Damn feminists. We give them women on TV, and they still complain. Heather Havrilesky in The New York Times:
TV’s New Wave of Women: Smart, Strong, Borderline Insane
At first glance, this looks like a great moment for women on television. Many smart and confident female characters have paraded onto the small screen over the past few years. But I’m bothered by one persistent caveat: that the more astute and capable many of these women are, the more likely it is that they’re also completely nuts.
I don’t mean complicated, difficult, thorny or complex. I mean that these women are portrayed as volcanoes that could blow at any minute. Worse, the very abilities and skills that make them singular and interesting come coupled with some hideous psychic deficiency.
…
These aren’t just complicating characteristics like, say, Don Draper’s narcissism. The suggestion in all of these shows is that a female character’s flaws are inextricably linked to her strengths. Take away this pill problem or that personality disorder, and the exceptional qualities vanish as well.
Follows are many examples that support Havrilesky’s thesis. Go have a read.
Now, I haven’t seen many of the shows she discusses, but what she says does ring true in general. (For American TV, that is: British TV manages to create fascinating and flawed female protagonists without them having to be crazy. See, for instance, Scott & Bailey, about two women cops.) But I think she misses the really big picture. Which is that Hollywood simply doesn’t think that real, ordinary, normal, sane women can be interesting… because, “clearly,” real, ordinary, “normal” women are shallow, narcissictic idiots concerned with nothing more than snagging a husband. (We know this is the case because this is how Hollywood depicts “regular” women.) What’s interesting about that? And so just as “clearly,” any woman who might possibly be interesting must therefore be abnormal — there must be something “wrong” with her, something that separates her from the ordinary.
It’s the same old shit. Hollywood cannot see that women are people the way that it just naturally assumes men are, cannot see that women can be complicated and flawed and messed up and yet also professional and competent and hence a strong protagonist for serial storytelling. And so it must render women as somehow not-woman. This can happen even if women are writing and producing these TV shows, because the culture in which they are making TV is still created and enforced with predominantly male oversight.
As Havrilesky notes, there are some female protagonists who don’t get shoved into this corner. But there are too many who are, and they are treated in noticeably less flattering ways that their “crazy” male counterparts, for it to be coincidence.
(Thanks to bronxbee for the link.)
Some of it is simply lazy characterisation. “We need a pretty female scientist for the male lead to fall in love with, but we can’t conceive of why a pretty woman would be a scientist (men don’t need to be pretty to be on screen, so male scientists are easy). So we’ll give her a convenient personal tragedy related to the field of study she needs to be in.”
Some of it I think is a way of de-fanging the character as competition, so that fragile-egoed male viewers won’t perceive them as a threat. Sure, she’s an amazing cop, but her personal life is a mess.
I don’t think she’s wrong, exactly, but I think she’s simplifying the issue. There are plenty of movies and TV shows that follow the model she’s talking about: Women are focused on romance and babies above everything else. And, as RogerBW mentioned, female characters are supposed to be vulnerable, so they don’t seem threatening.
But I don’t think the characters are as one-dimensional as Havrilesky makes them sound. Liz Lemon on 30 Rock is sometimes a flailing mess who’s desperate for love. But other times, she’s a hyper-competent writer and producer. In some episodes, she comes across as the only sane person in a building full of spoiled babies. That is, she has more than one dimension. She’s a human being, which is refreshing to see on TV. She speaks openly, a lot of the time, about her desire to end up with a husband and children without becoming a “bad feminist.” Her imperfect solution is to go to work while her husband takes care of the children.
It’s also significant that 30 Rock is a comedy. There’s a perception, I think, that competent people aren’t funny. Dramas can center around capable women like Alicia Florrick and Sarah Connor and–up to a point–Buffy Summers. But female comics like Tina Fey and Mindy Kaling and Zooey Deschanel have to be bumbling goofballs.
Homeland follows a different model. There’s a tendency to romanticize crazies and eccentrics. The idea, which pre-dates television, is that crazy people produce great art and scientific innovations and have brilliant insights, but they don’t know how to fit into society. They’re tortured geniuses who can never live a normal life. So Carrie follows the example of Sherlock and Monk and Dr. House. I don’t think that her flaws are glorified any more or less than theirs. When she tries to live as an ordinary person, through electroshock therapy, it’s portrayed as a loss to the world.
I’m not sure that’s a realistic portrayal of insanity, although I think we could find examples in the real world. I’d like to see crazy people on television who aren’t misunderstood geniuses but aren’t disturbed villains, either. I’ve meant plenty of people like that, and I’m sure that television writers have, too.
I do think that Carrie Mathison seems more vulnerable than some male characters, but I’m not sure the writers see that as an inherent part of the female personality. Carrie is one of the few women in a male-dominated field, and her co-workers may treat any personal flaw as a sign that she’s not up to the job. When they perceive her as unstable, it’s a comment on society. At least, that’s the way I interpret the show.
On the other hand, shows about female eccentrics do tend to pay a lot of attention to their sexuality. Saving Grace and The United States of Tara fit that pattern. Characters like Sherlock can be largely asexual. But I’d say that love, sex, and romance are only one part of the women’s lives–and not always the main part. (I haven’t seen Nurse Jackie or Weeds, so I don’t know how they represent women.)
I think we’re in a transitional period in which female characters are looking at the roles that have been available to them in the past and questioning them. They may want romance and a family, but if they do, they want those things on their own terms. And they want other things as well. They want to succeed at their work, or make great art, or save the world from killer robots. So we’re seeing TV shows in which the writers mash together stereotypes about women with more nuanced characterization.
In real life, there are women who are trying to have love and a family without being defined by them. And, of course, there are women who see love and family as secondary goals at best. I don’t think our culture has reached a point where women can choose the type of life they want without being judged for it. But if it does, then maybe television will follow.
I don’t watch all the shows she’s talking about,but I don’t see evidence of her premise in the ones I do watch.
Nurse Jackie is not a good nurse because she’s an addict, she’s a good nurse because she’s smart, experienced, empathetic, and knows when to break the rules for a greater good. In other words she’s a good nurse in spite of the fact that she’s an addict. She’s not crazy. She’s an addict. She’s not promiscuous (and it’s about time we stop throwing that bit of prudery around anyway, isn’t it?) or full of too much sass and independence, she seduces a pharmacist to get access to drugs because she’s an addict.
House is also an addict, but he’s also borderline crazy. His heroics are usually due to a fanatical devotion to scientific inquiry, narcissism and a lack of empathy. I suppose it sometimes looks bold, but it also look crazy. He’s a lot more broken than Jackie is. Everyone in House’s life has to put up with him or cut ties and a lot of them wind up cutting ties.
“We could take heart that at least women are depicted as being just as
reckless and promiscuous and demanding and intense as their male
counterparts, if their bad behavior weren’t so often accompanied by a
horror soundtrack and dizzying camera angles that encourage us to view
them as unhinged.” House drove a car into a dinner party. You don’t need crazy camera angles to see that as unhinged.
Liz Lemon flails around? Well, yeah, but she’s way down on the list of crazy in that show. Tracy Jordan and Jenna Moroney are both cartoon character crazy. Even Jack Donaghy is crazy compared to Liz Lemon who has very basic problems like thinking she isn’t attractive. Thinking you’re not attractive is not a female only thing, and Liz doesn’t even do it in a stereotypical way. She’s just as likely to think her behavior is unattractive as she is her appearance. And I don’t think the moral of 30 Rock is “You can’t have it all, ladies, and you’ll run yourself ragged if you even try.” To me it’s more like “It’s hard to get the respect you deserve as a woman in the workplace, but it’s possible”.
Yeah, Monk is adorable, but only from a distance. He’s big-time broken. It’s only that we know he’s not dangerous, that he means well, and can’t help himself that makes him palatable. Not all crazy is that obvious.
Walter White gets the romantic spin for his boldness? I think that says more about the viewer who feels this way than it does about the show.
Carrie from Homeland is not Jack Bauer, which is why I watch Homeland and not 24. Yeah, she’s crazy. But again, that’s not what makes her good at what she does, she’s good in spite of the crazy. And Carrie isn’t crazy because she wants too much, she’s genetically predisposed. From what little I know about Bauer, he’s just a guy who tortures a surprising number of people in an average day.
“Time and again, we, the audience, are cast in the role of morally superior observers to these nut jobs.” Well duh! Most fiction is not about boring people. The problem with exceptional people is that we as an audience feel bad in comparison and we might get up off our couches and accomplish something (or just switch to another program) rather than continuing to watch something that make us feel bad about our life. So the capable hero/heroine usually gets some pretty huge flaws, so they will be more likeable to the audience. That’s almost all characters, not just female ones.
“You’d think the outlook would be sunnier on some of the lighter TV
dramas and comedies, which have also lately offered several strong and
inspiring (if neurotic) female protagonists, from Annie Edison of
“Community” to Leslie Knope of “Parks and Recreation.” Yet here, too, an
alarming number of accomplished women are also portrayed as spending
most of their waking hours swooning like lovesick tweens”
?!? Granted Brita has become more cartoonish over time, and Annie is a bit lovesick, but look at the “men” in that show. Abed is some kind of t.v. savant who is often treated by the rest of the cartoon characters in the show as having a fragile grasp on reality, Troy and Pierce are just as childish in their way. And Chang and The Dean? Come on, you’ve got to admit the women come out as more normal than the men in that show.
You want strong, not-crazy women?
Dr Eleanor O’Hara – Nurse Jackie
Ms. Gloria Akalitus – Nurse Jackie
Fiona Gallagher – Shameless
Elizabeth Jennings – The Americans (O.K. she’s a bit of a fanatic but she’s not crazy)
Becca Moody – Californication
Anastasia / Carrie Hopewell – Banshee
Vice President Selina Meyer – Veep (Maybe strong is stretching it a bit but it’s a comedy)
Alicia Florrick – The Good Wife (I haven’t watched that one recently)
Lily Aldrin – How I Met Your Mother
Teresa Lisbon – The Mentalist
Kate Beckett – Castle
I strongly disagree on her take on Carrie (Homeland).
“When Carrie undergoes electroconvulsive therapy, we breathe a sigh of relief and draw closer. Look how restful it is for her, enjoying a nice sandwich and sleeping peacefully in her childhood bed”
We did? Really? I certainly didn’t. I thought it was quite clearly portrayed that Carrie in her childhood bedroom living her quiet little suburban life was a shame and a misery and a waste of a fantastic brain. Carrie’s electro therapy was shocking, not a relief. What a strange reaction.
“the nearly clairvoyant C.I.A. agent, is bipolar, unhinged and has proved, in her pursuit of an undercover terrorist, to be recklessly promiscuous”
I’m not sure where ‘nearly clairvoyant’ comes from but anyway. ‘Recklessly promiscuous’ doesn’t really apply though, does it? She’s slept with one man in two series (she made an attempt at a one night stand early in the series, but was distracted by doing her job properly. Hardly reckless). It was fairly obvious that the initial seduction was part of her attempt to make Brodie trust her so that she could get information. The relationship that followed is as much Brodie (who is also married) as it is Carrie – she’s not portrayed as any more reckless or promiscuous than the lead male character.
EDIT: Gah! Disqus keeps eating things today. We’ll try again:
Addendums to your list of non-crazy (but strong and competent) women on TV:
Olivia Dunham, Fringe
Alicia Florrick, The Good Wife
Diane Lockheart, The Good Wife (and a slew of others)
Dective Lydia (?), Southland
Callie, The Glades
Deb Morgan, Dexter
Historically, I’d have added Bones (she’s odd, yes, but in no way crazy) but god only knows what’s going on with that show these days – she’s not as strong as she once was.
I’ve never watched Homeland but I had the same reaction to Carrie getting electro therapy as you did, just from the description in the article-that it was shocking and she was actually miserable.
Samantha Carter. She got humanity access to the Stargate-network in lieu of a DHD and she blew up a sun.
Also Myka Bering and Claudia Donovan of Warehouse 13.
Although you do bring up Scott & Bailey, which is notable for featuring interesting women characters in all the main roles, with every last male as a weak man-child or a murderous bastard. Sometimes a weak murderous man-child bastard. The one positive male character (the love interest) is frankly a bit thick. Do you think they (the female writing team) are doing it on purpose?
That article really loses me when she tries to argue that Walter White is somehow a positive portrayal of masculinity, let alone “ultimately heroic”. Walt is the most flat-out hateful character on television who isn’t the king of Westeros. He’s not even charismatically evil, he’s just a hateful douchebag. Fascinating to watch, yes, but arguing that he’s somehow cast in a positive light or gets a “romantic spin” (?!?) is just bizarre and makes me wonder if she’s even seen Breaking Bad. Indeed, the whole point of that show is to condemn the kind of “bold and fearless” behaviour that she claims male characters get away with.