Is "Scandal" Getting Us Ready to Elect a Female President?

For a lot of the first half of Scandal’s third season I was pretty sure that the show was getting us ready to elect the first female president in 2016. After all, Josie Marcus, played by Lisa Kudrow, was a star on the rise who was not frightened to call out the media on their sexist standards. Then there was the unforgettable moment where President Grant called out the media on another double standard regarding everyone’s favorite jilted first lady, a character who may or may not have some similarities to a potential candidate in 2016. And, of course, it was refreshing to see that Sally Langston’s name was in the running for president, too, meaning that the show did more than give us a token Democratic female candidate.  All of these strong female characters and the focus on the media’s treatment of women in positions of power reminded me what I like about Scandal despite its infractions regarding violence against women, which are in no way excusable, and tired portrayal of Olivia Pope as a woman with very little personal agency.

Let’s start with Josie Marcus. Like many shooting stars, she burned bright and she burned fast. Played by Lisa Kudrow, Josie Marcus was a dark horse Democratic primary candidate, a congresswoman from Montana with down home charm and quite a bit of spunk. In most ways she was a rather unremarkable character on a show filled with such strong personalities, but she still managed to stand out for all the right reasons for a few good weeks. Her determination to remain true to herself and her family in the face of political pressures provided a breath of fresh air when compared with the stories of Sally Langston and Mellie Grant who have both bowed to such pressures throughout the series. However, this was not her crowning glory. That came from two minutes of the most honest television I have seen this year. In a clip that has circulated widely on social media, Rep. Marcus calls out a reporter on sexist standards in the news media and leaves all of us punching our fists in the air on our couches in a moment of feminist glory. (You can watch it here.) Marcus’s observation that reporters are constantly reminding us that female candidates are, in fact, female and by doing so “advance stereotypes that women are weaker than men” calls to mind so many stories about Hillary Clinton’s hairstyle or Sarah Palin’s time as a stay-at-home mom during the 2008 election. Marcus hit the nail on head with that one and, as speculation about 2016 mounts, it came at a great time to call upon Americans to be a little more astute and a little less tolerant of the media’s oft sexist coverage of female candidates as both the 2014 and 2016 elections edge closer.

Despite her strong run, Marcus’s candidacy and time on Scandal was cut disappointingly short by a sort-of scandal involving Marcus’s daughter/campaign manager and a stolen computer. With the exit of Josie Marcus, the focus shifted to the embattled first lady, Mellie Grant, a woman who had been repeatedly cheated on by her husband, the president, and portrayed by the media as a cold and shrewd woman. Mellie has always presented a great example of a dramatic character who has tons of personal agency and an interesting story at the same time. Her agency does not ensure her happiness; it just ensures that she gets to make her own decisions. This is a marked contrast to Olivia Pope who has lost more and more personal agency over the last two and half seasons while remaining professionally savvy, an emerging trope I detail in the post “The Olivia Pope Problem.” Mellie has one of the most interesting stories on the show and is, perhaps, Scandal’s most divisive character. Presented alternately as brokenhearted and conniving, her story is rather unpredictable and she could leave the president at any time and it wouldn’t be a surprise. Despite the prospect of her own political career, Mellie has stuck with Fitz even while being assaulted from all sides. Her sacrifices have been many and remarkable.  In the flashback heavy episode “Everything’s Coming Up Mellie” viewers got to learn more about just what those sacrifices have been. Mellie has become more and more of a nuanced character this season and she continues to one of the show’s strongest female leads, if not its strongest. However, Mellie gets a bad rep both from the fictional American public in the show and from fans of the Olivia/POTUS pairing. It was just this reputation that a stand out moment addressed this season. This time it was the president’s turn to call out the media on their behavior, specifically the way they had vilified Mellie for his wrongs. The way Mellie was depicted a cold and distant as a result of her husband’s actions rather than her own drew to mind the story of another first lady whose name has popped up quite a few times in the conversation about 2016 (I’m sure you know who I’m talking about). When President Grant called out the media for their treatment of Mellie it seemed like nothing short of a direct reference to, and perhaps endorsement of, the aforementioned first lady. Here again Scandal made a deliberate move to expose the double standards of the media regarding powerful women and I have to believe that if any former first lady did decide to run in 2016 she might face a public that’s a little more aware of sexism in the media.

After Mellie’s story had advanced some, Scandal again moved back to focusing on her shrewdness instead of her sacrifice. In the midst of Mellie’s return to a supporting role, another woman of the hour took the stage. This time it was the vice president, the ultra-conservative Sally Langston, who was bent on taking down President Grant as an independent. While Sally Langston would be nothing short of a feminist nightmare if she were real, it was refreshing to see a show consider more than just one female candidate and only Democrats. The focus on Langston’s husband also highlighted another media practice that forces female candidates to defend their husbands and their husbands’ pasts much more than male candidates must do for their wives. Langston’s candidacy added to an array of strong female characters and displayed Scandal’s ability to write women who are nuanced and interesting.

I’m left a little confused as we close out the first half of the season. Part of me wants to hate this show, especially Quinn’s perilous arc and the highly imaginative portrayal of the intelligence community, but the other part of me loves that the show has such interesting female characters and so many fist-pumping feminist moments. This is show is doing better than any form of media I have seen recently on calling out the news media on the treatment of women. I can only hope that come 2016 people will remember Josie Marcus’s tirade and the genuine problems with the treatment of female candidates the show has highlighted this season.  I want to believe that Scandal was trying to do something good for female candidates, but that does not excuse its many infractions in other areas. All I can wish for is that the show improves in its handling of violence against women and the agency it gives Olivia when it comes back in February while continuing to strongly reprimand the media on double standards regarding women in powerful positions. 

Does "Arrow" Have a Problem with Female Agency?

Last week on Arrow we saw the reveal of Sara Lance as the famed Black Canary, one of two new female additions to the cast of characters in Starling City along with the wily and suspicious Isabel Rochev. The addition of Black Canary is exciting not only because she’s a heroine of comic book lore, but because it serves to enhance an already strong and nuanced cast of female characters. Unfortunately, it also has me asking an important question: Does Arrow have a problem with female agency?

Here’s why I bring it up: In the build-up to the unmasking of Black Canary it was established that Sara is running from something or someone and that means that she isn’t on equal footing with the Arrow, or Oliver Queen, her male counterpart. Rather, Sara lacks some amount of agency afforded to Oliver. She dons a mask not only out of choice but, to a certain extent, out of necessity. As long as she’s hiding, she can’t have the same amount of freedom or choice as Oliver and that’s disappointing on a show that already struggles with giving its female characters a whole lot of agency.

Of course, you may argue that Arrow has lots of strong, independent female characters. And it does, but those characters don’t have a whole lot of control over their destiny. We can start with the classic example of Moira Queen who spent almost all of Season 1 under the thumb of the devious Malcolm Merlyn and only escaped in the last episode of the season which resulted in her imprisonment and a continued lack of agency for Mrs. Queen, though, this time as a prisoner of her judicial fate.

Now we can move to some seemingly more “in control” ladies. We’ve got a few to talk about. Of course, first and foremost there is the formidable Laurel Lance, a relentless attorney with an eye for seeing the real bad guy. Then, there’s the sassy and too-grown-up-for-her-own-good Thea Queen, Oliver’s little sister who has a remarkable amount of responsibility for her purported age of eighteen. Finishing out the trio is the incomparable Felicity Smoak, Oliver’s apparent Gal Friday and tech extraordinaire. All of these women seem to be pretty in control of their own fate and to a great extent they are. The problem lies in the writing for these women. All three have been subjected to a pretty high amount of damsel in distress syndrome, or DIDS as I like to call it. Now, that’s bound to happen a little in a superhero drama, but you don’t see the male characters being rescued nearly as much as you see the female characters being saved by the dashing Oliver and let’s be real DIDS is a little old. There are a lot more interesting stories to be told than Oliver once again dashing in and saving Laurel or Felicity at the last minute.

Now, I know what you’re going to say: But it’s a drama and everything’s not supposed to be coming up roses for all the characters. And you’re right. It is a drama, but the last time I checked giving female characters more agency over their own fate didn’t mean everything was suddenly  happy go lucky for them.  In fact, many of the most interesting female characters on TV have loads of agency and aren’t all that happy. To name a few, there’s Mellie Grant on Scandal, Christina Yang on Grey’s Anatomy, and Regina on Once Upon a Time. I don’t think anyone would say that these women have easy lives or that they lack agency. In fact, the high amount of agency these characters have often serves to make their stories more interesting and dramatic.

Stop. I know what you’re going to say now, too: But it’s a show that’s about a man and it’s hard to give the female characters more agency without taking away from his story. Well, it is a story about a man, but as in the above examples giving the supporting characters more agency doesn’t take away from the main character’s story. Mellie’s story doesn’t detract from Liv’s, Christina’s doesn’t detract from Meredith’s, and Regina’s doesn’t detract from Emma’s so why should we have any reason to believe that giving Oliver’s supporting women more agency would make his story less interesting.

Okay. By now you’re probably wondering who Oliver is going to rescue if we try to cure the ladies of Arrow of DIDS. And the answer is everyone. Oliver can go on rescuing Laurel, Thea, and Felicity, but maybe he should be rescuing  Quentin Lance, Roy Harper, and John Diggle just as much, and to make things really interesting maybe every once in a while Felicity or Laurel or Thea should rescue Oliver. Now, that’s an episode I’d definitely tune in for.

It goes without saying that Arrow already does a better than average job of providing us with a large cast of nuanced female characters, something many shows still struggle with, but that’s doesn’t mean there isn’t room for improvement. Giving the female characters more agency only makes them and the show more interesting. I have a lot of faith in this show and I’m excited to see more of Isabel Rochev and Sara Lance. I really believe Arrow can and will do them justice. Now, it’s time for Arrow to do justice for all of its characters. 

Amy Poehler and Tina Fey: A Win for the HFPA and Women Everywhere

Earlier this week the Hollywood Foreign Press Association announced that Amy Poehler and Tina Fey have signed on to host the Golden Globes in 2014 and 2015! If you're anything like me you were as excited as Leslie Knope is here:

And, frankly, if you weren't like that I'm not sure what your problem is. Tina Fey and Amy Poehler are awesome and amazing and hilarious and amazing and stunning and amazing. They're comedies darling, dynamic duo and for good reason. Amy Poehler is currently starring in the deliciously hilarious sitcom Parks and Rec while Tina Fey recently completed her run as star, writer, and producer of the Emmy-winning series 30 Rock. They've also both had notable success on SNL including their iconic sketch as Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton, possibly the most well-known sketch of the 2008 or 2012 election.

Earlier this year they continued their success as the co-hosts of the Golden Globes and, after Ricky Gervais's disastrous and alienating run, the Globes needed these bona fide comediennes. They brought viewership up 17% from Gervais's most recent run. The Hollywood Foreign Press Association made a wise choice by asking them back for two years. I doubt that the HFPA will regret this one.

What's more is that this could be the beginning of a great run for women in hosting gigs. This past awards season Fey and Poehler were undoubtedly the fan favorites with Neil Patrick Harris falling short at the Emmys and Seth McFarlane down-right offending everyone at the Oscars without managing to actually be funny. With Fey and Poehler returning to the Golden Globes and Ellen Degeneres returning to the Oscars in 2014, we could see the beginning of the reign of a team of amazing comedic women in hosting gigs, not surprisingly a field with women have been traditionally underrepresented in. Furthermore, no one doubts that Poehler and Fey won't stand for the kind of sexist foolishness that McFarlane's Oscars were rife with. Instead, for two years we can expect the jokes at the Globes to be funny without taking cheap shots at women who show their boobs on the big screen and I have to say I'm excited for it.

If Fey and Poehler's past performances are any indication, Globes viewers have a good run ahead of them. So here's to you, Tina Fey and Amy Poehler. We're all excited for what's to come!

The Olivia Pope Problem

As I sat watching the fast-paced and popular premiere of “Scandal,” a problem once again forced its way into my consciousness and it came in the form of Olivia Pope. Don’t get me wrong. I love Olivia. She’s a certified badass by anyone’s standards. The problem is that that bad-assery stops at the office door. As soon as Olivia leaves the professional realm, it seems her life falls apart. Her personal life is in shambles, to say nothing of a growing lack of agency on Olivia’s part. The most troubling aspect of this is that the “Olivia Pope problem” is more and more an archetype of modern television.

It seems that Olivia isn’t the only woman on our screens who is super-competent professionally but whose personal life is an absolute mess. A growing stereotype on our screens is that of the uber-professional woman who can’t seem to get the rest of her life in line. From Oliva Pope to Liz Lemon to Mindy Lahiri to Alicia Florrick, we continue to see the stories of women who are rather personally challenged. It’s a stark contrast to the long gone days of women like Mary Tyler Moore, who could be professionally competent and personally competent without lacking interesting stories to tell. Instead of stories like that glorious woman, Hollywood is increasingly feeding us stories of women like Olivia Pope and the message is clear: You can’t have it all. You can’t be professionally savvy and have a well-balanced life. It’s not allowed.

Clearly, that message is problematic. Women continue to be told that they can’t have it all. And why? Women who successfully balance work and life can still have interesting stories. I’m just as interested in Meredith Grey as I am in her more relationship challenged counterpart, Christina Yang. Just because Meredith has managed to be professionally and personally successful doesn’t mean she lacks interesting stories to share.

As a culture, we must stop acting like all women face an ultimatum: work or relationships. In fact, we can achieve balance, even if it’s difficult, and our lives and stories become no less interesting when we do manage that delicate balance. So stop with the “Olivia Pope problem,” Hollywood. Stop telling women that they can’t have it all. Stop telling women that they must be emotionally fractured to be interesting or successful. Stop. Just stop.

Dear Show, Do Better: Week 2

Dear "Scandal,"

I'm getting real tired of the lack of agency Olivia Pope has. Once again, in the season premiere, her life was controlled by men and not be her own choices. While having Olivia choose to walk away from her father's plans was a step, it's not enough as long as the strings of her whole life are being pulled by the president. Their relationship is unhealthy and, frankly, President Grant is a bit of a jerk, in my opinion.

Sincerely,
Mellie and Olivia Should Team Up and Take Over the World

Dear Show, Good Job: Week 2

Dear "Marvel's Agents of SHIELD,"

Yes. This is how you write female scientists. They're just scientists who happen to be female. Fitz-Simmons are both the best. While they are both to some extent caricatures of scientists, they are at the very least equals. Simmons is not relegated to the role of sexy librarian and she holds her own just as well at Fitz. Her defining feature is not her gender. This is fantastic. Keep up the good work!

Sincerely,
Female Scientists Everywhere

Dear Show, Good Job: Week 1

Dear "Parks and Rec,"

I already expect you'll be a perennial winner in this series. Let's be honest, you're the standard for feminist television right now. This week was no exception. It was great to see you pay attention to women in government. I'll admit, I squealed of excitement when Leslie said "I look forward to a day when women in government are just people in government." Right on, Leslie! You go girl! But I was also excited to see Leslie struggle with how thankless her job is. It's great to see that women can be awesome and amazing and still struggle like the rest of us. We don't need super women on TV. We need real women and I'm glad to say Leslie Knope is one of them.

Sincerely,
Leslie Knope Is My Girl

Dear Show, Do Better: Week 1

After catching up with last week's television premieres, I've decided to start two weekly series. This first one will be dedicated to documenting a truly cringe-worth moment from the perspective of a feminist. The other series, "Dear Show, Good Job" will document a positive representation of a female character or feminist issue. I'll probably write at inconsistent times in the different weeks just because I have a busy schedule and the moments I'd like to document may come at different points each week. Let's get started!

Dear "The Big Bang Theory,"

You gave me hope and you took it away! For a few seconds on Thursday night I really believed that Bernadette and Amy were going to be allowed to talk about being scientists instead of talking about boys. Alas, within seconds my hopes were dashed as the topic immediately changed to the opposite sex. I've got to tell you that I'm sick of it! Just for once let the ladies talk about something other than boys! Sheldon, Leonard, Howard, and Raj get to talk about all sorts of things like science, comic books, movies, games, and, occasionally, girls. So why do Penny, Bernadette, and Amy only get to talk about their significant others? Believe it or not women have lots of interesting conversations about topics other than men. Start showing it on television!

Sincerely,
Have You Heard of the Bechdel Test?

How Failing a Math Test Made Me A Feminist

If you ask my parents how they raised me to become such an ardent believer in equal rights and feminism they will give you this answer: We don’t know. We’re actually pretty sure we didn’t have much to do with it.

And they would be mostly right. My parents didn’t really raise me with the intention of turning me into a feminist. Neither my mother nor father ever openly identified as a feminist when I was growing up, and I doubt they would now. We didn’t talk about reproductive rights or the glass ceiling or domestic violence. Feminism never came up at the dinner table. No one was reading books about it. There was no household subscription to Ms. magazine and there were no pro-choice bumper stickers on the back of the cars. My parents just weren't openly feminist and they weren't out to make me one. Now, that’s not to say my parents didn’t raise me to believe all people were created equal, but they had no intention to make me a feminist and, in fact, I think it might have shocked them a little when I began applying that word to myself in high school.

That’s what lead my mother to ask me a few days ago where all of these beliefs came from which got me thinking about my "click" moment, that minute when it all started. Eventually I reached a pretty obvious realization. If it hadn't been my family, it had to have been my teachers. Of course, when I reported this discovery my mom assumed that meant my women’s studies teacher in high school, but by the time she had me in class I already believed in feminism. She didn’t teach me the beliefs and principles; she just gave me the words for it and allowed me to own and embrace my feminism while fleshing out my exact beliefs on different issues.

So I thought back a little further in my education. If by high school I was already identifying as a feminist, then that meant it must have started in middle school or even elementary school. I examined my memories of middle school, but nothing stood out. Even then I think I was already a feminist despite not having labeled it yet.

That left elementary school. Finally, a memory jumped out. Fourth grade. I had consistently been the smartest girl in the class. Actually I tended to be the smartest person out of the boys and girls. And that was a problem for fourth grade me. After being the only person to get straight As for two quarters I was starting to feel the pressure to be “normal.” My classmates thought I was weird and I knew it. Everyone knew girls weren’t supposed to be the smart ones and they definitely weren't supposed to be good at math! Sure, my classmates told me I was smart, but they also told me I was a freak, I was unusual so I did what any fourth grader would do. I deliberately failed a math test. And, then, I failed another. That was all it took to get a B and just one was enough for me. That was all I needed. Suddenly I was like everyone else and I wasn’t beating the boys anymore. I had done it. I had achieved my goals! I was normal!

Unfortunately, I was fooling no one, least of all my math teacher, Mrs. Schulter. It didn’t take her long to figure things out. She’d seen girls with my MO before and she wouldn’t stand for it. It only took one B for her to sit me down and tell me I was better than that and that she could see right through my act. And because she terrified me like no other teacher before or since, it worked. I shaped up and was back to straight As in no time.

That was all it took to make me a feminist: One woman telling young, impressionable me that I was allowed to be the smartest person in a room even if I was a girl. There was nothing wrong with me being smart; there was something wrong with the people telling me that was bad. That was it. From that moment on I realized I could be what I wanted to be and I could be the best at it. And what I wanted was to equal to the boys. I’ve never stopped wanting it and I’ve never stopped fighting for it.

So, thank you, Mrs. Schulter, the most terrifying woman I’ve ever met, for allowing me to be the best and for making me a feminist, whether you meant to or not.

"House of Cards" Holds Up from the Feminist Perspective

Disclaimer: This contains spoilers for Netflix’s House of Cards.

This August I succumbed to the pressure to watch Netflix’s original series House of Cards. At first, I was skeptical. How was I supposed to enjoy this show when I hated every single one of the characters? However, I’ll admit I was pleasantly surprised after the first two or three episodes because this show knows how to write well-developed female characters better than most. That, combined with the many well-developed and complex stories and the mounting desire to see Kevin Spacey’s House Majority Whip Frank Underwood stumble, kept me clicking the next episode button long after episode two.

First of all, as I mentioned before, I hate every one of the characters on this show including the women. They’re just as despicable and conniving as the men. That’s refreshing because, for once, women are not the moral compass. Each of the female characters is just as richly flawed and devious as the men. While I focus most of my ire on Frank Underwood, I find that his wife Claire is nearly as morally deficient and, over the season, began to compete with Frank for the object of my disgust. The lack of morality in the female characters doesn’t stop with Claire, though. Other main characters, like Zoe Barnes, and secondary characters, like Linda Vasquez and Gillian Cole, demonstrated their potential to be just as calculating and deceptive as any of the men. Each of these women is just as likely to commit a crime, tell a lie, or make some other ethically questionable decision in the pursuit of their goals and in the pursuit of power, the main thematic element of the show. I can’t emphasize enough how nice it is to watch a show where the female characters are not burdened and made boring by their stereotypical job as the conscience for the brooding male protagonists.

There’s more to like about House of Cards than the cliché-free female characters, though. In fact, one of the best parts of the show is its exploration of power dynamics. At first, it seems much of the power that the women hold is derived from the male characters. Zoe is fed information by Frank, Linda is only the chief of staff as long as the president wants her, and Claire accomplishes many professional pursuits through her relationship with the majority whip and powerful lobbyists. It isn’t until Congressional staffer Christina leaves Congressman Peter Russo, professionally and personally, in episode 4 that the tables start to turn. Suddenly, one of the women holds the power over one of the men and soon everything starts to change. Not long after, Zoe quits her job and successfully catches her boss in the act of sexual harassment on the way out. Before the season ends Zoe has broken off her ties to Frank and Claire has begun to experiment with her own ways of breaking from his power. By the season finale, Zoe and fellow reporter Janine are investigating Frank and Christina is single-handedly running a Congressional office and looking for a candidate to fill Peter’s seat. While the men’s worlds are coming crumbling down, the women are experiencing a liberation of sorts and suddenly the audience starts to have someone to cheer for, if only, because the success of the women will lead to the eventual downfall of the particularly underhanded Frank Underwood.

Despite these virtues, House of Cards does leave some things to be desired. First of all, the casting of an Indian-American woman as Linda Vasquez, a Latina, is problematic in nature particularly because Vasquez’s race is not left up to question. It is clearly stated in the first episode that she is Latina. Imposing an untrue cultural identity on a person is not acceptable. The casting is specifically problematic because Vasquez’s racial identity is a major aspect of her character. Part of her importance comes from the fact that she is purportedly the first Latina to be the White House Chief of Staff. Furthermore, the casting becomes more problematic if you consider the present shortage of substantive television roles for Latina actresses. If you are going to write an explicitly Latina character, it is only right that that role should go to a Latina woman. Additionally, a particularly alarming story telling choice from the feminist perspective arises from the story of Gillian Cole. At first her character is relatively unthreatening and unproblematic but when she chooses to invent remarks Claire supposedly made about Gillian’s pregnancy in order to sue she undermines the position of women everywhere. Pregnant women already face undue burden in the workplace. To suggest that they lie about it to gain advantage threatens pregnant women everywhere who actually are discriminated against because of their condition. However, the most problematic element of the show is the lack of women in power. The show depicts a Washington scene that is still shockingly devoid of women in positions of serious political power. With the exception of White House chief of staff Linda Vasquez, House of Cards lacks any women in major political positions, particularly elected ones. In a fictional world, where the majority whip has a frankly unimaginable amount of power and most crimes go undetected, is that much of a stretch to place women in more positions of real political power?

All in all, House of Cards presents a strong example of how to write complex female characters and the women’s liberation story line is a refreshing one to see on television. From the intersectional feminist perspective, it is one of the better shows on television though it does not hold up against a show like Orange is the New Black. While hugely impressive, House of Cards still has room to improve.

We Can't Talk About Miley Cyrus Without Talking About Robin Thicke

There has been a lot of talk about Miley Cyrus since Sunday night concerning her highly sexual and over-the-top performance at the VMAs. Because of her Disney roots Miley is viewed as someone who should be a "role model" and this is not an unreasonable expectation, but in so heavily discussing and debating her actions we are completely forgetting a key part of the equation and that key part is Robin Thicke. Everyone seems upset with Miley Cyrus for grinding on an older man while wearing a latex bikini and generally being raunchy, but no one is talking about the person being ground on. The reality is that the now infamous display had two parties involved, yet no one  has voiced much concern over Robin Thicke's grinding on Miley while singing a song about the "Blurred Lines" of consent, a controversial song that by itself is heavily emblematic of rape culture. If we're honest with ourselves, we must admit that Robin Thicke should be the target of equal ire, but, unsurprisingly, he isn't. That's because of the harmful double standard society teaches when it comes to displays of sexuality. 

If we're really going to talk about the way we sell sex on TV and what crosses the line, then we have to talk about Robin Thicke, too. He is, by no means, innocent in this situation. And until we start including his actions in the conversation, then all we're doing is perpetuating an awful double standard that makes a woman's sexuality something to be ashamed of while making a man's something to be accepted, if not celebrated. That's called slut-shaming.

This, of course, ignores the racial elements involved in the performance. There has been no shortage of (completely valid) complaints that Miley Cyrus blatantly used black people as props. The racial implications of the performance should not be ignored or swept under the rug. Miley is by no means free of all blame for a distasteful performance that was problematic in many ways. But if we're going to talk about responsibility for a tacky, racist performance we must stop focusing the entire conversation on Miley Cyrus. We have to talk about producers, directors, executives, and performers, all of them, including Robin Thicke. Miley isn't innocent, but that is no reason to ignore or accept the actions of the male performer.

Women Won the Emmys (At Least in Comedy)

The nominations have been announced. The gracious thank yous have been issued. The snubs and surprises articles have been written. It’s Emmy season, everyone, and this time around women took the awards by storm in the comedy category.

In a world where some people continue to debate about whether women are funny, the list of nominees for Outstanding Comedy Series seems to set out to silence the disbelievers. Three of the six nominees have female protagonists and of the remaining three two are arguably ensemble comedies with relatively balanced comedies. Seems to me, women are funny or at least the Academy thinks so.

Furthermore, several of the nominated shows feature strong female characters and explore many of the problems modern women face at home and work. 

Girls of course is renowned for it’s focus on a group of young women who are struggling to find themselves in New York City. The show is, of course, representative of the struggles of a generation of women and with the success of Girls that generation of women finally gets a chance to hear their own voices on television. In addition, the creative genius behind Girls is a woman, the multi-talented Lena Dunham.

Like Lena Dunham, another woman continually proving that women are funny is the extraordinary Tina Fey, the woman behind NBC’s 30 Rock. The show, following the trials and tribulations of TV writer and producer Liz Lemon, has been an Emmy darling for several years, including this one, the show’s last. Though there’s only one other female character, the show does accomplish something in making the focus of the story a woman who openly identifies as a feminist. Liz Lemon feminism has been the focus of many conversations by feminist media critics and portraying a feminist lead was a huge leap in television.

Another stand out is Veep. While it’s satirical nature often makes Julia Louis-Dreyfus’s VP Selina Meyer seem ineffective, it does explore some of the ramifications of Selina’s gender on her job and public perception. Simply the fact that a woman is being portrayed as the vice president should also be appreciated in a world where television still often represents political power as solely a man’s game and where, too often, it’s right.

Modern Family and The Big Bang Theory  struggle most in their portrayal of women. Modern Family is by no means bad at portraying women, thought, it is somewhat lacking in the variety of roles women are portrayed in. The female characters tend to be housewifes but that may be changing and has provided an interesting story line for Claire, a woman exploring how to find fulfillment and fill her time after raising three children. In this way it’s reflective of the lives of many women and takes a stab at exploring the effects of the traditional home on women. Unlike Modern Family, The Big Bang Theory struggles much more to represent women well. Creator Chuck Lorre is infamous for shows with sexist portrayals of women. Women are treated as extensions of the male characters and they are too often the butt of sexist jokes. Their stories aren’t told as their own but are instead used to provide character arcs for the male characters. It’s worth noting, though, that as the show has progressed more women have joined the cast and it’s critical reception and ratings have gone up. Hollywood executives take note, women make good television.

The last show, Louie, of course is the brainchild of feminist darling Louie CK. The show centers on a male protagonist but it’s written and starred in by one of the most feminist members of the media out there. Feminists love Louie.

All in all, it’s a good year to be a woman in comedy television. The only thing missing from this year’s nominees is Parks and Rec.  The show is currently one of the highest rated on television an continues to excel in the world of comedy. Starring the beloved Amy Poehler as the competent and wildly-driven, if eccentric, city councilwoman Leslie Knope, Parks and Rec is both hilariously funny and beloved for it’s rich portrayal of female characters. Most won’t argue that it didn’t deserve more Emmy love than it got. Well, there’s always next year.

tl;dr Women are funny. Girls is good. 30 Rock and Tina Fey are awesome. Feminists love Louie. Yay for Veep and Modern Family. The Big Bang Theory is kind of sexist. Women make television better. Parks and Recshould have been nominated.

18 Reasons for a Female Doctor

Recently, Matt Smith announced he would be leaving Doctor Who after the 2013 Christmas special. For those of you who aren’t avid fans like me, the premise of the show is that a 1000-year-old alien stole a spaceship that can also travel in time and is exploring all of space and time while scooping up companions to share the journey with along the way. The catch is that this Time Lord, that’s the Doctor’s species, can change bodies when hurt or dying thus providing an avenue for different actors to play the role. With Smith’s announcement, the odds-making and theory- writing about who would next take on the role began. With speculation rife about who the next actor to helm the TARDIS will be on the iconic show, it’s only time for some good old fashioned campaigning for a woman to step into the Doctor’s shoes. Here’s my not-so-comprehensive list of reasons why it’s time for the Doctor to be a woman:

• Why not?
• Some of the most popular shows on British television, and particularly those doing well in the US, are lead by fantastic female casts. Women anchor some of the best shows on British television right now (Downton Abbey and Call the Midwife, I’m looking at you). Doctor Who could use that dynamism.
• It’s the 21st century.
• The world is getting pretty used to seeing women in posts they haven’t traditionally occupied. Hillary Clinton, Sheryl Sandberg, Indra Nooyi, JK Rowling, Diane Sawyer, Meg Whitman, Mindy Kaling, Arianna Huffington. I could go on and on. The point is that the world can handle seeing a woman captain the TARDIS just like it can handle a female new-anchor or a female billionaire.
• Why not?
• There are so many talented actresses who would absolutely make the role of the Doctor their own. Helen Mirren has even said she’d love the job. My personal favorites for the role include Tina Fey (the longest of long shots) and Kelly MacDonald (who starred opposite former Doctor David Tennant in The Decoy Bride).
• It provides all sorts of new stories to be told. There is so much to explore with a female Doctor. For once in the Doctor’s long life, people might not automatically listen to him or her. That’s what the story has often been for women throughout history and even today and women should be able to see that story told. It would be deep and interesting plot material to see how the Doctor deals with being ignored because of something as silly as body parts. Not to mention this is, after all, a show about a time-travelling alien out to experience the universe and being a woman would come with so many new experiences.
• The dynamic between Clara Oswald and a female Doctor feels like it would just work. Clara always has her wits about her and she’s one of the few past companions we’ve seen who wouldn’t be that thrown off by a female Doctor. There’s something about her that makes it feel like she would just go with it, which, if you about it, is kind of a great attitude to have about the Doctor.
• On that note, it would allow the show to delve into one of the most prevalent and strongest bonds in human history: Female friendship. I mean Sex and the City was pretty much an entire show about it. Isn’t it time for Doctor Who to explore that kind of rich relationship.
• Why not?
• It’s canon. It’s been established that a Time Lord can change gender.
• It’s new and fresh. It would shake things up. Otherwise the show risks becoming a little bit, dare I say it, formulaic.
• The fans are ready. That’s the gift of River Song, a part Time Lord archaeologist who married the Doctor. For years the worry was that the qualities that look good on a male Doctor would look bad on a woman. The confidence, the swagger, and the intelligence that come with the character would all be unattractive for a woman to possess. A quirky woman in charge who knew her stuff wouldn’t be received well according to conventional wisdom. But River Song turned this paradigm on its head. She waltzed into the show with such a breezy confidence and she matched the Doctor in personality, talent, and intelligence. She was his equal and was, more or less, well-received for it. If the fans could handle her, why couldn’t they handle a female Doctor? The leap’s not that far.
• Why not?
• The whole point of the show is to explore and embrace change. So go for it! Make the biggest change possible!
• We often forget that the creator of this groundbreaking show was, in fact, a woman. Wouldn’t it be the most wonderful homage to Verity Lambert to make the fantastic fairytale character she created have the same gender as her, for once? Verity Lambert was an earth-shaker and a glass-ceiling-breaker. Don’t you think she’d love to see that the show she created continued to be dynamic and frontier-smashing even after 50 years?
• It sends a powerful message to young people and grown-ups, too. Doctor Who is supposed to be a family show. What does it say to young girls and boys that the lead character is always a man and the women are always the characters waiting to be swept away on adventures, groupies even? I see a problem with that, don’t you? It’s time to tell little girls and women of all ages everywhere that they can be the hero of their own story, they don’t need to be “the girl who waited.” 
• No. Seriously. Why not?

So there you have it. That’s why I think it’s time for a female Doctor. I know fans are divided over this subject but I also know that people usually are divided over change and progress even when that change is good. And I think this change would be the best.

Doctor Who: Is Clara Oswald a Trope?

In the beginning of the series 7b of Doctor Who, we find the Doctor hidden away at a monastery—wallowing after the loss of several of his beloved companions and his failed attempts to find the mysterious Clara Oswin Oswald. Of course, we the audience know that this is not how our protagonist is supposed to spend his days. But have no fear, Clara Oswald is near!

Story line sound a little familiar? That’s probably because it is. The Clara Oswald we encounter in the second half of series 7 is the classic “manic pixie dream girl." The manic pixie dream girl is a film and television archetype—a stock character, a trope. She is often defined by her bubbly, perceptive nature and she serves the sole purpose of bringing the brooding protagonist (read: male main character) out of his sulky state. The manic pixie dream girl tends to lack concrete career goals and aspirations, usually substituting them with vague dreams and mantras like a desire to “live a little” or “see the world.” As many quirks as she may have, her real significance to the story is not her own. She exists to teach the male protagonist something and is often also the object of his affections—sometimes playing the “second love” in order to drag the lead out of mourning after losing someone dear to him, the lost woman who drives our protragonist's "chronic man-pain."

So how does Clara Oswald possess these qualities? Well, let’s start with the “bubbly, perceptive” part. Modern Clara is painted as an emotional creature from her debut in The Bells of Saint John where she is depicted as an au pair. This side of her is further emphasized by juxtaposing her with the empath in the ghost story Hide. The character of Emma Grayling very much serves as a mirror for Clara’s qualities in that episode. Again lining up with the idea of the manic pixie dream girl is Clara’s lack of concrete aspirations. She has only the vague goal of seeing the world, one sidelined by the death of a family friend leaving her in her current dead-end job of au pair, as explained in The Rings of Akhaten, which brings up another issue with Clara: She’s always defined by other people and limited to the role of caregiver.

The more significant point about Clara’s character, though, is the fact that she exists solely to drag the Doctor out of his state of melancholic reverie. That is a classic manic pixie dream girl trope. Aside from solving the mystery of why Clara is impossible, what does the audience learn about her character throughout the series? We know where she came from but that’s really about it. We see virtually no character development. The problem with the use of the manic pixie dream girl trope is that it undermines the very personhood of the character the trope applies to. A true manic pixie dream girl exists not for her own self but as a means to propel the plot and lead to development on the part of the main character. Using this harmful stereotype perpetuates the idea that women don’t have goals, dreams, jobs, or lives outside of men and children. These characters teach men that women are meant to complete them and not to be their own person. And that’s not okay!

It’s worth noting that Clara hasn’t been around long and there’s still potential for her to break this stereotype. With some serious character development and exploration, she could turn out to be much more than just a stock character. Unfortunately, so far she seems to have fallen short of being anything but a trope.

Women in Science on "The Big Bang Theory"

I was eating dinner tonight when a rerun of The Big Bang Theory came on television. I have always been vaguely bothered by the way this show treats women solely as the objects of male desire. The female characters tend to be overly sexualized and not taken seriously by the men. There isn't much character development for the women of the show and after six seasons the primary female character still doesn't have a last name. The Big Bang Theory honestly kind of sucks at portraying female characters.

In general, the show doesn’t handle female characters well, but today I noticed a particular problem that sticks out and that is how the show treats the careers of women in science. The two main female scientists on the show are Bernadette Rostenkowski, a microbiologist, and Amy Farrah-Fowler, a neurobiologist. From early on, it’s established that the main character, Sheldon Cooper, views science as an intellectual hierarchy with theoretical physics at the top and the life sciences at the bottom, if they even qualify as "science" in the first place. Now, this character's attitude is a problem in general for scientists but, it also speaks to the attitudes of the writers about the female scientists that they are both biologists as opposed to the men who are all somehow involved in physics and engineering. The distinction is alarming.

Furthermore, the women’s scientific achievements tend to be trivialized and are often used as plot devices to build compelling character arcs for the male characters. For example, when Bernadette receives her PhD and a job offer the story becomes a story about her boyfriend, Howard, trying to cope with making less money than his female partner. This takes what should be a celebration of Bernadette’s accomplishments and instead demonizes her achievements while also failing to make the story about her in the first place. Likewise, when Amy is published in a neurology journal the story focuses on Sheldon’s lack of congratulations and pride for her, once again making the story about a man’s character development instead of about a woman’s achievements.

In addition, so many jokes are thrown around about the research the women do and many of those jokes suggest a certain degree of incompetence. We almost never hear similar jokes about the men’s careers. This paradigm is frightening to me. The suggestion is clear. Women aren’t serious scientists while the men are. In contrast, the men are usually mocked for their social and emotional struggles while the women act as guides in these areas. This represents a dangerous socially constructed idea that men are good at science and math and bad at “touchy-feely stuff” while the reverse is true for women. It's the 21st century. That's really NOT OKAY anymore.

I believe that the show can do better, though. It's already come leaps and bounds from having a single female character who was portrayed largely as eye candy without many strong character features to having almost equal gender representation with women as varied as the men that made up the original cast. But if The Big Bang Theory seriously means to improve the representation of women, particularly in science, the writers must make an effort to stop trivializing, demonizing, and mocking the scientific accomplishments of its female scientists. The women on the show need to be taken seriously both as scientists and as characters and must be seen as more than extensions of the male characters.

Women on "The West Wing"

Women on "The West Wing"

When I watched The West Wing for the first time, the ways in which the show, one I would argue is one of the best written series to ever grace our televisions sets, handled gender and sexism often struck me. At certain times I would pump my fist triumphantly in the air because of a particularly powerful feminist moment, but there were many others where I cringed. All too often these would happen in the span of a single episode. So finally I sat down to critically analyze the women of The West Wing, and the show certainly has some powerful moments and strong points, but I have to say it: The West Wing had a woman problem. Here’s a four point breakdown of that problem:

1. The show doesn't have enough female characters.
2. Those characters that are female tend to have jobs that are viewed as less important than the jobs of the male characters or are only featured because of their relationship to an important male character. To elaborate, many of the female characters are at the assistant level and there is only one female senior staff member for most of the show. Furthermore, many of the recurring female characters are members of the president’s family.
3. The women are often used as a  plot device so the “smart man" can explain some complicated issue to the confused woman, a stand in for the audience. All to often the audience surrogate is CJ Cregg or Donna Moss, two of the central female characters. Less often do we see Toby or Sam or Josh portrayed as the confused one.
4. The gender of the female characters is almost always ignored or viewed as irrelevant. 

While all of these four points contribute significantly to The West Wing's problems in handling gender, point number four is arguably the most important point and the part of the problem that affects women most. Expanding on the idea that a character's gender identity is often ignored it's worth saying that it’s rarely acknowledged that there are many fewer women working in the Bartlet White House than there are men and when it is pointed out (once, only once) the issue is never delved into. Instead, it's used as a humorous one-off line. I have a really hard time believing that the gender of the female staffers never affected their jobs or how peers perceived them. In the real world being a woman matters. It changes how people treat you, what is expected of you, and the obstacles you encounter in life. Why, then, was this facet of the female characters so completely ignored for most of the show’s seven year run? Ignoring the effects of a patriarchal society on female characters in The West Wing was harmful both to women and the show. Women need to see their stories portrayed realistically on television and discounting the gender of female characters and the ramifications of gender for those characters discounts the very real effects of misogyny and sexism in the world we live in. And why ignore gender? Gender is good for a show because it provides so much plot material. What good reason is there not to tell the stories of women affected by sexism? I truly believe the writers diminished The West Wing by refusing to tell the all too true stories of sexism and gender in the workplace, especially because that workplace was the White House.

Certainly The West Wing did handle women well in some ways. The female characters were always strong characters. They were well-developed and never tropes. That’s a pretty tall order on television these days.  In addition, the show often put women in powerful positions they have not yet attained in the real world like the White House Chief of Staff or the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. That's certainly commendable.

I'll be honest. I love The West Wing. I can't even pretend I don't but that doesn't stop me from wishing the show had done a better job handling the stories of women. I genuinely hope to see more television shows that are as well-written as The West Wing. I hope to see more shows that put women in places they have historically never been. I hope to see more shows that have strong female characters who are not merely tropes. I hope to see more shows with compelling narratives. I hope to see more shows that matter in the way The West Wing did. But when I see those shows I hope they do a better job telling the stories of women. I hope they don’t write women who are seen as less important than men. I hope they don’t write women as the constantly confused characters. And, above all, I hope they don’t ignore gender and sexism and the very real ways they affect women. I hope they don’t ignore women's stories. I hope they don't ignore our stories.