What I've learned...

Since this is the last blog of the quarter, I've decided to do a conclusion for the time being. Looking back, I'm impressed by the variety of stereotypes I've pin-pointed and analyzed. Here is the list of the groups of people I found to be exploited (or fairly represented) by Hollywood:

1. All Women
2. Goofy/Lazy Husbands
3. Asians
4. African-Americans
5. Overweight Americans
6. The British
7. Hawaiians
8. Little People
9. The Brain Injured
10. American Southerners
11. Polygamists
12. Housewives
13. Nazis

Surprisingly, I found that women were the most commonly exploited group of people in Hollywood. Actually- I am half surprised. I thought a specific ethnicity or race would definitely be the most exploited but I kept finding more and more ridiculous stereotypes of women. Perhaps I am biased because I am a woman but I think I found the women stereotypes to be the most surprising and non-progressive. It seems that racial groups usually speak up when they feel that they are unfairly represented in Hollywood. I don't think this is as common for women. I have no idea why this is and it is frustrating. We are a huge population and bigger than any one racial group so why should we be so quiet and accepting? I know there are women out there who do voice their opinion and point out these stereotypes. But I do not think we are doing a good enough job because these stereotypes are still going strong in Hollywood.

Doing these blogs has exercised my brain a lot and has caused me to easily identify stereotypes in every TV show or film I watch. I am glad I can do this but it is annoying at the same time because it becomes hard for me to enjoy most TV/films. Hopefully I will be in a position one day to make changes of my own in Hollywood *knock on wood*.

Big Love: Exploitation for drama? or fair representation?

This is another post about one of my favorite shows on television: Big Love. For those of you who are not familiar with the show, it is about the joys and struggles of a fictional polygamist family in Utah. I became addicted to the show during its second season and have been following it since. As a minor critique, the quality of writing has definitely taken a turn for the worst in its current season. This is because they set up several great story lines in the second season and now they are all being revealed. I think the writers either got too excited or ingested too much caffeine because the story has become overwhelming. Every two to three minutes, the story and scene switches and a new secret is revealed. However, the unfortunate quality of the third season has allowed me to view this show objectively because I am not as invested. I found myself questioning if all of this drama could even be possible.

So, I decided to do some research. Is HBO's depiction of the polygamist lifestyle accurate? Semi-accurate? I had a hard time finding up-to-date articles. Most of the criticism from the Church of Latter Day Saints and polygamist Mormons seemed to occur before the first season even premiered. Most of it came from the wary LDS because they understandibly do not want old stereotypes about their religion to be reinforced in the public's mind. Although, Big Love does successfully state in their plot line that LDS does not support polygamy what-so-ever. Point 1 for Big Love. But what about now? I did find one article that talked about the hard facts of polygamist life seen on Big Love vs. the real world.

The article is from Entertainment Weekly's "Expert's Corner: How real is 'Big Love' season 2?"
EW representative Shirley Halperin interviews Salt Lake Tribune reporter Brooke Adams. Adams tasks include covering the trail of Polygamist leader Warren Jeffs, interviewing Polygamist families, and updating the paper's polygamy blog. To sum up the interview, Adams is answers specific questions about whether the plots and character portrayals in season 2 are accurate. After reading the interview it seems that overall, Big Love is fairly accurate (with a few exceptions of course).

But what bothered me the most is that the writers of the shows copied real situations that occured in the polygamist world (i.e. Ronda seeking spilling her story on a talk show. This actually happened with two runaway girls from a polygamist compound). Are the writers getting lazy? Or did their reaseach make them realize that polygamy is entertaining in itself so why not just retell reality? So why did they even make the show? I suppose its hard to please an audience because people want accurate representation but not actual copy-cat stories. I can sympathize with this difficulty. I still haven't answered my own question (it appears in the title). To be quite honest, I'm not sure if HBO's aim is to just make money by exploiting this group of unique people or if they're interesting in representing humanity. Perhaps I'll have an answer by the third season's final episode (just a few weeks away).

Stupid, fat, male catastrophes

I finally found a good, solid male stereotype! The stupid, fat, American father! Nobody tops Homer of The Simpsons and Peter of Family Guy. This blog maybe hard for me to write objectively because these are my two favorite television shows of all time.

Here is a list of all of his inherent flaws just because he is overweight.

1. Lazy
2. Stupid
3. Funny because of his stupidity
4. Bad father
5. Alcoholic
6. Somehow marries a hot, smart wife. But why does she fall for him if she's so smart?
7. Because they are SO lovable!
8. And they're always lower middle class.

In The State of the United States, a blog geared toward understanding American culture from a foreigner's perspective, The Simpsons is cited as the OVERALL classic example of the American stereotype. Meanwhile, Annalee Newitz makes an interesting comparison between Roseanne and The Simpsons in his blog Why I Hate The Simpsons.

So why do I still love these shows so much? I'm not exactly sure. My boyfriend thinks the bright colors really help because they make viewers happy. I suppose these shows also remind me of my childhood. I feel like a hypocrite admitting that these are my favorite shows on my blog devoted to revealing negative stereotypes in Hollywood. Perhaps it's because none of these stereotypes apply to me. I guess its natural for people not to be offended by things that do not affect them. It's difficult to find humor that does not hurt some group of people. Maybe that will be my next mission- to find the perfect humor for everyone.

Beneficial Reality Shows

The first reality shows sought manufactured drama. This was achieved by either shutting away groups of strangers in a small house or by impossible competitions. These kind of shows (i.e. Real World, Survivor, etc.) are obviously still present today (i.e. Real World, Top Chef) but are defined as the crappy television. When most people hear the word reality, they think of ridiculous drama, contrived situations and awful human beings that unfortunately exist.

But some networks have given myself and other television enthusiasts hope. TLC is the best example of this. Shows like Little People Big World and specials like World's Heaviest Man are about the lives of disabled individuals. They give healthy people a glimpse into the the daily hardships these subjects experience. Even though every television show's purpose is to be successful for material reasons, I am glad that they are doing something good at the same time. These shows are educating healthy Americans about things they do not know. I am hoping that this will make children (and even a lot of adults) think twice before they make an immature and cruel comment about disabled individuals faced with daily hardships they cannot control. I believe that humans are innately insensitive when they are uneducated and unfamiliar with disabled persons.

Some followers of TV Squad believe that Little People Big World exploits little people. Although I can see how people arrive at that accusation, I do believe that this show can only do more positive than negative. It shows how this family is just like yours and mine, with a few exceptions here and there. Forcing disabled people to hide in the shadows would only breed more cruelty because people are uncomfortable with what they do not understand.

Millionaire Matchmaker= not anti-feminist?

Season two of Millionaire Matchmaker just premiered two Thursdays ago. Matchmaker Patti Stranger offers this courting service to the millionaires who are having trouble finding "the one". Stranger's goal is to successfully "cure" these millionaires from their poor dating habits and to find their perfect mate suitable for marriage. The millionaires of this show were all men up until this season. I unfortunately did not get the chance to catch the millionairess episode.

Being that the majority of her millionaire clients are men, Stranger treats her women candidates as objects. She tells them to show cleavage, wear high heels and basically look absolutely flawless when they attend the meet-and-greets. In the season premier, she actually told one of these hopeless woman victims that she was too fat for the men and that she needed to lose weight before she was presentable. Let's keep in mind that these millionaire men are no prized pigs themselves. In fact, they are more-often-than-not narcissistic, thoughtless, older and unattractive. And you would think some of them have never seen a woman before! Of course, this is where Stranger whips them into shape and shows them how to properly woo a woman.

For the above reasons, I felt that a lot of women (and hopefully some men out there- the few that would even watch the show) would feel that Millionaire Matchmaker is incredibly anti-feminist. But I was surprised to find a few entries online that opposed my accusation- including an interview with Stranger herself. In an interview with Zap2It.com, Stranger states the following:

"'The rules never change. Men are men, and women are women," she says. "No matter how many times you think you're going to be equal to a man or you're going to become more the man, you're just going to emasculate the man. Then you're going to have a child on your hands. You really have to be a woman, a feminine woman. People think that's anti-feminist, but it's not.'"

In the rest of the interview, she defends this position more by saying that she believes a couple is the most successful if they assume their traditional gender roles. In other words, men will always be physical creatures, so women must be as physically appealing as possible in order to attract them.

After reading this interview with Stranger, I'm starting to see her point of view. Men do not have an anti-feminist mind. If they see a woman who is at least slightly sexually appealing they will seek her. If they are not intrigued, then they won't. This is how the world works, unfortunately. It's that plain and simple.

The upside to all of this is that Stranger does put these men in their place. If they are being an asshole or are seeking a woman way above their own level of attractiveness, she will call them out on it and tell them that they need to be more realistic in their expectations. At least we have SOME justification.

Friends= almost progress

Friends is probably one of the most universally liked shows by my generation. I remember my friends and I would always argue about which Friends character everyone in our group of friends was. I think that is what made Friends so popular- everyone could see similar traits of themselves and their friends in several of the characters. They of course are all so lovable because of all of the shenanigans they get into. In Hana 30th connections' blog about friends, "Gender Representation in Friends- Mr. Daley", Hana surfaces examples that show how every character is a stereotype of their gender. However, Hana is fair in that he/she does give examples of moments when these beloved characters break away from their expected stereotype by showing traits of the other gender. In this blog, I included some of her points and some of my own.

The Ladies.
Monica is the neurotic, cleaning-obsessed, friend that's a chef. This stereotypes women as being innately neurotic and that they should take a house-wife role as cook and cleaner. Monica also used to be overweight when her character was younger. By loosing an incredible amount of weight, this tells girls that they should always be pencil-thin. However, Monica breaks away from the typical woman stereotype because she is opinionated, stubborn, competitive and quite successful in her line of work as a chef. Basically, she is not the demure woman who is afraid to talk back to men. Rachel is the most normal girl of the bunch. She is your typical girl-next-store who is likable, not too intelligent, beautiful, popular, and a waitress who eventually lands her dream job as a buyer at Ralph Lauren. Rachel probably fits into the typical female stereotype the most. She is sweet and loves shopping. She is also not very smart. Her character is non-threatening to men because she is not that successful. She is also quite thin and beautiful. Again, like Monica, she goes against the female stereotype by sticking up for herself when encountered by opposition. She also is not the traditional homemaker and also decided that she wanted to be a single mother. Phoebe is the eccentric masseuse who almost borders on mentally deranged. She is not mentally present the entire run of the show. Phoebe fits the female stereotype by being quite naive, sensitive, and unintelligent. She goes against the stereotype by being openly promiscuous with men and by being carefree about her appearance. Although she is attractive and wears makeup, her clothes are always on the interesting side. She tends to do whatever she wants; she usually does not answer to anyone.

The Boys.
Chandler is the sarcastic, joke-cracking, disgruntled businessman. He fits the male stereotype by being immature and afraid of commitment. He goes against his stereotype by revealing that he is incredibly insecure and sometimes jealous. Ross is nerdy, three-times divorced and a paleontologist. He fits the male stereotype by also being rather immature, insensitive to women, and successful in his career. Ross goes against the stereotype by having a tendency to complain (usually associated with women) and also by crying in one episode. Ross seems to be tuned-in with his feminine side the most out of all of the men. Joey is the struggling actor who loves to eat. He fits his stereotype by fixating mostly on food and women. He is also incredibly immature and childlike. He goes against his stereotype by being one of the more unintelligent characters television has ever seen. He also does not have a very secure line of work.

Overall, I believe the creator of Friends laid a good foundation for our generation to look beyond the expected stereotypes created centuries before.

Everybody Loves Raymond...Not Debra

Since my last few blogs have been about how women have been constantly stereotyped, I thought I'd try to do a blog about men! It's rare- but men are indeed stereotyped in Hollywood. An interesting and different perspective can be read in Jake Brennan's (Askmen.com writer) article "Has Male Bashing Gone Too Far?". He has a theory that there is a current market for "guy" characters (the stupid, lazy, unromantic version of the actual male) in Hollywood. He mentions the character Raymond in Everybody Loves Raymond as one of the perfect "guy" examples. Brennan's article is quite convincing because he surfaces that women are hypocritical beause we love this "guy" stereotype and yet we hate it when women are stereotyped. Although, I am sympathetic for Brennan and other men (not "guys"), I feel that the character Debra in Everybody Loves Raymond is an even worse stereotype for women. This is because she's a bitch. But I'll start with Raymond first...

Raymond is the stupid, dorky, lazy husband who happens to be wedded to the beautiful know-it-all wife Debra. Raymond is constantly getting himself into trouble: when he eats his mother's cooking after he eats Debra's or when he mistakenly tapes over his wedding ceremony with a football game. He means well- he's just stupid and lost without his wife. But it's all Raymond's fault at the end of the day. The audience knows this and also knows that Raymond is not malicious. So of COURSE we love Raymond. But do we like naive Raymond or the know-it-all Debra more?

I personally like Raymond more. Even though he stereotypes the average man to be selfish, lazy, and dumb, he is more likable. Hence the title Everybody LOVES Raymond. What would the title be if it was the exact same show- but focused on Debra? It would be Everyone HATES Debra. I naturally don't like Debra because she's controlling, emotional, overly-critical, and just plain bitchy. Even though she is smarter than Raymond (a plus for women) she is hard to like because she is constantly yelling. Even though I have been in similar situations as her and sympathize, I do not feel like her bi-polar tendencies are ever justified. And as an audience, we get the impression that she is just plain crazy because she is yelling one minute and then crying in the next. And as I woman, I have never needed "a good cry" for no reason (this is the subject for an entire episode). Trust me men, we are not all like that!

I know my purpose was to write about how men are stereotyped and this just turned into another "woman post". I'll find a better example ASAP.

The Real "Housewives"

The never-ending Housewives series on Bravo: staged/instigated drama, bling, and the... wifely duties? It's interesting that the word "Housewives" is apart of the title- because I think viewers see more designer clothing than housewife interaction between husbands and children. Simply put, this show's purpose is to make viewers angry and jealous over the shallow drama that seems to be the symptom of all housewives in the United States. And the title should really include the word wealthy in it- because every housewife is at least a millionaire. Unfortunately, the term "housewife" had negative stereotypes long before this show. And this show EXPLODES these stereotypes.

In the first season of The Real Housewives of New York City, Jill's shining "housewife" moment is when she storms out of designer Luca Luca's runway show because she was not given front row seats. From the same season, "housewife" Countess Luann chooses having a night life over spending her evenings with her children- despite the pleas of her 10-year old son. In the current season of The Real Housewives of Orange County, "housewife" Gretchen (who is technically not even a wife yet- she's only engaged) is remembered as the woman who enjoys vacationing, shopping, and flirting while her loaded fiancé dies in the hospital. Bravo is obviously only concerend with entertaining their audiences. Reinforcing and even strengthening the housewife stereotype seems to be far from their conscience. Associated Contenet writer JM Kellam makes an interesting point in his article "The Women of the Real Housewives of New York City": "The women on The Real Housewives of New York City all have their own jobs and, as far as I can tell, their own maids. So why would they allow Bravo to title them 'housewives?'" This seems to be present in every season and in every different city. Again, Bravo is desperate to find a group of dramatic, rich women.

Even though I am sure many viewers have noticed that Bravo has stretched the term housewife to include these women, this show is still imprinting into viewer's minds that this is how ALL housewives behave. I also believe that expanding the show to cover three different locations has only worsened the reputation for the normal housewife. This influences viewers to believe that if women from three different locations in the United States act exactly the same- then this must be the personality of all housewives.

I was not aware of the damage Bravo has done to my generation until I was having a conversation with one of my friends. We were talking about whether we would ever consider being (or having) a housewife. My male friend said the following: "I wouldn't mind, but she would have to be useful. I wouldn't want her to sit around eating bon-bons all day and watching soap operas." When I questioned him why he felt that all women would automatically be lazy instead of productive, he said: "Well that's all I see on TV. If she actually cleaned, cooked, and took care of children- then I would be fine with that."

Even before this show aired, I remember encountering similar situations growing up. My teachers and coaches would always ask me why my mother couldn't constantly volunteer. When I would say she was busy, they would say almost the exact same thing as my friend- "Busy watching Soap Operas?" Little did they know that she was busy taking care of my severly disabled brother. My mother recently told me that she understands why a lot of women choose to work instead of taking care of their children. She said its because working is a LOT easier than taking care of your children all day.

I really hope this series doesn't last much longer because its just ruining the already ruined reputation of the "housewife."

Skanks in the City

I have always had mixed feelings about HBO's hit series (and movie) Sex and the City. On the one hand, you have a highly entertaining show about women who essentially get what they want. And they want money, successful careers, close friends, and lots and LOTS of sex. Or do they want love? Or sex and love? I'm still not exactly sure- even after I walked out of the movie.

Creators of this show give audiences the impression that this a show about the modern-day, independent woman. The show progresses date-by-date. And lunch-by-lunch. Apparently the modern-day woman is constantly on the prowl for men- or else she is considered a prude. In fact, the character Charlotte is portrayed as the "good girl" because she strives for marriage and a family. Let's remember that Charlotte has had her good share of" sexcapades". Not to mention, I have no idea how all of these women can be so successful in their professional careers because all of their free time is consumed by men: shopping for their dates, lunching while chatting about their dates, and finally- DATING.

Even though having promiscuous sex and successful careers are definitely qualities of an independent woman, this show gives audiences the impression that ALL women are obsessed with men! These characters are fashioned to be the ideal model of the modern, independent women- so women of all ages can aspire to be like them. However, if the ideal independent woman is consumed by men, then ALL women must be consumed by men. That is not liberating at all.

Shelton Hull's 2003 article "Modern Woman as Love Machine: The Post-Feminist Landscape, as Projected by 'Sex and the City'" exposes great specific examples of why this show should not be a role model for any female of any age.

Mad Men: Excuse for sexism and racism? Or reality?

I have recently become addicted to AMC's Mad Men. This drama is appealing to me because of its writing and historical documentation. Part of that historical documentation includes the racism and sexism that existed in 1960s. I have read several blogs (particularly HighJive's post on Racilicious) that express frustration with Mad Men because they believe this show is simply racist and sexist without any social commentary. Even though I do agree with these blogger's that this show is just about white America in the 1960s, I do NOT believe this show is racist and sexist only for entertainment purposes. I believe creator Matthew Weiner wants to factually depict the lives of these Advertising executives.

This television show does not go one episode without a racial slur or ass-grab. Int the third episode, the co-workers of the character Peter Campbell paid a Chinese family to surprise Campbell in his office. The family was wearing stereotypical Chinese clothing and had a chicken with them as well. Everyone in the office (all white) thought this was a great practical joke. As awful as this joke is, Mad Men has received wide praise because of its truthful account of racism and sexism in the 1960s. Jerry Della Femina worked as a copywriter during this era and founded his own agency. Wikipedia quotes Femina's reception of the show: "[Mad Men] 'accurately reflects what went on. The smoking, the prejudice and the bigotry.'"

Although 99% of the racism and sexism is met without any objection from any characters in the first season, the first episode of the second season foreshadows the social revolution soon to come in this era. In the picture above, the character Paul Kinsey is introducing his African-American girlfriend to his white, ex-girlfriend Joan Holloway. The scene ends with Joan upsetting Kinsey's current girlfriend by revealing her racism. Even though the scene ends with racism, Kinsey confronts Joan later in the episode and expresses his anger for her behavior.

The episode above definitely contains social commentary. It may not be as direct as some bloggers would like to see, but I believe that scenes speak for themselves without any direct commentary. Even in the first season when every instance of sexual harrassement and bigotry is met without objection or obvious commentary, it shows viewers how far we have socially progressed. This show has showed me a glimpse of what life was like in the 1960s without any censoring. I believe that showing viewers (particularly younger generations who did not live in this era) how things really were is more beneficial than ignoring the issue because it is too depressing. Even though racism and sexism will probably always exist, it teaches viewers why things are the way they are. And why people are still racist and sexist. If we can learn as much as we can about how life really was back then, it can help progressive people understand how to improve these social conditions that still exist.

"Bridezillas" ravages views on women.

I admit that I have seen my share of "Bridezillas" episodes. Like most reality TV, its ridiculous theme and subjects grabbed me for at least two seasons. Once it became obvious that the subjects were purposely Bridezillas for the sake of getting filmed (i.e. physically and mentally abusing their finacés and family) I was immediately turned off. I'm assuming its both contrived and encouraged by the producers. Every bride on that show is encouraged to be as ugly as possible for the entertainment of viewers.

Before this show, brides already had a negative reputation for being difficult when planning their wedding. While this maybe true for a lot of brides because of the stress experienced when planning a wedding, this show explodes that negative perspective on women. FlickFilosopher critic MaryAnn Johanson gives her two-cents about this tasteless show in her review of its 1st Season: "Yeah, more than one of these women uses the dread word “princess,” even the ones who are high-powered stockbrokers, and you’ll want to smack every damn one of them for throwing the concept of feminism back about half a century." She also mentions how "Bridezillas" gave white, upper-class New Yorkers a bad image (most of the subjects in the first season). (Un)luckily, WE eventually gives brides of every race and social status an equal opportunity to look like morons. Basically, "Bridezillas" makes every WOMAN look like a moron. Not to mention, the "Bridezillas" forum almost completely consists of angry and shocked responses of viewers who are obviously in the dark about the $2500 and fifteen minutes of fame the brides receive for their performance. Sadly, this is the most popularly viewed TV wedding show in America.

As a woman, this show offends me more than a man asking me if PMS is to blame for my bad mood. This show just gives men more of a reason to think that all women are born insane. These women make viewers believe that they live in a fantasy world and have the emotional maturity of a child. Even though women are naturally more emotional than men, Bridezillas takes it too far and makes me almost embarrassed to be female. I hope WE makes up for this by creating more shows about women who are controlled by their brains instead of their feelings.