posted
Ok, so we've all demonstrated that Clive is in Coventry and will have to improve his debating style if he wants his threads taken seriously. That said, I do think there is an interesting question hidden in his latest thread, namely, is network TV excluding (or, in less binary language, downprioritising) men, and if so, why?
My immediate expectation would be that TV targets a demographic that has the largest product of disposable income and susceptibility to adverts. Is there an argument for why this would exclude men? On the other hand, it also seems reasonable that TV executives would tend to err in the direction of stuff they themselves like, because at some point they have to guess about what appeals to people and who is likely to buy stuff, and there's a powerful self-similarity bias; people believe that others will like what they themselves like to a much greater extent than the data support.
On the gripping hand, I've put the four-wheeled transport unit ahead of the equine kinetic module; it is not demonstrated that men in fact do not watch TV. (I don't, but I'm highly atypical.) Is there any data on this?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think TV is approaching a level that is *somewhat* balanced gender wise. I think there are some shows that are male dominated and obviously sexist (Chuck, much as I love it, pretty much treats Sarah as an object), and others that cater more to women.
The industry IS probably "downprioritizing" men to some degree, insofar as media in general has been male dominated for a long time. But not to a degree that men are noticably harmed.
I think the more pressing issue has to do with race, as the vast majority of mainstream shows star white people.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
My gut feeling is this: women are pickier about what they will watch than men are, in the sense that women like a narrower range of programming and are much more loyal to it. Ergo, it makes sense to design programs that men will tolerate and women will love.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: [QB] I think TV is approaching a level that is *somewhat* balanced gender wise. I think there are some shows that are male dominated and obviously sexist (Chuck, much as I love it, pretty much treats Sarah as an object), and others that cater more to women.
As the guy being interviewed noted, that sort of overt sexual objectification of females (he called it T&A stuff) is the result of female dominated production staffs letting in through stuff that they think men will like. That in fact, it's not really what men like. It's very patronizing when you think about it.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Men don't like the sexual objectification of females? That must be why the porn industry is doing so badly.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does anyone remember the "Spike--The channel for men." They didn't last long. They had a combination of T&A, Wrestling, and Star Trek.
And I notice that everyone has avoided adding in the Sports Channels, Monday Night Football, and other "mens Sports" in and out of prime time.
Clive, your definition of a "Mans Programming" seems to be limited to Lone Wolf Violent Macho Man--quiet but resolute.
24.
You mention the Rockford Files as an example, but there was a deep caring relationship between him and his father.
I believe what the networks have done has been to move away from dividing the world into Male and Female shows, and more closely aligned them to specific tastes. There are shows like "24" where the lone action hero saves the day. There are family shows and kids shows, shows for sports nuts and shows for geeks.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Does anyone remember the "Spike--The channel for men." They didn't last long. They had a combination of T&A, Wrestling, and Star Trek.
quote:Originally posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan: Men don't like the sexual objectification of females? That must be why the porn industry is doing so badly.
What I'm saying is, men are not necessarily going to turn into a show just because it has a prominent female character who's sole purpose amounts to eye candy. Those female dominated production staffs reason like you do: Well, since men like pornography, therefore they should like shows that provide sexual objectification of inessential female characters, especially in lieu of deeper, masculine themes.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm, related thought. It would seem that this is actually a pretty bad time for women in television science fiction.
Dollhouse has wiped out two strong female characters, Terminator has died eliminating two more (technically one is a cyborg), BSG ended removing Roslin and Starbuck.
So we're left with no strong female characters on Stargate Universe, maybe one on Flashforward, and none on Heroes if you have the misfortune of still watching that. (Maybe a couple on V if that survives?)
Seems like kind of a lull after Roslin, Buffy, Janeway, Kira, Dax, Ivanova, Delenn, and so forth.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well some men's programming is doing well, man vs wild (i love this show) just started yet another season. And I do find this show mostly wholessome and not negative or violent. But a majority of my television time goes towards sports and LOST so I don't really watch too many network shows. Anyone ever see the sky drama Dream Team? it's a soap operah that's clearly marketed towards men. But it's no longer on air. They show repeats occasionally on the soccer channel in USA now.
and just on a random note I despise all law and order and csi shows and the like because I find them just mediums for gratuitous violence and mediums to portray imaginary people that make me sick. I just don't see the fun in them. The closest thing to a crime show I'll watch is psych.
Posts: 856 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
How many times have I come across ABC primetime and thought: they have nothing to offer me.
"Brothers and Sisters"? "Private Practice"? "Modern Family"? "Cougar Town" (though I like Bill Lawrence) "Ugly Betty"? "Grey's Anatomy"? These are shows overtly aimed at a female demographic. ABC has pretty much given up on trying to appeal to male viewers. I remember a recent Science Fiction program they aired with that guy from Office Space. It was about people going out into space to do something, but before the first episode even started there was lame as hell sexual intrigue a la Grey's Anatomy.
CBS too, with its endless "Sexy Male killers preying on women" shows seems concerned only with female viewers.
One recalls however programs like The X-Files and Babylon 5. These shows were masculine and they had straight male voices behind them.
On Broadcast tv all that remains for straight men is sports and 24. (Yes, there's all those news specials that are hard to categorize but even there too it could be argued the intention is to appeal to female viewers over male ones.)
What female dominated production staff? "Chuck" is created and written by men, as are the majority of successful television shows...
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
What female dominated production staff? "Chuck" is created and written by men, as are the majority of successful television shows...
I meant to say, "development staffs." The idea for the show had to be approved by a staff of women. Male friendly things don't stand as much of a chance as female friendly ones.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't watch Ugly Betty or Grey's anatomy but I stand by that straight masculine men are allowed to like these shows. There are guys that like these so called "girly" shows.
and when talking about demographics here it's important to remember a hatrack rule: The average opinions and demographics here don't represent the average people because we're all at least a little geeky for books.
Posts: 856 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
What. Criminal Minds isn't manly? It's not just men preying on women too. Other stuff goes on that is intense. Man, it's a quality show. Who cares if a show is male or female? I just want a show that's GOOD. That isn't dippy, patronizing. That has interesting characters. Just give me something GOOD!
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The idea for the show had to be approved by a staff of women.
It did? Is this a common practice in men-oriented shows, or something special about "Chuck"? By "approved by a staff of women," do you mean that they bring in a random test group of women to test their views on the premise of shows before they're allowed to go forward, or that the people involved in the development process and calling the shots behind the scenes of men-oriented shows are primarily women?
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've heard similar arguments before regarding this trend towards programming for women. My gut reaction is that women are more likely to expend the emotional energy needed for serial television shows. When I listen to men and women talk about the same tv shows, the focus is usually very different. The women seem more deeply attached to the characters on a personal level. I hope no one here takes that the wrong way. It's just my experience when watching True Blood with my friend and her husband, Big Bang Theory with my married neighbors, or hearing my parents try to talk me into watching Two and a Half Men with them.
Movies on the other hand have a big male demographic especially blockbusters. I know lots of men and women here liked the new Star Trek for example but in my neck of the woods, it was absolutely just another movie for the guys.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The idea for the show had to be approved by a staff of women.
It did? Is this a common practice in men-oriented shows, or something special about "Chuck"? By "approved by a staff of women," do you mean that they bring in a random test group of women to test their views on the premise of shows before they're allowed to go forward, or that the people involved in the development process and calling the shots behind the scenes of men-oriented shows are primarily women?
Not just men-oriented shows but all shows, according to the writer/producer interviewed.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure if I buy that there's any less programming for men out there, but I do think the portrayal of men on television has been dramatically altered in the last decade. The "husband as buffoon who can't possibly survive without his wiser, smarter, together wife" is ubiquitous now. I can't think of a show off the top of my head that has a featured husband/wife team where the woman is a blithering idiot and the husband has to constantly get her out of jams. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but I can't think of it. Those were ubiquitous in the I Love Lucy era of programming, but fell away during an era when women were less and less perceived to be helpless and in need of male guidance.
I think we've swept back the other way though, for several reasons I can postulate, but none of which are satisfying. I think all of it has to do with targeting a female audience though.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And either way, it's arse gravy. I want more shows where both are intelligent and competent, yet still human and flawed. (I suppose a show where they were both blithering idiots would be equally non-sexist, but, to my mind, a great deal less entertaining.)
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing with the "husband is a fat idiot" motif, though, is that in most of these shows, the fat idiot for some reason has managed to get a hot, intelligent wife who stays with him no matter what. And the shows in question are certainly appealing to male demographics and largely written by men, even if they aren't exclusively a male show. Far from being prejudiced against men, I think the shows are, to some degree, a fantasy for overweight men who'd like to sit around being an idiot and still have a woman do the work for them.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
What kind of article is that? It accuses local media of employing journalists of various ethnicities and members of unions that push 'progressive' ideals in the workplace and actual journalism as a secondary objective and then provides no examples of these so called 'progressive' ideals or even as to how they interfere with actual journalism.
Sure there has been a decline in the quality of local news especially their evening specials and there's no doubt that the local media is the nation's leading source of scaremongering, but blaming the whole thing on liberal bias is a bit ridiculous.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now Bones, there's a quality show. A strong man, a strong woman. Mushy stuff, gross bodies, butt kicking. It's got something for all gender stereotypes. Same with House. There must be moer quality shows like those.
Also Bernie Mac is a good example of a show with a father figure who was not an idiot.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Verily the Younger: (I suppose a show where they were both blithering idiots would be equally non-sexist, but, to my mind, a great deal less entertaining.)
Still Standing got quite a bit of mileage out of "both parents are idiots". Actually, so did Married With Children, back in the day.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just no one do another Man Show, please...!
Actually, it might well be we could use a few more competent men as television characters. It seems like there's an awful lot of stupid louts out there, especially in comedy.
Of course, I should note that's the impression of a guy who doesn't watch a heckuva lot of TV these days.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Still Standing got quite a bit of mileage out of "both parents are idiots". Actually, so did Married With Children, back in the day.
I'm not familiar with "Still Standing", but I can say that I always hated "Married With Children". I was a child when it was on, and I saw plenty of episodes because my parents watched it, but there wasn't a single character on it that I liked. I thought the whole thing was vile.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
What female dominated production staff? "Chuck" is created and written by men, as are the majority of successful television shows...
I meant to say, "development staffs." The idea for the show had to be approved by a staff of women. Male friendly things don't stand as much of a chance as female friendly ones.
posted
I think the common opinion of just exactly what is male vs. female television is just a bit confused and I dont really see the point in arguing. I mean come on, Spike shows Star Trek in which women are covered head to toe and Lifetime cant go four hours with a woman gettin beat down by a man.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
What female dominated production staff? "Chuck" is created and written by men, as are the majority of successful television shows...
I meant to say, "development staffs." The idea for the show had to be approved by a staff of women. Male friendly things don't stand as much of a chance as female friendly ones.
Proof? Any at all?
A current producer/writer on network television with a reputation to maintain made that claim to one of the most widely read blogs on the business of the entertainment industry. If his claim was false, I am certain it would have generated controversy.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was thinking about this during The Human Target last night. The team on the show is made up of three guys, Christopher Chance, Winston and Guerrera. The main action sequences were with Chance, since he's the title character, and even though the client, played by Caprica Six, was strong in her own right, she was still only a backdrop to Chance's heroism and the knock-down drag out fight between Chance and the bad guy.
Granted, you can put this up against something like The Good Wife, or In Plain Sight, but I think Clive just misses the days of The A-Team and all the other shows were women were just objects of romance or victimization and gays were objects of comedy or pity.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Not sure if you intended to set that one up so well Lisa, but there it is
As a man who is unfortunately susceptible to being sucked in by eye candy in a show, but also has a more "feminine" bent in that I care about in-depth plotlines and character development here's my opinions on recent TV lineups.
I don't think there is a huge disparity, but I think there is a clear shift. I think the biggest aspect of this shift has been in reality TV, where I think very few reality shows are geared towards men, and often they are taking over a large proportion of the programming schedules. Now, I'm not convinced this is a intentional shift in demographics, so much as it's an attempt at improving profit margins. If you can make 8 hours of dancing with the stars for the same price as 30 minutes of How I Met Your Mother (I'm throwing out a guess, but it's probably close), then even if you lose 50% of your viewers, you're coming out way ahead.
One of the other things to consider is that a lot of the "female" shows mentioned above may primarily appeal to women, but often are attempting to be relatively gender neutral, and appeal to everyone based on their quality. Example: myself, and plenty of other male friends watched Grey's Anatomy at least for the first season or two, because it was a really well-made show, and stopped watching not because it was too feminine, but because it's quality dropped severely...
Now "male-oriented" shows have been making similar attempts, but often face greater hurdles. Example: dollhouse or terminator face the stigma of "that's a sci-fi show, those are just for dudes."
All that being said, there's clearly still a large market for men at least in that there's so many sports networks, where I'm sure the viewing demographic is 95% male.
Would I like more BSG and other shows like it? Absolutely? Do I feel that TV is turning it's back on my gender? absolutely not.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's also been a lot more snark. Characters like Greg House and Cal Lightman and Rick Castle and Patrick Jane are fun to watch, but you wouldn't want to be within 100 feet of people who acted like that in real life. I could add Nurse Jackie, but that's cable.
And hey, there's always Spike TV for guys whose testosterone has gotten the better of them. It's the male version of Oxygen or Lifetime.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: How many times have I come across ABC primetime and thought: they have nothing to offer me.
"Brothers and Sisters"? "Private Practice"? "Modern Family"? "Cougar Town" (though I like Bill Lawrence) "Ugly Betty"? "Grey's Anatomy"? These are shows overtly aimed at a female demographic. ABC has pretty much given up on trying to appeal to male viewers. I remember a recent Science Fiction program they aired with that guy from Office Space. It was about people going out into space to do something, but before the first episode even started there was lame as hell sexual intrigue a la Grey's Anatomy.
CBS too, with its endless "Sexy Male killers preying on women" shows seems concerned only with female viewers.
One recalls however programs like The X-Files and Babylon 5. These shows were masculine and they had straight male voices behind them.
On Broadcast tv all that remains for straight men is sports and 24. (Yes, there's all those news specials that are hard to categorize but even there too it could be argued the intention is to appeal to female viewers over male ones.)
I'm a married mid-30s guy who enjoys Ugly Betty and enjoyed Grey's Anatomy until this season. Honestly, I don't care whose "voice" a show is in, so long as it entertains me. And honestly the Hawaii Five-Os, Magnum PIs and the like would bore me to tears nowadays, unless there was some sort of twist. Heck, I didn't even like them as a kid (though the Hawaii Five-O theme song was a favorite).
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:That said, I do think there is an interesting question hidden in his latest thread, namely, is network TV excluding (or, in less binary language, downprioritising) men, and if so, why?
quote:Originally posted by Verily the Younger: I can say that I always hated "Married With Children". I was a child when it was on, and I saw plenty of episodes because my parents watched it, but there wasn't a single character on it that I liked. I thought the whole thing was vile.
I don't disagree. That is, I avoided watching it when it was on, and can now watch the occasional episode with, "man, that really was AWFUL, huh?" nostalgia.
I was just saying that it has been done, and successfully. Still Standing had 3 seasons, and Married an amazing ELEVEN.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing I just remembered is the first US pilot of Life on Mars, a show that was copied (somewhat) from the British show.
In that first pilot, there were noticeable differences that took the power/intelligence/solutions from the women and gave them to the male character.
So whether or not the shows we have now are more female (which I disagree with, I think most of the fictional shows are pretty gender neutral), they certainly aren't more feminist.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can't think of a show off the top of my head that has a featured husband/wife team where the woman is a blithering idiot and the husband has to constantly get her out of jams.
posted
I haven't seen a great deal of that show, but the husband always came off as a fool to me. Actually, the whole family came off as pretty stupid.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: One thing I just remembered is the first US pilot of Life on Mars, a show that was copied (somewhat) from the British show.
In that first pilot, there were noticeable differences that took the power/intelligence/solutions from the women and gave them to the male character.
So whether or not the shows we have now are more female (which I disagree with, I think most of the fictional shows are pretty gender neutral), they certainly aren't more feminist.
But Life on Mars was set in the 70s. They were trying to make a point about how hard it was to be a police woman back in those days. The overwhelmingly female developmental staff approved those elements of the show with a smug look on their face.
Look, a show aimed at males need not be chauvinistic and the fact that some are immediately equating appealing to male demographics with chauvinism is pretty telling.
Here's one show I could watch without being turned off by endless icky relationship crap:
The Practice
Remember that David E Kelley show? It tended to be pretty gripping and the drama was, for most of the time, relationship drama free. Now that show wasn't alienating to me as a straight male, nor was it "chauvinistic." In fact, it was a show aimed at all adult demographics.
But "Grey's Anatomy," "Brothers and Sistes" and "Desperate Housewives" undoubtedly alienate males (except the gay ones) and their core audience consists of women.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't watch those three shows on a bet. But I watch Mercy, and I watched Gilmore Girls for a couple of seasons, and I'm looking forward to Life Unexpected. You generalize too much.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: The overwhelmingly female developmental staff approved those elements of the show with a smug look on their face.
You've provided no proof for this assertion except for one quote from one single producer who also doesn't cite any actual evidence. And that guy was talking about all of television. Now you've narrowed it down to one particular show. What's your evidence?
What are we even counting as "development staff"? The creators? Producers? Writers?
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: The overwhelmingly female developmental staff approved those elements of the show with a smug look on their face.
You've provided no proof for this assertion except for one quote from one single producer who also doesn't cite any actual evidence.
It was anecdotal evidence. I believe him. What grounds do you have to dispute his claim?
quote: And that guy was talking about all of television. Now you've narrowed it down to one particular show. What's your evidence?
What's my evidence to what? Someone used the new "Life On Mars" to suggest that not all shows are aimed at women and that some shows even portray women as helpless when it's more likely that that the portrayal in the case of the new "Life on Mars" is progressive and PC minded. I actually mentioned the overwhelming number of ABC dramas -- and not to forget the CW -- that seemed to be not interested in garnering straight male viewership.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
