contemplativeI watch a lot of television, read a lot of books, and buy a lot of comics. I am a huge consumer of media of all types. And, like many consumers of media, I'm looking for characters I can relate to. For me, yes, that usually means the females* (although not always). And yeah, it bothers me that in a narrative with eight males and one female, it's frequently the female who will be the target of violence or killed off to make a point.
Now, I'm not saying that female characters should have a "get out of mortal injury free" card, nor that they should be immortal. But there's "everyone in this story gets the crap kicked out of them on a regular basis, it was Karen's turn," and then there's "mysteriously, every male character survives the explosion unscathed, again, but Karen is in the hospital, again." Or, even worse, "all the guys are fine, Karen's dead, meet Katie." Karen, in this scenario, was probably a replacement for Kelly, who replaced Kendra back in season one. And the beat rolls on.
I am not saying that all things must have absolute gender equality. Big Bang Theory was a primarily male cast for the first several seasons, and that was fine. H2O: Just Add Water was a primarily female cast for its entire run, and that was fine, too. Sometimes, there are situations where it makes sense for it to be mostly one gender or the other. But this is a "sometimes" thing, not a "four times out of five" thing. If there's no pressing reason for a character to be one gender or the other, why not try striking a balance? One of the only things that's ever disappointed me about Leverage is the way that the "evil doubles" of all the main characters have been male. Male thief, male hitter, male hacker, male mastermind. When your core cast is so well-balanced, why not make your Mirror Universe equally well-balanced?
(Yes, we have seen another female grifter, but as she was brought in to essentially be a replacement Sophie while Gina Bellman was pregnant, she's a bit of a different duck, and she wasn't brought in when they needed an alternate team. Which is too bad, because she's awesome.)
And now to the event that caused me to start thinking these things so critically:
Once upon a time there was a show, and it was made for me. It could not have been better tailored to my tastes if the producers had been bugging my phone. I loved it without reservation, even though the cast was almost purely male, and I defended it from accusations of misogyny. It was my show.
Time passed, and more female characters were introduced. They didn't become core cast, but that was okay; there were natural limits on the number of core cast members, and I was happy with the expanded universe. It made things more realistic. And then things started getting bad in that expanded universe. How could they make us, the viewers, understand how bad things were?
By killing all the female characters who had appeared in more than one episode, naturally. And by doing it in a way that was meant to be "heroic," but involved them failing to navigate a scenario that left the male characters entirely untouched.
I cried until I was sick after that episode. I turned off the show. I never went back. Literally never; I haven't watched so much as a preview since that narrative decision was made. Was I overreacting? Maybe. But there is so much media out there these days, so many stories, that once you make me cry for reasons that are not "this is so moving and tragic," but are instead, "this is so unfair and infuriating," we're over, you and I.
And that, right there, is when a story loses me. When they use the female characters as a shortcut to emotional anguish; when they kill or maim the women because that's easier than setting up a genuinely and realistically painful scenario. Especially since we almost always start out with a severe gender imbalance in genre or action shows, and that means that killing the token woman can leave us with an all-male cast.
Bones, which I adore, has a rotating cast of interns, only one of whom is female. When they had to kill an intern last season, it wasn't her. I cried like a baby over the death they chose; the intern they killed was my second favorite among the available choices. But it didn't make me angry the way it would have if they'd chosen Daisy. Why? Because killing the woman is so often viewed as the "cheap and easy" choice that I wouldn't have been able to focus on the tragedy through my anger.
Again, I am not saying "never kill the woman." Veronica Mars is one of my favorite shows ever, and they started off by killing Lilly Kane. NCIS, which I also adore, killed off a central female character very early in their run. But both shows killed their characters in a way that made sense for the show, and did not reduce her to an emotional red stamp. "We need this to hurt, so kill the girl." You need to kill the character, not "kill the girl." If you can do that, you'll keep me. If you can't, you'll lose me. And I am not the only one you'll lose.
I find it a little fascinating that women make up such a large percentage of the audience for these stories, but we're still the ones who die when the monster comes, to prove that the threat is real. I'd like to see it change.
And I still miss Lilly.
(*I don't say "women" because I watch a lot of science fiction, and a lot of cartoons and teen dramas. So "girls" is often accurate, as is "blue lizard people of the egg-laying gender.")
February 1 2012, 20:30:44 UTC 5 years ago
I recently marathoned through most of Supernatural (haven't watched the most recent season) and I loved it. I did ponder the issue of gender and the show since there really were few major recurring female characters. At the same time, the show really is FOR women, and not just because of the fan service the boys offer. The relationship between the brothers is what really drives the show. It's one of the reasons why I don't think any of the female characters they tried ever really worked in the long run. I never really got angry at their treatment of female characters. Maybe that makes me a bad feminist, but ... *shrug* I loved the show for the relationship between the brothers and its ability to poke fun at itself.
February 2 2012, 02:35:15 UTC 5 years ago
And I don't know. It bothers me a lot that "the show is for women" gets used to excuse having no female characters at all. How many times do we use "the show is for men" to excuse having no male characters? Because that doesn't seem to happen.
I don't think any one thing makes anyone a bad feminist; you'll note that I didn't say "this is the show I mean and you need to stop watching RIGHT NOW." It was just problematic for me.
February 2 2012, 03:18:41 UTC 5 years ago
With Supernatural, I think almost anyone else got in the way of the story if they stuck around for too long, regardless of gender. The only real exceptions to that are Bobby and Castiel, and even they were used somewhat sparingly compared to how they might have been used in another series. Yeah, some of the female characters got the shaft, but so did some of the male characters. I guess that's why it never really bothered me too much. Either that, or I was invested enough in the story to let it slide.
I'm not trying to use the 'show is for women' line to justify no female characters. I was actually using it more as an example of how it's an interesting example of how a show, that on the surface, should be for dudes actually appeals to a more feminine demographic. It's one of the things I've always found fascinating about the show - it's two fairly macho guys with guns and knives in a hot ass car beating up monsters, but the show is really about the relationship between two brothers and their emotions as they go through their trials and tribulations.
I also don't really have a problem with the show having a mostly male cast and being 'for women'. As I said, I'm a little out of touch with a lot of TV out there, but I can't think of another example that really fits the same mold. I kinda like that the show has mostly male characters, but it speaks to me on a feminine level, if that makes sense.
As a clarification, I also DESPISE the Bedchel Test. I hate that thing with almost every fiber of my being. I understand what it's getting at, but I think it's just as narrow minded as what it's trying to fight against. I want my female characters to stand on their own, but I also want my male characters to do the same. That may be one of the reasons why I tend to go easy on some shows/stories.
February 2 2012, 03:22:46 UTC 5 years ago
February 2 2012, 04:56:58 UTC 5 years ago
February 2 2012, 16:26:39 UTC 5 years ago
There are really, really few anti-Bechdel failures, especially in some genres. I have never heard of an anti-Bechdel failure that involves explosions, for instance.
February 2 2012, 18:45:46 UTC 5 years ago
February 2 2012, 21:05:39 UTC 5 years ago
Where the Bechdel does apply for me is with shows which shouldn't be failing it because there is a plethora of supposedly real female characters who are meant to be about something other than just the guys they are in relationships with, namely Eureka.
And yeah, I get that Carter is the focal point of the show, and he's a guy, but it is still strange that the only conversations between Jo and Allison, or Allison and Zoe, or Zoe and Jo, or (etc) always seem to be about the men in their lives, and the discussion of the science only happens with male characters such as Carter or Henry.
I still like Eureka, but I see the fact that any conversation involving women without men is going to be about the OMG relationships OMG romance rather than about the geeky science to be a major failing.