They Just Don't Get It

[oselle]

Part of my job is keeping up with media/advertising trade publications like Advertising Age and Brandweek. This week's issues were all full of the news from last week's upfronts here in NYC (upfronts are the big events where the networks reveal their Fall schedules, in case you don't know).

One thing that shocked me (other than Dawn Ostroff appearing as a triplicate hologram at the CW's upfront at Lincoln Center) was the repeated reference to the CW as "targeting women." Apparently, women have been the network's focus all along.

Up until now, I've thought that CW shows like Supernatural were adding awful female characters like Bela because they wanted to reel in more male viewers. But it's starting to dawn on me that these lame-ass female characters were added...for us.

It's pretty well-known that boys and men aren't interested in stories about women, or even by women. That's why J.K. Rowling was advised to publish the Potter novels under her initials only -- the fear was that boys wouldn't read a story written by a woman. This is sad, but I think it's also true.

The opposite is true for women. Sure, we're interested in stories by and about women. But we won't write off stories by and about men. On the contrary -- we're more than willing to embrace them.

That's why I said in my "Misogyny" post that "two guys and their car" was a good enough formula for me. I don't need women in this story to feel connected to it. There's room in this world for stories about women. There's also room for stories about men. I mentioned that I've been reading a lot of Cormac McCarthy lately, and his novels take place in an almost exclusively male world. Women are peripheral ciphers in McCarthy's fiction. Maybe I'm a slave to the patriarchy, but this doesn't bother me. I'm there for the story -- I don't need to identify with a sister double-X chromosome in order to be immersed in the story.

I don't think that network executives get this. If it's true, as the trades report, that the CW wants to be the network of young women, then those characters of Ruby and Bela were added because the powers-that-be over at the CW thought the show was too male. It wasn't done to attract male viewers (as I thought) but to attract female ones.

Wow. That's just...wow. All those execs making all that money and it sounds like not one of them does their homework. Wow.

Comments

[i-o-r-h-a-e-l.livejournal.com]

All those execs making all that money and it sounds like not one of them does their homework.

Exactly. A simple questionnaire would do.

[oselle.livejournal.com]

I just wonder what kind of television these people watch themselves that they thought Bela, especially, was a great character who'd really open up the show to new viewers.

[mews1945.livejournal.com]

That is such a pile of horseshit. Either that, or they're utterly clueless about what women really want. The last thing I need is a couple of bimbos flashing their silocone tits and shaking their 20 year old booty and trying to act tough. Ellen could kick their little asses with one hand tied behind her back. The PTB want to see a woman other women can respect, take a look at Ellen. She's the real deal, and I think she scares the crap out of the men who hold the reins on that show. Bela and Ruby are what the men with the power want to see. Hollywood sucks and they don't know thing one about the real world.

Sorry for the mini-rant, but I'm sick of men who pay lip service to the idea of catering to women while they go on doing the same shit they've always done.

[mariole.livejournal.com]

> The last thing I need is a couple of bimbos flashing their silocone tits and shaking their 20 year old booty and trying to act tough. Ellen could kick their little asses with one hand tied behind her back. The PTB want to see a woman other women can respect, take a look at Ellen. She's the real deal, and I think she scares the crap out of the men who hold the reins on that show. Bela and Ruby are what the men with the power want to see. Hollywood sucks and they don't know thing one about the real world.


Best. Rant. Ever.

:D

[mews1945.livejournal.com]

Yah, they pissed me off. Doesn't happen often, but it does get the old blood stirring.

[oselle.livejournal.com]

She's the real deal, and I think she scares the crap out of the men who hold the reins on that show.

Alas, the network's entertainment division is run by a woman. A woman who is apparently listening to some bullshit demographics report telling her that no one, male or female, under the age of thirty wants to see an "old woman" like Ellen on the show.

Rumor has it that Ellen was supposed to be in at least one episode this season but the episode got shelved by the writer's strike. We'll see if she reappears next year.

[eken95.livejournal.com]

Wow. That's just...wow. All those execs making all that money and it sounds like not one of them does their homework. Wow.


Probably we are all watching Supernatural just because the boys are pretty. Perhaps dear Dawn thinks we need a Mary Sue. It's interesting because they only have to go online to see what we adore about the show (as well as the pretty obviously)

[oselle.livejournal.com]

Two guys and their car. Stick to that and I'll be happy. But if the network is really intent on attracting "young" women, then they're not interested in what I think, anyway.

[eken95.livejournal.com]

"But if the network is really intent on attracting "young" women, then they're not interested in what I think, anyway."

Same here. I'm just thinking what my girls watch, aged 12 ,17 and 21. The elder two love Supernatural but didn't like Bela. They do watch programmes like ... oh what's it called Laguna Beach which I can't stand and My Sweet 16 which is just plain horrible but they also like Doctor Who, all CSI's, Great British menu and Waking the Dead.

My eldest daughter just joined in this discussion and said 'I don't get that. Why should bimbos attract anyone' ie young girls

[oselle.livejournal.com]

There is this long-standing believe that people -- especially young people -- will only watch shows that feature people their own age. I think that Supernatural wound up skewing to an older audience than the CW wanted and thought that adding two young women would reel in a more desirable audience. I don't know where they get their info, but I think they should stop relying on research analysts for it.

[ghyste.livejournal.com]

I call shenanigans – they’ve even said in the past that the young male demographic was the one they were after.

That having been said, I never understand why they think that any group needs to have someone to identify with before they can enjoy a show/book/film/whatever, yet we’re always being told that characters of a particular gender/ethnicity/age/nationality are being added for that purpose.

[oselle.livejournal.com]

If you look at the CW's other programming it really does have a female slant. I doubt there are too many male viewers of One Tree Hill, Gossip Girl or America's Next Top Model (any STRAIGHT male viewers, anyway). Maybe Thursday was the CW's "boy's night?"

All I know is that I kept coming across this comment that the CW wanted to be the network for young women "from Monday to Friday" as one article put it. I'm sort of cringing to think of what that might mean for SPN.

[mariole.livejournal.com]

> the fear was that boys wouldn't read a story written by a woman. This is sad, but I think it's also true.

I agree with you, unfortunately. Most men don't seem to "get it" about women, even though most women seem to "get it" about men. So I'm hooked by any good story or character. A certain kind of plumbing is not required.

[mews1945.livejournal.com]

A certain kind of plumbing is not required.

There ya go. That's what they don't understand.

[oselle.livejournal.com]

I don't even know if women get it about women. Why is there such a thing as "chick lit" but nothing that could be qualified as..."dick lit?" The most masculine genres of fiction, like detective novels, are read by women as well. Is it because the male world is inherently more interesting than the female one? Maybe it is, because I have to admit that there's very little room for chick lit on my bookshelf. I don't get the appeal.

[mariole.livejournal.com]

"dick lit"

*dies* You have a gift for a turn of phrase.

> Is it because the male world is inherently more interesting than the female one?

I don't think so, I just think they think... bigger. I adore Jane Austen. No question she's a genuis. But it's also fun to have issues taht extend beyond home and family. Everyone wants an adventure, and there are more adventures "out there" than at home, I guess. (Confesses another non-chick-lit buyer)...

[aussiepeach.livejournal.com]

'Dick lit' is actually applied to writers like Nick Earl. I do admire chick lit writers like Marian Keyes, Helen Fielding and Jennifer Weiner, because they don't seem to base their writing on Cosmo mags. And I've noticed there's a fair bit of 'intelligent' sort of CL out there, rejecting the fluffy must-have-a-man trend.

Although I cofess the Shopaholic series is fluffy as hell and still entertained me.

[oselle.livejournal.com]

I knew "dick lit" was far too clever for me to have made up first.

*sulks*

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Oh my god, that's sad. I think your view on these characters--and what even led to the whole misogyny wank--is that they decided to add females, and the roles they had open were...villains. And it's not like this is a show about being respectful to the villains. It's about slaying monsters. Oy.

[oselle.livejournal.com]

Yes, I think that's exactly what happened. In the first season, a female demon named Meg was a big player and from what I've read, she was pretty popular (I wasn't in the fandom then so I can only go by what I hear now). In the second season, they added two non-villainous female characters: Jo, a young hunter wannabe and her mother, Ellen. Jo was set up from day one to be a romantic interest for Dean.

For some reason, Jo was written as a sulky brat rather than anyone who had enough grit to be a hunter or Dean's girlfriend. They also cast an actress who looked like she was still in high school (I wasn't watching the show regularly then, and in the few sporadic episodes I caught, I really did think she was supposed to be a kid sister or something). Ellen, on the other hand, was tough and smart and played by a 38-year-old actress with a great husky voice and the attitude to go with it. End result? Most viewers loved Ellen and hated Jo. Jo was written out of the show (though I still don't think there's enough proof to say that they did it because of fan reaction). Ellen lasted through the Season Two finale, but didn't come back in Season Three).

Since Jo didn't work out and they didn't know what to do with Ellen, I think they imagined going back to the villainess route, like with Meg, would satisfy the network's demand for female characters and keep the viewers happy, too. So we wound up with a season that had everyone wanking about misogyny instead of being concerned THAT DEAN IS HANGING FROM MEAT HOOKS IN HELL. Quite the fuck up, eh?

And that is probably more than you ever wanted to know about Supernatural.

[ex-luinil.livejournal.com]

I don't need to identify with a sister double-X chromosome in order to be immersed in the story.

Me neither. I identify with the one who's well-written or just hits a nerve somewhere.

And since you should write what you know...I've spent this first part of my life living in a very female world, and even though it's been limited, I can imagine what I or my mother or my sister would do and say in whatever fantastical situations I could think up. I have to consciously check myself at being sexist in my everyday life. But if I wrote, I know I'd be writing mostly women with maybe a few peripheral male ciphers floating in and out of the, uh, periphery. So from that POV I'm not offended if my favorite movie or book is taking place in a male world.

Something that would bug is me is a female story that is still somehow centered around one or two men. I.e. The Women, a play that was made into a movie in the 1930s. It was meant to be a challenge to a writer as a script that called for no male actors. But the entire story is about women getting married and divorced and remarried. Which may even be one of the jokes of the situation, as a comedy about affluent women with very little to do. But it's still an easy trap for a writer to fall into now when trying to make something marketable (like with a few female characters being played just as "villains": her only interest is destruction and greed...and she's satisfied with taking away someone else's husband.)

[oselle.livejournal.com]

Something that would bug is me is a female story that is still somehow centered around one or two men.

This is exactly how I feel about things like Sex and the City. Everything those women did seemed to center around landing a man -- whether it was just for a one-night stand or for the big brass ring of marriage. I realize the very name of the show had SEX in the title but honestly...I don't think any such four women even exist, not in this city or any other.

[aussiepeach.livejournal.com]

Hey Oselle, if you wrote a children's book and was asked to make your name initials, would you do so? I've always disliked that "boys won't read women's books" thing because a), I never gave a damn about who wrote books as a kid as long as the story was good, and b) there seems nothing to back it up. Publishers said kids wouldn't read long books, and suddenly HP proves that wrong.

Of course lots of adult writers use suitable-sounding pseudonyms for their genre - and Lemony Snicket's a cool name. Maybe, if you got past the initials, you might be asked to supply an 'attractive' or 'androgonous' name. *ponders*

[oselle.livejournal.com]

If I thought it would make me one of the filthiest rich women on Earth, I'd publish that book under the name A. Shithead. So yes, I'd publish under initials.

I would really love to know if the Potter books would have enjoyed such popularity with both boys and girls if "Joanne Rowling" had published them. I am willing to bet that while there would have still been enough girl readers to make them wildly successful, the boy audience would have been a lot smaller. Her very name on the cover would have gotten them labeled as "girls' books."

I think this holds true for grown-up boys as well. I see people reading on the train all the time and while women read books by both men and women, I can't even remember the last time I saw a man reading a book by a woman, even when it's not chick lit. Actually no, the last female-authored book I saw a man reading was...Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. But the Potter phenomenon was so freakish that you can't even put those books alongside other popular fiction. They're a category unto itself.