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.