Gender Representation on TV: An Unfinished Revolution?

[chound]

I'm in India, I don't know about other places. I can't seem to find a channel broadcasting programmes and commercials without a woman. It's not that I don't want women on TV, but its the way they potray women that I don't like. Is this what Men and women who fought for equal rights for women wanted? Is this something that women made for themselves.

 

[stjimmy]

I think it is becuse that women make up around the same percentage of people as men and well if the tv programmes want to make money they got to have things people can identify with and women identify with women men with men just the way things are

 

[Polly]

What about women in the reality shows which are all the rage around the world, the Apprentice, Survivor, America's Next Top Model, Amazing Race etc which show normal women at their most vicious, scheming and manipulative when propelled by the greed to grab a big break/$1M prize money?

 

[Scientific Method]

The American media is not just a capitalist tool, but a political tool as well where Leftist ideologies are intentionally promoted for the purpose of political indoctrination. As such, one will find heavy feminism, multiculturalism, biodiversity, sentimentalism, anti-intellectualism/anti-scientific method, homosexuality, anti-guns, anti-male, etc.

Not that I consider equal opportunity for females as a bad thing, but media feminism goes to the point to where males are degraded and placed lower than females.

 

[Kerrie]

Not that I consider equal opportunity for females as a bad thing, but media feminism goes to the point to where males are degraded and placed lower than females.

please provide evidence of this claim, or state that it is your opinion. fact is, women make up 51% of the population, and the equal rights movement has given them a power that men have had for generations. some men seem to have adjustment issues to that. instead of taking on the male vs female attitude, why can't we be more encouraging? you may even win some points with the ladies...kind of like saying, "if you can't beat 'em, why not join 'em."

 

[Scientific Method]

Consider the violence females inflict against males in Hollywood productions: women punch men, slap them, throw objects at them, kick them in the testicles. These actions are portrayed as morally okey and even comical, but were it vice versa, the male would be villified. That is, Hollywood with it's radical feminist political view portrays males as secondary citizens to females.

Cheers!

 

[russ_watters]

Male-targeted TV often objectifies women, female-targeted TV often makes men out to be idiots. I guess that's fair...

 

[Kerrie]

Consider the violence females inflict against males in Hollywood productions: women punch men, slap them, throw objects at them, kick them in the testicles. These actions are portrayed as morally okey and even comical, but were it vice versa, the male would be villified. That is, Hollywood with it's radical feminist political view portrays males as secondary citizens to females.

Cheers!

No one's forcing you to watch these, and don't forget to unbias yourself from the fact that there is plenty of violence of men against men and women against women. I think your views are a little too one-sided.

 

[spender]

What can I add to this discussion ? Scientific Method is 100% right !

 

[Scientific Method]

No one's forcing you to watch these, and don't forget to unbias yourself from the fact that there is plenty of violence of men against men and women against women. I think your views are a little too one-sided.

I am not debating whether I have the option of changing the channel, I am discussing the promotion of radical feminism in Hollywood.

Yes, there is male on male violence, female on female violence, and female on male violence, but never male on female violence promoted in Hollywood without the male being portrayed as the villain. The general theme is that it's okey for females to assault males, but not the other way around.

I understand that as a feminist female, it's in your interest to support Hollywood, but as a male, it is not in my interest to do the same. That's what it all comes down to: self-interest - one will support what's in one's best interest.

Cheers!

 

[Kerrie]

I understand that as a feminist female, it's in your interest to support Hollywood, but as a male, it is not in my interest to do the same. That's what it all comes down to: self-interest - one will support what's in one's best interest.

Cheers!

who says i am a feminist female? i think you are jumping to conclusions without evidence. and who says i support hollywood? again, a pre-disposed bias, thus any articles you post i can safely assume stem from your own personal issues.

 

[chound]

Some actresses are shown nude. How do the actresses accept that. Dont they feel bad or doing something immoral?

 

[Kerrie]

this is the wrong forum for moral issues, plus, it does not go hand in hand with the topic you originally posted.

 

[Mentat]

this is the wrong forum for moral issues

Not if one considers morality a social phenomenon.

, plus, it does not go hand in hand with the topic you originally posted.

I thought it did. I thought the original post could easily be interpreted as having to do with the disgusting and immoral way that women are portrayed in so many T.V. shows and movies. Aside from what Scientific Method has said about T.V. promoting feminism (which I can't say I agree with, considering the degraded view of women that most shows portray (they're down-right pornographic sometimes, even on public access shows)), there are many other issues that can be raised with regard to the media's intentions and practices, with regard to feminism and chauvinism.


And no cracks about my name; the "Mentats" aren't male or female in Coville's books, and not necessarily male in Herbert's world.

I, OTOH, can't resist the crack about "Scientific Method"'s name. Seriously, though when did we start invoking you in moral issues? Besides, didn't Popper kill you already (along with "Logical Positivist")? (All in fun, I have nothing personally against "Scientific Method", just some problems with the scientific method).

 

[selfAdjoint]

Hey guys, not every woman(or man) shares your ethos, mores, or predjudices. You reveal more about yourselves than about societies with some of these comments.

 

[Kerrie]

Hey guys, not every woman(or man) shares your ethos, mores, or predjudices. You reveal more about yourselves than about societies with some of these comments.

very well said SA

 

[Dayle Record]

There, there may I offer you some tater tot casserole? How would you like a nice foot rub? I had a hard day at the office today, but when I was there I was making $.75 for every $1.00 you made. In India I am still considered a burden, even if I do work, and cook, and make children, and practice modesty, and service. Is it that you want to see more men on TV, nice manly men, slapping around women, that just don't get it right?

Ohhhh horrid multiculturalism! Let us be bigots! But, I want to be a wealthy, white, American bigot, though. No, I want to be a spiritually superior Native American bigot, complaining about the white mans ways. No, I want to be a Hindu bigot, complaining about the filth of the untouchables. No, I want to be a Male bigot, complaining about all the privileges that females get these days, females that wouldn't give me a second look on a street. No, I want to be an intellectual bigot, complaining about all the rubes, no, I want to be a female bigot, complaining about all the couch potato, sports enthusiasts in the world. No, I want to be smug, and sure that I am right and everyone else is wrong, I want to be superior, in every matter; in short, I want to be alone, with my little dolly people that do what I want in my daydreams; after all no one else is important but me.

heavy feminism, multiculturalism, biodiversity, sentimentalism, anti-intellectualism/anti-scientific method, homosexuality, anti-guns, anti-male, etc.

These are a lot of attributes, that don't match, that don't belong in the same milieu. But if you turn it all around, then it sounds like this...

I want some submissive women, who are monocultural, who are bio-undiverse, with no feelings, that are intellectual, scientific, heterosexual, that like guns, and men. It sounds like you want some sort of masochistic, cowgirl, geologist, with low self esteem, to me.

 

[Mentat]

Hey guys, not every woman(or man) shares your ethos, mores, or predjudices. You reveal more about yourselves than about societies with some of these comments.

Really? And how much of your "etho, mores, or prejudices" are unique to you? Are not your own personal moral biases reflections of the particular society of which you would consider yourself "member"?

 

[Dayle Record]

I let my membership lapse. Now I don't meet the minimum entry requirements. I don't know what to do, maybe I should marry down. Even the insects can see me coming, these days, maybe I should look among the amoebae.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Really? And how much of your "etho, mores, or prejudices" are unique to you? Are not your own personal moral biases reflections of the particular society of which you would consider yourself "member"?

The society I belong to exhibits an enormous range of all three, much wider than the narrow viewpoints like "aren't women who are shown nude on TV ashamed?" My own beliefs are probably not very near the mode in any direction.

 

[Kerrie]

Really? And how much of your "etho, mores, or prejudices" are unique to you? Are not your own personal moral biases reflections of the particular society of which you would consider yourself "member"?

Let's not steer this off topic Mentat...

If this topic becomes a moral discussion, then I will recommend it be moved the Value Theory Forum.

I thought the original post could easily be interpreted as having to do with the disgusting and immoral way that women are portrayed in so many T.V. shows and movies.

Chound didn't specify exactly what way women are portrayed on television. I took it to mean that too many women are on TV and have a feminist (as in female "power") attitude. You took it to mean something else. Yes, women (and men) have been portrayed in a more sexual manner on television. No one is denying this fact, however, let's not get into slinging judgement calls about it either. Ultimately, if you don't like how TV portrays people, turn off the boob tube...no one is forcing you to watch it, or the particular channels that have this stuff on them. I highly doubt it will change in the near future.

For once, I particularly think what Russ has to say is funny:

Male-targeted TV often objectifies women, female-targeted TV often makes men out to be idiots. I guess that's fair...

 

[Dayle Record]

Commercial TV is geared to the pocket with the most disposable income. If in your nation, women are portrayed on TV or in TV advertising as naughty, vapid, available, then the buyer of this image is perceived by PR firms, to be the individual that has the most money to spend. In the end, it is a reflection of whom your society rewards with high disposable income.

Then there are the niche markets, Beer and light alcoholic beverage advertising, being one. Have you noticed that those ads, are less about senseless sotted sports fans, and now more about trendy meterosexual types, of both genders, partying down? Drinking ads are never about Mom And Dad waiting for the kids to go to sleep. The alcohol ads are also never about singular,lonely women anesthetizing themselves, and hoping to be picked up. These ads are also never about lonely traveling salesmen, drinking themselves into a semi-coma, and going back to the hotel alone to sleep it off.

What I am saying here is that advertising and a lot of TV shows are about making the market happen for every type of goods. It is large public relations firms that determine the content of ads, not the prevailing morality of a populace. Obviously PR firms go a long way in attempts to create cultural phenomena that will result in product sales. They are the authors of pop culture in many ways. They have to remain inside the boundaries of what the current culture will be entertained by, as they create complimentary imagery of cultural types or wannabees to draw in the kind of public attention, that converts to money spent.

Even in the Utah cultural milieu, there are TV ads with lovely professional models, that claim to want to talk to you on the phone about personal matters, that claim to want to meet you. These are not a lot different than Walmart ads, with friendly elderly greeters, hoping to make you feel welcome to their money stream.

This is where mindless commerce most resembles pond life. The predatory life form, is on vacation, and negotiating the downfall of sweatshop economies, to even sweatier, sweat shop economies. This is not personal, this is just how business currently runs. The impersonality of the whole image making industry is an amazing paradox. Crafting images that go straight to the core of identity creation, via the wallet.

If you take personal offence to this, it becomes just another irritating factor in your life. If you decide that you will impose your moral values on others by legislation, then it uses up your life, and resources, and in the end you are even more controlled by it, than if you ignored it in the first place.

Education in a democratic society is paramount, and education regarding human rights and dignity, indispensable.

 

[Mentat]

The society I belong to exhibits an enormous range of all three, much wider than the narrow viewpoints like "aren't women who are shown nude on TV ashamed?" My own beliefs are probably not very near the mode in any direction.

But your "society" needn't be synonymous with your "country" or even those people who live next-door to you. Your personal "society" is just those people who have had that kind of influence on you. They are the people who are close to you, or that matter to you in some way. That they influence (if not almost completely determine) your opinions about morality and other such things is an inescapable part of their very role in your life, isn't it?

 

[Mentat]

Let's not steer this off topic Mentat...

If this topic becomes a moral discussion, then I will recommend it be moved the Value Theory Forum.

Ok.

Chound didn't specify exactly what way women are portrayed on television. I took it to mean that too many women are on TV and have a feminist (as in female "power") attitude. You took it to mean something else.

I took it to mean the many things it possibly could mean; of which, your view was but one.

Yes, women (and men) have been portrayed in a more sexual manner on television. No one is denying this fact, however, let's not get into slinging judgement calls about it either. Ultimately, if you don't like how TV portrays people, turn off the boob tube...no one is forcing you to watch it, or the particular channels that have this stuff on them. I highly doubt it will change in the near future.

I agree. I don't watch much T.V. myself (more of a "book person").

 

[plus]

Male-targeted TV often objectifies women, female-targeted TV often makes men out to be idiots. I guess that's fair...

This is not fair, and the two do not cancel out. I object to both females being objectified to please some males and also men being made out to be stupid. It is what happens though.