There’s an interesting disconnect in perceptions of how men are presented on TV. Feminists look at TV and see that the heroes and most of the other characters are overwhelmingly men, and say “That’s misogynist!” Sensitive men look at TV and see that the defining qualities of maleness are crudeness, stupidity, and irresponsibility, and say “That’s misandrist!” And what’s really fucked up is that both are true.
The key is that there are three genders on TV. There used to be two: Normal People and Women. Now there are three: Normal People, Women, and Men. Of course, all Normal People are still male.
The fact that “normal” means “male” is extremely well-established, but I recognize that it may come as news to some. So, briefly, Simone De Beauvoir pinned the problem down, and it is still the default in media today. (If you only read one of these links, make it that one.) It holds up under large numbers and it’s not just in movies. Think about how when you see a TV show with a bunch of different characters, it’s easy to tell who the central protagonist or the leader is: look for the handsome white guy. You’ll be right almost every time. Or, even simpler, ask yourself why, out of the many rats with speaking parts in Ratatouille, not one was female. Then ask yourself why you didn’t even notice that until it was pointed out. Hint: it’s the same reason that, as a child, you didn’t notice that there were no girl Muppets on Sesame Street.
Okay, we done debating male-is-default-normal? Good. Moving on.
Characters labeled Normal People are your heroes, your detectives and space adventurers and doctors and whatnot. They usually have a female counterpart, the lady-detective or girl-space-adventurer or chick-doctor, but that’s understood to be a special subset. Those characters are labeled as Women, and therefore not Normal People. Of course, decades of feminism have made some progress in the characterization of Women, so that female characters have several different types of characters labeled Woman to choose from.
Characters labeled Man, however, have two choices. You can be a dumb, smelly, irresponsible, knuckle-dragging fuckup with no interests other than beer, sports, and tits, or (and this is what blows my mind) you can be mocked for not being that. That’s it, those are the options. Sucks, don’t it?
Astute readers will notice a contradiction here: aren’t all those Normal Person doctors and detectives and space adventurers also men? Well, yes, of course they are, but they’re not Men. They’re Normal People, and the fact that they’re male only comes up occasionally, in which case they pass through Man characterization for a moment. I’ll illustrate this with a scene from the hit show Space Doctor Detectives:
Sergeant Doctor Captain: Look out, team, the serial killer has infected our technosystems with cancer!
Dr. Black: Damn, yo!
Lt. Woman: Cancer?
Sergeant Doctor Captain: (grimly) Space cancer.
Lt. Woman: *sob* My mother was serial-killed by space cancer! That’s why I became a Space Doctor Detective!
Dr. Black: I did it to get out of the ghetto, G!
Sergeant Doctor Captain: I just… hate space, and all its criminal diseases.
Lt. Woman: Oh, Sergeant Doctor Captain, you’re so manly!
Sergeant Doctor Captain: Well, I am only a man after all! Grunt fart sports boobies fried food! Pardon me while I scratch myself indelicately and fail to comprehend something obvious! Fart!
Lt. Woman: Oh, you men, I swear!
Sergeant Doctor Captain: Now, quickly, activate the Medical Police Laser! We’re going to laser the technosystems!
Lt. Woman: Which technosystems?
Sergeant Doctor Captain: (grimly) All of them.
You’ve seen that scene a thousand times, and so have I. Smart, capable, badass heroes turn into idiot sitcom husbands for thirty seconds, just because the writer was momentarily reminded of their maleness. There’s also usually an eyeroll by the female characters at how gross and stupid men are, right before they go back to trying to land their man.
So those are the three genders of TV and most movies: Normal People, who are heroes and leaders, Women, who are various types of Woman-creature, and Men, who are repulsive adolescent pigs. Let’s take a moment to look at how this plays out for viewers.
Female viewers, give up on being the leader and try to get a man. They’re smelly and disgusting and you shouldn’t much like them, but you’re scum unless you have one. We have provided some manless Woman characters as examples, and you will note that they are unhappy and widely disliked.
Male viewers, at all costs, do not mature beyond the age of 12. You are not supposed to, and we will mock the shit out of you if you attempt to grow up. Responsibility, courtesy, and human decency are unmasculine, and so for some reason is healthy food.
Gender-atypical viewers, fuck off. You don’t exist.
Normal Person viewers, I’m not sure you exist either. Most everyone watching is going to fall into one of those other three categories, and absorb the relevant messages to whatever extent they’re going to. In theory, one could see the Normal Person characters as aspirational figures, people that every straight white cisgendered able-bodied neurotypical American middle-class educated male might one day hope to become. I’m not sure how much water this theory holds; even those of us in that narrow minority don’t generally become crimefighting medical prodigies with lasers. (Dammit.) After all, even if we did, we’d still be immature, smelly, and stupid by virtue of being male, we’re assured.
Incidentally, I note that this model is reflected in another sexist contradiction in the real world, where women are going to college in greater numbers than men, but high governmental and business positions are still overwhelmingly male. Young men absorb the idea that they’re not supposed to study or think about stuff, and everyone absorbs the idea that white guys are supposed to be the leaders. Nobody thinks about it, any more than the screenwriters question it when they’re banging out this week’s episode under deadline; we’re just dimly aware that this is how things are, or how they’re supposed to be, or… something.
In short, this tri-gendered system based on unexamined assumptions is incredibly toxic. It’s toxic on every level, it’s toxic from every angle, it’s toxic to every person. I think just typing about it gave my fingers cancer.
Space cancer.
[Edited to fix a broken link.]
Ugh, Star Trek, you did this. Each series has token female characters: the drab one and the hot one in the cat suit. Enterprise was the worst for this. I did think the the catsuit characters were very interesting in their own rights, but their main purpose does seem to be ‘attractive’ and ‘wearing a cat suit’. Deep Space Nine was better because the female characters were allowed to have sexual agency but were not sexualised, and were generally well rounded and interesting characters. I love Dax. But still, female main characters are still in the minority. – I do… Read more »
Not sure how this relates, but I’ve been noticing for over a decade now, that TV actors portraying bit part judges are almost always women or a member of some racial minority
I used to love Buffy with all my heart, but then Season Seven happened (my fan-self hated 5 and 6 too, but that’s for a forum, not here). The slayer’s power lay in rape and that was a bad thing, but of course it was totally okay for Willow to inject girls all around the world with it.
@Danny: Angel wasn’t just written off, he was launched into his own show. He got to be more than just a token “forbidden” love interest. And he chose to end that relationship, not her. Riley I’m conflicted about because it seems like he would have been perfect (though personally I never liked that character), and I think that relationship was more about Buffy’s issues than his. I think in a lot of ways she screwed that up way worse than he did (not that he didn’t help, but still). Finally, I think the Spike thing cuts both way, really. Sure… Read more »
It’s okay.
The comments approved. Thank you.
@Eagle33: Moderation means that the system decided it wanted to give us the comment to look at before it posted it. It’s an entirely computerized thing — smart computer, but still, not a human. It then flags the author of the article to let them know there’s something waiting, and chucks the comment in a special area on our dashboard. If your comment is in moderation, it will be approved (or deleted) as soon as we see it — which, if it’s the middle of the night, might be a while.
Okay, how is my previous comment Moderation Material? I never insulted anyone nor violated the rules. Just pointed something out.
Doctormindbeam: “Unfortunately, in order to accomplish the third point there, particularly with female characters, writers have seemed to lean on making them domineering.” Not to mention that the male characters are never granted the three components of multi-dimensional characters you speak of. Instead, they’re shunted into these categories: -Ignorant Buffoon -Clumsy Idiot -Villain -Strong but still subject to derision from the female lead and not allowed to answer back for himself. In family films, for example, who gets blamed the most for the child character’s sadness? That’s right, the father. In other arenas too, the father is always blamed for… Read more »
@Eagle33: I’m glad you’re feeling better.
I do know the sort of narrative you’re talking about. It’s depressingly prevelent.
@Noah Brand: Well, Kira in DS9 has a backstory as a member of the Resistance against Cardassian occupation of her home planet, so there is an actual reason for her hostility. What’s more, DS9 had Dax, who was a very strong female character without the need to be domineering. (Yeah, she had been a man before she became female, but still, in the series, Dax was a woman.)
ACK:
I wish there was an editing function. I meant to say, lie to Anakin. I’m a bit of a Star Wars geek, but even so, I admit the second 3 movies mostly sucked.
noahbrand:
Alas, Palpatine does have a strong character but only if you read the Star Wars expanded Universe. The movies give a vague idea that he’s all about the acquisition of power, and that he has a fear of death and that’s about it. Oh , he’s clever – if you carefully watch the last prequel you will note that not once does he lie to Luke. He sometimes lies by omission, but often he knows just when to use the absolute truth to work his evil. So clever..but no real motivations. Palapatine is much more interesting in “Dark Empire”.
Josh: And aside from Xander, there were several men who were Buffy’s equal in badassery throughout the series. Angel, Spike, and Riley (though that character was admittedly kind of a twit) were all decent characters who rivaled Buffy’s combat abilities as well as her leadership skills. Yes they tended to get relegated to the side-kick role, because, well, it’s “Buffy the Vampire Slayer”, not “A badass guy, and Buffy, too”. I don’t think Buffy dominated the men, but neither did she allow them to dominate her. My problem with the way Xander was written out was the fact that the… Read more »
Helen: “Eagle33, I’m very sorry ti hear about your experiences and how badly they’ve affected you. However, as much as I sympathise and as much as I agree about how problematic “strong female characters” can be – can be – for both genders, there is a difference between saying “Let’s discuss the problematic treatment of male characters and what it means for men IRL” and “Let’s not discuss the problematic treatment of female characters and what it means for women,” and you appear to be saying the latter. I hope that isn’t what you intended.” I’m a little better than… Read more »
I feel compelled to defend Buffy. Or, more accurately, defend Xander, who was not merely a bumbling sidekick, but was a genuine, complex and interesting character in his own right. And aside from Xander, there were several men who were Buffy’s equal in badassery throughout the series. Angel, Spike, and Riley (though that character was admittedly kind of a twit) were all decent characters who rivaled Buffy’s combat abilities as well as her leadership skills. Yes they tended to get relegated to the side-kick role, because, well, it’s “Buffy the Vampire Slayer”, not “A badass guy, and Buffy, too”. I… Read more »
@ doctormindbeam
“That was excellently said. I’ve often found it problematic the way that “strength” is thought of as arriving solely (or primarily, or even at all) via “dominance of others,” ”
When creators create ‘strong female characters’ defined by their dominance of men (often uncritical dominance) it’s really about men’s strength, not women’s strength.
It’s about seeing men punished for not holding up to the ideals of manhood. Women’s strength is thus an instrument for saying something about men.
I think there’s an interesting distinction to be made here, between two different concepts of what “strong character” means. One meaning is “a character that exhibits strength” and then we get into these interesting debates about what strength is. The other meaning of “strong character” that I often see, though, essentially means “strongly written”. This meaning refers to a character that’s important to the story, a character with an inner life and some really good character moments, a character that actors will get excited about playing. Too often, people attempting to write “strong female characters” produce things like this, or… Read more »
Eagle33, I’m very sorry ti hear about your experiences and how badly they’ve affected you. However, as much as I sympathise and as much as I agree about how problematic “strong female characters” can be – can be – for both genders, there is a difference between saying “Let’s discuss the problematic treatment of male characters and what it means for men IRL” and “Let’s not discuss the problematic treatment of female characters and what it means for women,” and you appear to be saying the latter. I hope that isn’t what you intended. As for stories with a strong… Read more »
For good female and male characters, I recommend the Harry Potter books.
Maybe one isn’t into magic and elves and good and evil and all that, but they have some of the best characterizations of all types of men and women, girls and boys I’ve ever seen in any kind of popular work. Some women are rather “feminine” but strong when their family is threatened. Some are brilliant. Some are brilliant and courageous and can take charge from time to time. Some are shy. Some are evil, some are good. And the same with the men and boys.
Eagle – I know exactly where you’re coming from. Please be patient with us (us, as a movement). We have a lot of work to do to not only the damage that media gender roles caused women in the first place – but then the writing hackery that thought they could fix the problem. Brian, I think you get it. You know what we should be aiming for here – but I also don’t think you realize the damage that was done to some men when the first “attempt” failed. Have you ever fixed body damage on a car? There… Read more »
More or less?
A woman portrayed as the masculine stereotype doesn’t help, it just switches the stereotypes. But a woman portrayed as a normal person is really the point.
@Brian:I really had trouble parsing your first sentence, but now I get that you’re completely agreeing with me? That saying “if her femaleness isn’t relevant, she might as well be a man and therefore really is a man” is the exact thinking that must be challenged?
Good, positive media… Juno!
She was a woman with agency, the main male character was a bit of a dweeb – but he was the one to stand up and point out to Juno how her behaviour was affecting people, and he got the girl in the end. Dad was a good dad – loved his daughter and came up with the right words at the right time.
Bonus point – Stepmother as human being – did parenting, was obviously on Juno’s side, even though the kid could be a right sarcastic brat.
@watson: Well, women as Men as differentiated from Normal People with tits isn’t helping; it makes the stereotypes less tidy but without any real benefit to anyone. Women as normal people helps quite a bit. Actually, I’d argue that’s exactly what we’re going for, and anyone who calls women-as-normal-people “men with tits” is so very deep in the men-are-default thing they don’t realize that what most men on most TV shows do is totally gender neutral. There’s no reason Kirk or Spock or McCoy couldn’t have been female. Obviously there’s no reason Uhura couldn’t have been, because she was. And… Read more »
@DMB: The other side, IIRC, was worried that those characters wouldn’t reflect female experiences if their gender wasn’t part of their characterization. FTR, I understand wanting to see more “women as (authentic) *women*”in movies, but I think seeing more “women as normal *people*” is important, too, and more effective at breaking the mould for female characters as it yet is.
(The original argument was that by the other side, “women as men with tits isn’t helping”; I argued that it does.)
I haven’t seen it, but this review of Splinter made it look very promising, typhonblue.