mainstream Television: Why is a Woman's Right still taboo?"), but my beef is with the show's blatant sexism and and anti-woman undertones.

    The hosts of The View interviewed The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor stars Brendan Fraser and Maria Bello.  The interview was short and mostly consisted of Whoopi Goldberg and Fraser reminiscing about a past film they had both worked on.  When conversation gravitated back towards the latest Mummy , Fraser was applauded for his ability to act opposite CGI characters, while Bello was applauded for refusing an epidural during the birth of her son.

    Now, from my point-of-view, Fraser has a more distinguished film career and more general “name power,” so I can accept that he dominated the interview.  I also understand that the choice to give birth without medication, in this day and age, absolutely merits conversation, particularly on a talk show that draws a predominantly female audience.  I just found it compelling that most of the conversation directed towards Fraser concerned his acting, while the only questions that Bello really responded to were about motherhood.

    I don’t watch The View on a regular basis, so I don’t know if the male and female guests on the show are routinely treated differently.  The segment does make me think back to the very non-political interview of Michelle Obama that made the rounds on YouTube, though.  Does anybody watch The View enough to know if this is a pattern?  Am I just catching the show on all the wrong days?

I know this has been blogged about on feministing and other sites in the past, but I have to give my two cents.

The 1973 ruling of Roe v. Wade gave women the right to have an abortion. Our right(italics). Whether people agree on the decision should not take away the value of this right because, although the ruling could be overturned in the future, legally one cannot deny that we have a right to obtain an abortion.

So my question is: why does television and the media treat this subject as something that is still up in the air and therefore the only safe plot is for every pregnant tv character to "choose" life?