tzikeh

Thing is - Dollhouse really... is not how I would introduce anyone to Joss. I don't know *what* happened here. FOX rewrote the entire pilot and forced him to put his name to it at gunpoint? Joss suffered an aneurism? This is so much *not* like his earlier work that I have no explanation.

It's a shame that this is how you wound up meeting Joss's work.

From:

delle.livejournal.com

oh, I know this isn't representative of his work. I still have the entire run of Firefly sitting here, waiting to be watched (and my daughter nagging me to watch them, she loved the show).

The other thing - I've heard Joss praised for his wonderful wit and dialog. Boy, it was not apparent in Dollhouse!

From:

loz

Ech. Firefly also has some of Joss' skeevy gender issues. And you're right; there is no wit or decent dialogue in the first episode of Dollhouse, and it really throws Joss Whedon's weaknesses into stark relief.

From:

nestra.livejournal.com

Oh, man, we need to get you watching some Buffy or something. This is...yeah. And those covers are...yeah.

From:

mecurtin.livejournal.com

Skeevy (and so far unwatchable) though I find the premise, in the NPR interview (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100350780) Joss is quite explicit that he knows he's talking about prostitution. Yes, that is *exactly* what kind of pro she is.

I am by no means certain that he and Dushku don't think prostitution is kind of cool, but at least they're honest about the fact that it's prostitution.

From:

Joss is quite explicit that he knows he's talking about prostitution. Yes, that is *exactly* what kind of pro she is.

Unfortunately I don't give a shit about his authorial intent. If he's trying to make some kind of statement about prostitution, he hasn't managed to make one other than "AND I KNOW Y'ALL LOVE SOME HOOTERS, AMIRITE?", regardless of what he thinks he's doing.

OF course, hey, maybe in a few episodes there will be some plot development which will... no, I got nothin', no there won't.

(p.s. your icon is insane)

From:

I find myself hating the entire industry that believes (and shows it off at every opportunity) that stripping young, nubile women naked or nearly so to show off their waif-like bodies is the only way to bring in an audience.

In the commentary on the pilot of Bones, the creator talks about how he promised Michaela Conlin that the flashing of the bra to get information would ONLY happen that time, that putting Emily Deschanel in the tight tank top with the push-up bra advancing on an intruder with a baseball bat would ONLY happen that one time: those scenes were there to sell the show and bring in the male viewers.

EVERY SINGLE WEEK on Chuck, which is a charming and dear show that I very much enjoy (except for the frat-boy-ickiness of the Buy More staff eating contests), they have at least once Totally Gratuitous Scene of Yvonne Strahovski in her underwear getting ready for an event or in a dream sequence or waking up in bed or something to make sure we've seen her body as close to naked as possible. Clearly, the idea is to keep the Mindless Sex-Driven All-Important Male Viewers tuning in.

Clearly FOX and comics and all those asshole advertisers who say outright that they don't care about the female viewers and are just trying to get the sex appeal aspect since they don't believe the guys want anything but porn. "Hey...that show has good ratings, but the audience isn't the RIGHT audience so we need to retool it to get the viewers we WANT..." Beauty and the Beast, Lois & Clark, Forever Knight...just a few casualties of this idiotic mentality. It makes me furious.

And the point of all this ranting is that I think that the impetus is not from the writers, creators, directors, actors, etc. I think it's from the production level and the advertising level and the folks who think "This is what makes money because that's wht we've always believed makes money so we'll just keep doing the same thing." And, in most cases, the creatives...well...they'd really like to work...and eat...and so...

Grrr.

ETA...I haven't watched, and don't intend to watch, Dollhouse as I think it's a horrifying concept. I have stayed well away. Ugh. This is just my generic rant on the whole THING. Ugh-ugh-ugh.

From:

EVERY SINGLE WEEK on Chuck, which is a charming and dear show that I very much enjoy (except for the frat-boy-ickiness of the Buy More staff eating contests), they have at least once Totally Gratuitous Scene of Yvonne Strahovski in her underwear getting ready for an event or in a dream sequence or waking up in bed or something to make sure we've seen her body as close to naked as possible.

Thank god I'm not the only one bothered by this. That one episode where they had Sarah and La Ciudad fighting in the corseted milkmaid dress and the delivery girl "uniform" that was more like a stripper's outfit? Ugh. UGH. RAGE.

From:

nestra.livejournal.com

I can't watch Chuck for that reason, and for the way poor Anna gets treated. Yes, Sarah is hot. WE GET IT. Put some clothes on her.

Edited for pronoun clarity.

From:

Yes re: clothes.

I think Anna's doing pretty well, but part of that is that I see her as the one who, while all the Buy More folks are being obnoxious, tells them off successfully and nudges them (mostly unsuccessfully, as are most nudges toward normal humanity) toward tolerably or appropriate behavior.

From:

nestra.livejournal.com

The last straw for me with Anna was not even when they had her know kung fu (why not have her kick someone's ass because she spent hours playing Mortal Kombat). It was the episode where...Jeff? had to play Asteroids or whatever arcade game it was, and he insisted that Anna be there in a hula skirt.

From:

Ah...I literally don't remember anything about that other than thinking the whole Arcade Game Hero Legend thing was...um...lame...and so I blocked it all out except the Chuck parts. But, yeah, if I'd retained that? ...Yeah.

From:

I also hate the prominence of Judd Apatow Syndrome on the show, with Morgan/Anna and Chuck/Sarah. Yes, Zach Levi isn't exactly in the Seth Rogen camp, but the *intent* is there, backed up with all the leering comments from the guys about how Chuck is nailing a hot chick who's way out of his league.

I gave the show a try because my friends list loves it, but like you, I think I'm going to stop watching.

From:

The thing that I like is that Chuck really is a nice guy, someone who anyone would be lucky to have for a partner. The annoying thing, for me, is that the Buy More adolescent leering distracts from the reality of the (other) characters' strengths. I DO mostly feel like the *show* knows that the whole "out of his/her league" nonsense is nonsense, but that may be because I read through that filter with great disdain and don't really notice it since I'm dismissing it myself so thoroughly. So I'm truly not sure if the show knows what I know or if I just hope it does.

From:

But if the show knows that, then why set it up in the first place? And why keep hammering it into the viewer again and again? My inner cynic says that the entire show is a huge male fantasy (geeky guy with big dreams stuck in a dead end life suddenly gets a ticket to excitement and world saving), and the Hot Girl is just a standard component of that. It *is* nice that they cast Zach Levi rather than a Steve Carrell/Seth Rogen type, but couldn't they just have left it at that? Instead of this constant, "She's a ten and you're a seven" nonsense.

From:

You're right. The constant repetition does mean that my hopeful viewing is just wrong, and the whole idea that someone has to be "beautiful enough" to "deserve" someone else (or, in the inverse, that for someone beautiful to be able to be with someone less beautiful--a la Shrek and its ilk)as if appearance is the most significant aspect of a relationship...it's insulting to everyone.

Perhaps if they showed folks who were together and appearance weren't a factor, or a perceived disparity in appearance weren't pointed out or mocked or questioned.

You're right, though. They should have left it so that viewers could just SEE that this would not be the "expected" pairing and then let the audience see that the expectations are wrong.

From:

It would have worked for me if they hadn't commented on it at all, because (a) Zach Levi is actually pretty good looking if not quite in Yvonne's league, appearance-wise, and (b) whenever there is a disparity in the looks department, it's *always* the girl who is better looking. Even having a situation where all pairing on TV were more or less equally balanced in terms of physical appearance would actually be *better* than what we have now, which is one half such pairings and one half Judd Apatow-esque male wish fulfilment.

From:

mecurtin.livejournal.com

YES. I call it Judd Apatow Syndrome too!!! We R clearly Mint2B.

From:

klia.livejournal.com

OMG, yes, that's exactly why I watched the first 2 or 3 eps of Chuck, then bailed.

From:

Indeed.

And I love the show. And I get that, even in character, Sarah is not averse to using her body and sexuality and appearance as yet another weapon. And I get that, DOOD, Yvonne has a regular job and is getting paid AND is getting to work and get high-profile exposure showing a VARIETY of skills in the States and, career-wise, that is good for her. I also admire that she has an amazing body and clearly puts work into keeping it that way. BUT. But. BUT.

It makes me narrow my eyes in annoyance each time. I LIKE Sarah too much (and am finding myself fond of Yvonne as I see interviews) to be anything other than rather offended on her behalf.

I know why they do it, and I WANT the show to stay on, but it PISSES me off that a) they think the "have to" do it, b) it is considered "no big deal," and c) there's not even equal time; the guys don't get shown off as playthings. *grumble*

From:

Big fat WORD to everything you said, especially this:

"there's not even equal time; the guys don't get shown off as playthings."

Exactly. For all that fandom rails (often rightly) against gender issues on Heroes and Supernatural, one thing I appreciate about both shows (though I don't watch SPN) is that they objectify the boys as much as the girls--in the case of Heroes, *more* than the girls.

Whereas on Chuck, Casey's cover lets him wear khakis and a polo shirt, whereas Sarah's just happens to involve a corset, short skirt, bustier, and a phallic metaphor.

I'm offended on behalf of Summer Glau and Eliza Dushku, too. Egads, those "interviews" during the Dollhouse premiere.

From:

Indeed. I'm offended on behalf of all the women who are doing what is demanded in order for them to have work. Obnoxious, misogynist culture.

I can't comment on Heroes or SPN since I watch neither. But I do remember that on so many 90s shows we'd watch the tease and say, "Oh...that one's wearing lingerie. She's gonna die." It was especially true on FK. *sigh*

It's just everywhere. I talk about it and point it out and grumble and...*sigh*

From:

Also the gyro delivery girl and Sarah having Yet Another Girl Fight... *sigh*

I admit I DID like that Sarah and Casey worked out their differences by having a huge knock-down-drag-out; I thought that was quite in character. But the other stuff? Annoys the crap out of me.

From:

And the point of all this ranting is that I think that the impetus is not from the writers, creators, directors, actors, etc. I think it's from the production level and the advertising level and the folks who think "This is what makes money because that's wht we've always believed makes money so we'll just keep doing the same thing."

Alas, if only that were true, but all you have to do is look at the vile, ugly, SKANKY, I-need-to-take-a-bath-now-oh-Joss-why-have-you-forsaken-us gender issues in Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog to know that no, it's not the execs. This is all Joss. Joss was beholden to no one but himself for Dr. Horrible--he created it himself, paid for it himself, and had no network or advertisers to deal with. That was all him. And that's what he did with his female character.

Joss is a two-faced, faux-modern-man shitbag. I'm done with him. (However, the psycho-feminist chick who concludes that because he is a man, he is guilty of repeatedly raping his wife can get off my side any day now.)

From:

It's worse than if he were your run-of-the-mill sexist showrunner, because wearing the "I'm a Feminist!" badge lets him get away with so much more. If Kripke were behind Dollhouse, fandom would be all over it, but so many people are overlooking the skeeviness "because it's Joss." Sigh.

Joss, get over this delusion that you're on my side, because you're so, SO NOT.

From:

wearing the "I'm a Feminist!" badge lets him get away with so much more.

I think this is a big problem with our favored show-runners. We never get to see the other side of that badge, and you have to read the whole badge, you know? The front of Joss's badge says, "I'm a Feminist!", and the back says, "I'm from the Open Source Boob Project, and I approve this message."

From:

Bwah! Thanks for the laugh--I needed that.

From:

klia.livejournal.com

*laughs and laughs*

Thanks, I needed that!

From:

I'll note that I haven't seen Dr. Horrible as I wished to have no part of that either, and that my paragraph was in the generic, not speaking in terms of in response to anything re: Joss.

And I stand by the idea that most industry/advertising folks DO believe this is the Only Way To Make Money. And by my belief that they're WRONG. And my hope that we will see more shows and entertainment prove these things wrong...because I suspect the shows that are yet to come that will turn these insulting paradigms more and more on their heads are things that I will often very much enjoy.

From:

I didn't mean to imply that the industry isn't to blame; I was saying that Joss can't claim interference from suits / agencies / etc. because he's shown us that he's capable of making these skin-crawling decisions all on his own.

I suspect the shows that are yet to come that will turn these insulting paradigms more and more on their heads

Yeah; don't hold your breath. And while I used to believe otherwise, don't have your daughter hold her breath either.

From:

Indeed. He can't hide behind the suits for Dr. Horrible at all.

I have hope that I'll get to see--at leas some of--these new wave shows and characters. I even look good in blue, fortunately. Perhaps I will find I look good in purple as well?

From:

"This is what makes money because that's wht we've always believed makes money so we'll just keep doing the same thing." And, in most cases, the creatives...well...they'd really like to work...and eat...and so...

Yes, but.

This is reminiscent of a long discussion recently hosted at Metafilter (and many times before in other posts there), about the recent spate of "Holy fuck what is up with the fucking police in this country" news articles. Now, this is a long-standing discussion at MeFi; someone says "all cops are pigs", someone else says "a few rotten apples don't spoil the whole barrel", another says "HEY MY FAMILY IS FULL OF COPS", and another says "The increase in shitty cop stories is not because cops have suddenly gotten shittier; it's that more and more people are walking around with audio/video recorders in their phones, and everything that you'd never have heard about is now going up on youtube."

And then someone made this point--a point I had never, until it was laid out before me, even thought of: All cops are bad cops, for the following reason. All cops know that there are bad cops in the force, yet they invariably, INVARIABLY, close ranks to protect "their own". If a cop protects a shitbag cop from being tried for his crimes, well, that's a bad cop. Cops are supposed to serve and protect. It's in the job description. No matter how much serving and protecting you *think* you're doing, you're not doing ANY serving and protecting by knowingly letting criminals (and yes, cops can also be criminals--I know this blows some people's minds) go untried and unpunished, over and over and over and over and over. You're failing at doing your job. You're a a BAD COP. Period. Therefore, unless there are cops who have come forward and turned in molesters on the force, the batterers, the rapists, the murderers (show me evidence that this has happened and I'll dance in the streets), all cops are bad cops. Aiding and abetting, harboring known criminals, obstructing justice. All. Cops. Bad. Cops. Period.

And that's how I see the people who want to "work and eat" in the industry, and therefore take jobs (in whatever form) at programs which promote subtle and not-so-subtle hateful and detrimental agendas. (Not all shows are guilty of this. I hope.) Here's what those people are saying. " Helping to flash scantily clad breasts at teenage boys in order to gain their "demographic", when it is the women who spend the vast amount of the household money, is more important to me than my daughter's incipient anorexia. Writing puerile sexist fuckwittery at FOX is more important than my sister's degraded-to-the-point-of-invisibility self-esteem. Perpetrating the nasty, vile, hurtful stereotypes of a nasty, vile, hurtful industry is more important to me than women are."

This is not a case of people who have absolutely no other options, or no way to stand up for their principles without sacrificing their entire future. When I was working as a floater at an advertising agency, making just-above-minimum wage, I was sent to spend 4-6 months on Philip Morris. I unequivocally told my HR contact that I would not work on the Philip Morris account. She told me I'd be let go, because my contract as a floater required that I go where I was sent. I told her that I would not change my mind. A day later, she was told to fire me, and she did. I had no income, no savings, no real job prospects, and would have no health care if I left unless I could pay for COBRA (difficult to do with no money and no income). I had WAY fewer resources than many of the folks in the entertainment industry. My temp agency wasn't thrilled, on the face of it, but two temp managers did tell me that they wished more of the people they sent to that agency would do the same thing.

FUCK THEM. You know how fast it would have to turn around if they all refused to engage in the racist, mysogynist, homophobic bullshit for one minute more? VERY FAST.

From:

thebratqueen.livejournal.com

One of the many many many many MANY reasons why I did not get into the post-show comic books was that in one of the early Buffy s8 ones they had Andrew playing strip-poker with the barely-legal Slayers. There was so much wrong with that one panel that I didn't know where to begin, save to say "Yeah, THIS RIGHT HERE would be why the whole thing isn't working for me."

From:

gwyn-r.livejournal.com

I actually wish I had the Flames on the Side of My Fave icon, because boy, does that say it all. And actually seeing these covers together just kinda... gah. Joss, I have loved many of your entertainments, but this is becoming a problem, big boy.

From:

I got the Flames on the Side of my Face icon who got it from someone who got it from someone who got it from someone. A bunch of us have been trying for months, if not years, to find out who made it. But it's shared all over, so I don't see why you shouldn't take part as well. My "credit" area on my icon page begs for any info anyone might have about the person who made it, so I can credit them appropriately.

From:

loz

Yes. This is exactly how I feel.

From:

klia.livejournal.com

Yes, that is the cover art for an issue of the Buffy comics--minus the text, of course. Here's another:

Oh my god -- that's unbelievable. I had no idea he was such a gigantic misogynistic fuckhead.

From:

I don't find displays of the female body de facto infuriating -- see icon -- particularly when it's matched with displays of the male body so the ogling is at least equal opportunity. But I guess what it comes down to, for me, is this: Does this woman have agency? For all her many revealing disguises, Sydney Bristow always owned her power. She took pleasure in fooling people, in playing different roles and in accomplishing incredibly difficult tasks. Those costumes never defined her.

Whereas it sounds like Echo doesn't even KNOW she plays the parts. She's an automaton, and neither her pains nor her accomplishments belong to her. And to me, that matters so much more than what she is or isn't wearing. If she NEVER put on anything revealing (fat chance), I would find still find Echo more offensive than Sydney in a garter belt. Because one of those women is in control, and the other isn't.

From:

I'm...not sure I agree with this. I can't talk about Alias with much assurance since I still haven't watched beyond the first few episodes. But by the criterion of "Does this woman have agency?" I'd have to conclude that the portrayal of the main female character (Sarah) on Chuck isn't disgracefully sexist, (because she's a CIA agent who certainly knows how to use her looks to her advantage) and I disagree with that vehemently. I won't go into it now, but I'll most likely be elaborating on this further in an LJ post a week or two from now.

IMO, it's not enough for female characters to have control and prowess in using their set of tools: there's sexism inherent in what those tools *are*, and which ones they reach for most often and which prove most effective, when compared to male characters on the same shows. If men don't have to seduce and strip and wink and flirt their way out of tough situations, women shouldn't have to either. Or at least, there should be more of a balance than there is now between female characters whose main asset is their sexuality, and those who don't need revealing outfits and a pretty face to get a job done--in addition to owning their power, whatever form it happens to take.

From:

I think there's a lot of truth to what you say, but I still think agency is the main thing.

To take my "Alias" as an example: While Sydney Bristow definitely does dress skimpily on occasion, her sexuality is in no way her main asset: Her intelligence, drive, strength and ingenuity are all on much more frequent display than her body. And while some of her disguises are quite revealing (see icon), some are no more sensual than the average nice evening gown, and other times she wears construction-worker gear, or thermal parkas, or just a business suit and a wig. And when she does play the sex card, the undercurrent of the scene is invariably, "Men are such jackasses for falling for this stuff." Do I think they occasionally showed off Jennifer Garner's body so guys would enjoy it? Of course. But I think they never cheapened her in the process; it's possible to appeal to male sexuality while (a) not reinforcing Neanderthal ideas of women's inferiority and even (b) presenting a different kind of woman to be appreciated, not a supposed bimbo in a miniskirt but an intelligent, independent knockout.

(It also helped that the guys were as beautiful as the girls, and while peeled for our enjoyment less often, did do important, intense, sweaty missions in which they simply could not work while fully clothed and needed to strip down to sleeveless undershirts to get the job done.)

To go from "Alias" to a more general tone: I think a lot depends, in the show, on whether or not the sexist tools used are understood as sexist. In "Alias," they were. I haven't seen "Chuck," but it seems like there, that understanding is often absent. (Sydney Bristow fought women, but she was never in a "catfight.")

I agree that we need greater balance. We need more shows like "Bones," where the women, while sensationally gorgeous, are clearly not on display 85% of the time, and the 15% of the time they are, it's because they've chosen to be (and it's usually matched by semiclothed David Boreanaz to boot, woot!) But I guess what I am getting at is that sex appeal isn't inherently sexist. It's inherently just sex. It's all the grotesque societal baggage that too often comes with it that is the trouble. On the few occasions where shows manage to celebrate women as sexual creatures without ever cheapening them, you know, bravo! This is one small step on the path toward a healthier heterosexual culture. But we do need more shows with women who get celebrated for more reasons besides.

From:

But we do need more shows with women who get celebrated for more reasons besides.

I completely agree. And I also agree that female characters dressed provocatively/using their feminine wiles is a lot more palatable when you see male characters being offered up as eye candy, too. (This never happens on Chuck, BTW.)

I think that's the heart of the matter for me: what I want is more *parity*, both between male and female characters, and between (traditionally) sexy female characters and the tragically rare cases of women who don't want or need to use their looks to get by.

IMO, there's a difference between *intrinsically* problematic portrayals of women, like Echo on Dollhouse and Sarah on Chuck, and portrayals that I personally find less than satisfactory because of the wider social context, like Sydney on Alias or Kate on Lost. I would have zero problems with either Sydney or Kate if we had more women like Peggy from Mad Men, Betty Suarez, or Caroline Julien (who, despite being awesome, is still only a recurring character). It's only because I feel like, in 95% of cases, beauty and sex appeal are the minimum standard required for TPTB to decide that a woman's story is worth telling that I start raising my eyebrows and wagging my finger.

And in this respect, I can't even give Bones a free pass, because if you run your eye down the roster of men and women on the show, the disparity in casting is glaringly obvious (with the exception of Booth, who's still older than all the female regulars, and whose physical appearance is still mentioned far less frequently than Brennan's, especially by characters of the week). There's also a difference in the way the characters dress, etc.

The only show that's ever come close to meeting my standards in these respects is E.R. in the early seasons (S1-S4). I'm still waiting for something to take its place that will make me really happy wrt gender issues, as opposed to somewhere on the scale from tolerant to infuriated.

Aigh. Sorry for being such a persnickety grouch: between watching Chuck for the first time and the Dollhouse premiere/ad campaign, I've been grumpy about this stuff all week.

From:

IMO, there's a difference between *intrinsically* problematic portrayals of women, like Echo on Dollhouse and Sarah on Chuck, and portrayals that I personally find less than satisfactory because of the wider social context, like Sydney on Alias or Kate on Lost. I would have zero problems with either Sydney or Kate if we had more women like Peggy from Mad Men, Betty Suarez, or Caroline Julien (who, despite being awesome, is still only a recurring character).

I almost entirely agree with this. I don't have problems with Sydney or Kate (now "Lost," there's a show where the eye candy is equal opportunity! I don't think Sawyer's worn a shirt since S2); however, I'd so much rather they were part of a better environment, where their occasional display of flesh was as close to exploitation as TV got -- where they were on the far edge of the use of sex appeal (and doing it in a way that isn't inherently troubling), not the far edge of showing women with strength and smarts to go with the sex appeal.

You really might want to give "Fringe" a try, actually. They've shown Anna Torv in underwear a couple of times because of this tank-submersion thing -- but they've explicitly ended that device, and she is otherwise pretty much ALL about hypercompetence and sensible shoes. The show needs some work but has been steadily improving. You might look at the last episode that aired, which was both very good and something of a mythology reset, and see what you think.

At some other point, we might talk about those super-rare examples of older women's sexuality being used in revolutionary and positive ways. I am thinking first of my icon lady, Irina Derevko of "Alias," who was 50 years old, hypercompetent and fierce and, whether in miniskirts or Kevlar, the hottest creature alive. Or, even though I have given up on BSG due to other issues, I know that they recently featured a scene of Laura Roslin in bed with Adama, clearly having had a great time, in her normal mature woman's body and a bald head from chemotherapy. Now THAT is the kind of sexuality I want more of on TV! But that is also sort of thread hijacking.

From:

Yes, I could definitely have thought of better examples than Alias or Lost--and I certainly appreciate the male eye candy on Lost! :-)

Thanks for the tip on Fringe: I'll have to give it a try, maybe over the summer.

Now that is the kind of female sexuality I want to see more of!

Seconded. And to get back to Lost--I would love to see the female equivalents of Terry O'Quinn or Michael Emerson on TV. I'd love to continue talking about this with you, but as you say, it would probably be thread hijacking: maybe we can come back to it if I ever get around to that mega post on ~~yaoi~~ gender issues that's been brewing for a while.

From: