Posts filed under 'class'
Female TV protagonists do not reflect reality
Susan J. Douglas’s report, “Where Have You Gone, Roseanne Barr?” [PDF here], details the media’s failure to represent the real American woman—the everyday breadwinners and caregivers. Douglas says the media are funhouse mirrors that exaggerate certain parts of our collective reality and hide others.
The media, it turns out, are gravely overrepresenting the success women have made in the workforce.
By judging by the protagonists I see in the majority of TV dramas and sitcoms, I would deduce that, by and large, American women are successful doctors, lawyers, police detectives, and, sometimes even Presidents of the United States. They occupy high positions in male-dominated areas. It seems, at last, as if women have really “made it.”
I think I fell for it, too.
But in reality, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the top five jobs women held in 2008 were (in this order) secretaries, nurses, elementary and middle school teachers, cashiers, and retail salespersons. And the median salary for women was $36,000 a year — 23% less than men.
Most American women struggle like the character Roseanne, a real female protagonist, played by Roseanne Barr. Douglas believes that more women like Roseanne should be portrayed on network television.
Douglas asserts that as women were heading off to college and the workforce like never before in the 1950s and 60s, women in television were still stay-at-home moms and blonde bombshells. The media illusion at that time was that women weren’t making it when, in fact, they were.
Now, she says, “the media illusion is that equality for girls and women is an accomplished fact when it isn’t. Then, the media were behind the curve; now, ironically, they’re ahead.” But wait, I thought. That’s good, right?
Chandra Wilson as Dr. Bailey on Grey's Anatomy
Isn’t it good that young girls turn on the TV and see powerful women holding important positions, like Geena Davis as president in Commander in Chief, and Chandra Wilson as powerful, sharp Dr. Bailey in Grey’s Anatomy? Isn’t it good that the media recognize and acknowledge the accomplishments women have made in our society?
But change the channel. Flip through tabloids. Click through gossip blogs.
While we see successful women on our television screens, we still see dating programs that boil women down to airheads and sex fiends. We still see “Who Wore it Best” columns, Sports Illustrated bikini spreads, and articles that measure a celebrity’s success based on her weight management.
Why is that? Douglas explains that this disconnect in women’s portrayals exists because, since women have “made it” according to all those network programs, so it’s okay to keep objectifying women in other platforms. It’s ironic and amusing, and, hey, it’s okay, because all those women are successful!
What do you think? Is it the mainstream media’s responsibility to reflect reality or simply create entertaining shows? Is it better to overrepresent success, or do you think this constant depiction of accomplishment gives other outlets justification to continue objectifying women? Were you ever inspired by a female protagonist on a television show? And are you disgusted by others? We’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments.
–Kate
November 12th, 2009
An earlier version of this article was previously posted at AAUW’s blog, Dialog.
The Shriver Report – A Woman’s Nation (A Study by Maria Shriver and the Center for American Progress) includes a chapter entitled “Where Have You Gone, Roseanne Barr?”, which discusses more than the offensive depictions of women or the lack of women’s representation in the media. While the chapter’s author, Susan J. Douglas, does talk about those issues, she goes right to the root of the problem:
Why should policy makers pay attention to media images of women? Because the media—and especially (although not exclusively) the news media—may not succeed in telling us what to think, but they certainly do succeed in telling us what to think about. This is called agenda-setting, and thus it matters if the real lives of most women are nowhere on the agenda, or if the agenda promotes the fantasy that full equality is now a reality for all women. And policymaking matters because the news media typically follow the lead of political elites in Washington. (p. 1)
This Ralph Lauren photo recently caused a big stir
This issue of agenda-setting and constantly seeing “idealized” images of women is particularly a problem when you only see super-thin, over-emaciated models (such as the Ralph Lauren model photo re-touching outrage), glorified depictions of violence against women, or, as Douglas points out, the overrepresentation of women in high-level, high-power positions.
There is a stark contrast between women working in the real world and what is represented on TV. As AAUW (American Association of University Women) said in an announcement back in June:
In 2009, women made up more than half the U.S. labor force; yet, the number of women CEOs in Fortune 500 companies stands at 13. In Fortune 1000 companies, only 25 women hold that position. At the current rate, it could take 40 years for the number of female CEOs to equal the number of male CEOs.
Additionally, as I mentioned in a previous blog post, women’s representation in employment as well as ownership of media is pretty dismal. True, while improved representation in employment does not necessarily mean there will be an improvement in how women are depicted and talked about in both the news and popular media, it still would be a progression for women in our society.
Female experts are not being consulted, and women’s voices are not being heard. According to The Op-Ed Project—an initiative that works to see more women represented as op-ed contributors, columnists, and general experts accessible to the media—men dominate 85 percent of the “national conversation.”
What all this boils down to is the issue of accurate representation. As Douglas states in her chapter, “these distorted reflections contain and perpetuate significant class biases by either ignoring or silently ridiculing most women who make less than $100,000 a year and aren’t media-perfect in appearance” (p. 3).
We need those accurate depictions to show what life is really like for women, not just those who have successful careers and are wealthy, but those who aren’t especially wealthy. We need to see more of those women who may or may not be in relationship, those who may or may not have a family, those who may or may not be caregivers, and the list goes on.
Issues facing women in the media are incredibly important because while these issues may seem harmless, they can have long-lasting effects on how women and girls perceive themselves as well as how society in general perceives them. It’s about giving a voice—and representation—to a multitude of experiences rather than seeing and hearing from a select few.
–Katherine
November 9th, 2009
The San Francisco Chronicle recently published an article about the growing number of “mommies” turning to cosmetic surgery to get rid of unwanted fat, cellulite, and saggy breasts. I have so many comments, I don’t even know where to begin–but they all revolve around this narrow standard of beauty women feel pressured to live up to.
“Mommy Makeovers” used to be thought of as a new hairdo, some additions to the wardrobe, and perhaps a visit to the spa. Now it means cosmetic surgery??!!
“Many other Bay Area moms interviewed about their plastic surgeries said they did it for self-esteem rather than for their husbands or to compete with other women. These same women also are very reluctant to let anyone know they did it.”
As much as I want to believe that these women are undergoing cosmetic surgery of their own volition, I can’t help but wonder whether societal pressures to maintain youth-like beauty and taut skin influenced their decision-making process. According to the article, “More than 325,000 tummy tucks, breast augmentations and breast lifts were performed on women ages 20-39 in 2006. That’s an increase of about 11 percent from 2005, according to data released Thursday by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.” How much of a “choice” is cosmetic surgery and how much of it is pressure from media?
One woman says that her procedure was the “cost of an economy car.” That’s what? $10,000? Women make 77 cents on a man’s dollar; our basic financial rights haven’t been met, yet the pressure to remain beautiful is prioritized over equal pay or equal rights in general. Why aren’t women pressured to focus on saving money or learning more about financial investments for future security? I wonder if our obsession with appearence is yet another way to keep women from gaining equality?
And how does this affect the children of these women, particularly her daughters? Do spouses encourage them? Or do they support their partners in whichever decision she makes?
How would it make you feel if your mother had cosmetic surgery? If she has, did that affect your thoughts about your own body?
– A.J.
April 25th, 2007
Though I’ve only seen two episodes, I am hooked on “Ugly Betty.” It’s cheesy, dramatic, funny — all the key elements of a soap opera. It’s television shows like this one where I can’t decide whether I should boycott it or question the urge I have to watch it all day.
Betty is lovable. I can’t get enough of her. I relate to her because she is unlike most characters I see on television. However, the show plays on a lot of racial, class, and gender stereotypes, which in turn affect women’s 
self-esteem and body image.
Some of my feedback from the pilot episode:
Betty is smart, funny, ambitious, and confident. Her confidence strikes me, because usually when we see “nerdy” women on television, they are too wrapped up in their all-consuming geekiness to place value on hygiene or anything related to maintaining “femininity.” They try to accept their inherent geekiness with pride. Betty seems to know she doesn’t fit in. She doesn’t seem concerned with defining her identity within the standards set by her co-workers. Her niche includes women who are also Mode Magazine outcasts. They seem woman-centric and supportive of one another, which apparently isn’t valued at Mode. Why are the so-called “popular women” (a.k.a. fashionable and superficial ones) usually portrayed as catty, jealous, and competitive in mainstream media?
Here are a few more questions the pilot episode raised for me:
- Why do ambitious women often get portrayed as catty, competitive, mean, superficial witches or innocent, nice, unattractive (by mainstream standards), clumsy, wool-wearing simpletons?
- What are some stereotypes Hilda, Betty’s sister, perpetuates about Latina women?
And one more thing–Daniel was sexually harrassing his first assistant. Apparently if you are a beautiful and sexy (by mainstream standards) woman, you can’t expect to be taken as a serious professional. However, if you are geeky, and unattractive, you can expect to be respected…that is, after your boss feels bad for working you into the ground in an attempt to get you to quit!
If you’ve seen “Ugly Betty,” I’d love to know what you think. More to come…
–A.J.
March 8th, 2007
