Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GlyphGryph]

I don't watch much TV, but I'm sure I miss this sort of stuff.

So, take the shows I watch - Dr. Who, Raising Hope, Eureka (and Friendship is Magic, obviously).

Are these shows bad on this front, and I just don't notice? Or are they just not representative of media in general?

Thinking about it, I suppose Raising Hope is pretty bad on this front? It seems to have plenty of major female characters, but maybe they are portrayed poorly, and overall its pretty white.

[Vector]

So...

Doctors of Doctor Who: White male.
Companions of Doctor Who: White male or white female.

Role of companions in Doctor Who: well, I've only seen a couple of episodes but I don't remember them having much of an active role.  In general.


Friendship is Magic doesn't count in the scenario because it's specifically geared towards little girls.  If it were a general-demographic release, I'd feel different about it.  Also, I haven't seen any of it, so I don't feel that I can speak to it.

[Leafsnail]

I actually quite like having a protagonist who's wildly different to me.  It means that the author has to explain and flesh them out more, building them into something far more complex, and something who I can think of as a separate, interesting character rather than a not very detailed character with bits filled in by my personality.  It's really hard to pull off though, which is why I've never really done it in my writing.  Maybe I should have a go sometime.

Doctors of Doctor Who: White male.
Companions of Doctor Who: White male or white female.

Role of companions in Doctor Who: well, I've only seen a couple of episodes but I don't remember them having much of an active role.  In general.

Due to the nature of the show, Doctor Who could totally be female.  I really hope it'll happen sometime.

Although I would point out that the companion isn't always white (most recently there was Martha).

[GlyphGryph]

Companions are almost always female, and are actually close to driving forces and main characters than the doctor is, pretty much explicitly as part of the purpose of the show. There have been several episodes where the doctor's presence is barely felt. And there have been several episodes with female characters saving female characters too!

In the newest series, they have been:
White female
Black male (Had one of the more interesting character arcs, IMO)
White female
Black female (Best companion, by far)
White Female
White male

It IS true that the doctor's regens always seem to be white male though, which is certainly odd, and probably a better critique than the companions. And there does seem to be a distinct lack of characters outside white/black.

[Lovechild]

I have seen those shows, I know what he is talking about. What you said there is simply not true. They are not horrid shrews being abrasive evil people. They are often (BUT NOT ALWAYS!) some what sarcastic, but nothing like you are describing. They also have a very good reason for such, if you were inexplicitly married to some dope… Well, I certainly would not be nearly as nice as they are.

I think the "sarcastic woman - dumb man" trope is just a variation of the "serious woman - funny man" trope, which is extremely widespread. The man does all the hilarious wacky stuff and the woman's job is to sigh/get angry/make snarky comments about it. Aside from being a tired cliché, it is saying that a man can be funny on his own with his wackiness, but a woman is only funny when commenting on her man.

You can see this trope in The Simpsons, Family Guy, Married With Children, Fawlty Towers... the only show I can think of that has a wacky woman and a serious man is Hey Ash Whatcha Playin.

[Vector]

Hmm, sorry about that, then.  The website I looked at wasn't very high quality and probably didn't have the most recent season.

However, the fact that you're saying "there have been..." ... Well, I dunno.  I don't want to blame you. I'm just tired of society =/  Anyway, I feel like British shows in general can be a lot better about this sort of thing.  Another example: Red Dwarf.  No female presence, but 2/3 of the main characters were black for a while, and then it moved to 2/4 black guys, one total git white guy, and one white (... ?) robot.  Mainstream audience, too <3

I think the "sarcastic woman - dumb man" trope is just a variation of the "serious woman - funny man" trope, which is extremely widespread. The man does all the hilarious wacky stuff and the woman's job is to sigh/get angry/make snarky comments about it. Aside from being a tired cliché, it is saying that a man can be funny on his own with his wackiness, but a woman is only funny when commenting on her man.

You can see this trope in The Simpsons, Family Guy, Married With Children, Fawlty Towers... the only show I can think of that has a wacky woman and a serious man is Hey Ash Whatcha Playin.

Thank you.

[Criptfeind]

Anyway........ I have change my mind about you not being able to change peoples mind via forum arguments. This change was brought about by you changing my mind about you not being able to change peoples mind via forum arguments.

[Lysabild]

I dunno but if I sat down to write a story I think there'd be a lot of white people, a lot of men I like, A cute gay boy that I can totally dream of and some women I like. Which would be both cliché but also with it's own touches, but most importantly, I wouldn't think about it like this. At all. I'd just write what comes to me, I'm not going to look it over for "Is there enough black people, is the woman awesome, so on so on."

So yeah, I think critique for the show isn't the right approach, critique for the station choosin' these writers however.


Edit: If I was to write a story about a Woman it'd be about my mom, A bad dauther, a minor/medium drug addict and yet a surprisingly good mother with teeth and claws fighting for her children yet fighting her own overweight and bad habits badly and a big problem with spending money wisely, spending it all on her kids and getting huge debts to both family and state, to make sure we'd  all always smile, who all had their terrible problems, A schizo kid, A rebel/depressed kid(me) and a daughter born with physical handicaps having to be operated tons of times, yet staying on top of it all as a single mom through most of it. Is this Cliché?

[DJ]

Sci-Fi, fantasy and action's main target audience is adolescent males, so most of the leads there are male because it's easier for the audience to identify with the hero. On the other hand, male characters in media oriented towards women tend to be flat and serve more as a tool for driving the plot rather than being the ones that drive it. Seriously, can you remember much details about *any* male character in Sex and the City? Even Mr Big, the one that got the most episodes, is nearly completely void of any personality. I guess the one that comes the closest is that bald gay guy (Xavier something?), but he's mostly a parade of gay stereotypes.

And if you think that male-oriented media has a bad attitude towards women, you should try reading Cosmopolitan sometimes. A couple of months ago I've read a lengthy article that compares men with dogs, and explains how to apply dog training techniques to dating. I don't know how you'd feel about being compared to a dog, but I found it quite offensive. And yeah, I read my sister's Cosmo when I'm bored, everyone laugh at me

So yeah, I think the main problem here is your absurd sampling bias.

[Vector]

Most "general-audience fiction" is geared toward men.  I've seen women compared to animals plenty of times--I have a "fun" link you can read when I get back from class.  Also, I don't read Cosmo or watch Sex in the City, so... *shrug*

Try again.

[Criptfeind]

I've seen women compared to animals plenty of times--I have a "fun" link you can read when I get back from class.

Is the main stream? Cause if not it is not a fair comparison.

Also, I don't read Cosmo or watch Sex in the City, so... *shrug*

I seem to not watch any of the shows you do.

[DJ]

Most drama is geared towards women. And yeah, I guess since anything that you don't read or watch is completely irrelevant (the world revolves around you, after all) I'll need a list of what you *do* read and watch before I try again.

And there's a world of difference between calling a woman a bitch and writing a goddamned essay about using punishments and rewards to get them to do things on cue.

[Bauglir]

I dunno, it seems to me that orienting entire genres toward a particular gender is, itself a cultural problem. I am deeply suspicious of any inherent differences in brain structure/chemistry that would justify that divide.

And there's a world of difference between calling a woman a bitch and writing a goddamned essay about using punishments and rewards to get them to do things on cue.

Whether or not that's the case depends on whether you think about what you're actually saying. Most people don't consider the exact implications of a particular insult, but the fact remains that those implications are usually why it's an insult in the first place. When you call a somebody a bitch, it's shorthand for, "You are a stupid, highly temperamental beast controlled by your breeding cycle, plus all the other negative traits traditionally associated with femininity." When you call somebody a bastard, it's shorthand for, "Your parents were immoral, so you probably are, too." (Given the assumption that sex out of marriage is inherently immoral, which it more or less was assumed to be in the culture that made it an insult)

You might not consciously think that when you use the words. Chances are, you're just angry and you've learned that those are words to communicate your anger. Or you may well have just picked them up completely divorced from their original meaning, and just casually use them. Or whatever. But those meanings are still there, and many people will still pick up on them. There's a lot more similarity than you seem to think, although it is non-obvious.

Spoiler: Digression (click to show/hide)

I may not agree with the postmodern belief that language defines reality, and that as a consequence not only is objectivity impossible, but that ultimate power lies in control of language, but I'd have to be insane to deny that language impacts how reality (which I believe to be basically objective) is perceived, or that it exerts a lot of influence on how people think. In this case, I think its importance is obvious; in social issues, the effect of social constructs like this is always going to be more pronounced.

Also, if I've misattributed that idea and it's not actually a keystone of postmodernism, I apologize both to postmodernists and to the people it's actually supposed to be associated with.

EDIT: Oh man, we totally have a thread for that. Haha, maybe I should post there. Also, should clarify that "have to be insane" means "have to be insane, given my experiences thus far,"

[Criptfeind]

His point. Totally past you I thinks.

[Bauglir]

Could well be. If his point is just that writing an entire essay is worse than a brief expletive, I'd have to argue that it depends on what you're talking about. On an individual level, the essay is pretty damning to the author and the publisher. The use of the expletive without a second thought for its meaning is worse on a cultural level, because it more or less indicates complete acceptance of the reasoning behind it (again, on a cultural level).

Still, this all is kind of irrelevant. I should've made a better point in my last post. "They do it, too," does not a good argument make.