Calling Kim Possible.

           From the articles we read I found it very difficult to pinpoint just one topic that stood out to me about women both behind the scene and on-screen. However, I do believe I have a lot to say on the subject as a whole. Starting with the article by Adam Dawtrey (“Scandis Wage war against bias”), there was two quotes that I found particularly interesting: the first is in reference to the Danish perception of gender in media production, “we find that it doesn't make sense for gender to stand before the quality of the script." All I can say to this is YOU ARE SO RIGHT. It honestly does not make sense to me why there is a gender variance when it comes to writing or producing shows or films because isn’t the ultimate goal to have a successful production? Why let something like biological anatomy or societal constructs like gender get in the way of doing a job? In order to change this we have stop assuming that women can’t do men’s jobs and men can’t do women’s jobs. It seems so simple but why is it still so hard? There are so many television shows out there that show women as being more “manly” or that send the message out that women actually do have power, but why is no one listening? So many questions that are unfortunately left unanswered. Charlotta Denward is quoted in Dawtrey’s article saying: “Being a director is being extremely egocentric.” I don’t know about everyone else, but I know plenty of women who could fill that criteria. Having to be egocentric or tough or forceful shouldn’t hold anyone back from creating great work. Maybe all these failed programs that we have seen are because there have been too many men being too forceful! Pamela Ribon explains her experience being told that she is lucky to be going from “failed sitcom to failed sitcom”, but what if more women were on staff for those failed programs, maybe they wouldn’t have failed. (Sorry guys, I don’t mean to blame you…but it had to be said!).

            Aside from the behind the scene gender drama, long-term discussion has occurred about the way in which women are portrayed and represented in the media.  A crucial point is brought up in the article “Why is Television Losing Women Writers?” Jill Soloway states, “there is no brand that would be willing to be associated with the idea of such an anti-heroic woman." Thus women will always be portrayed as being the hero of [blank], saving [so-and-so], or being the best at [whatever]. Why can’t she just be normal? Nearly every female protagonist is in actuality an idolized fantasy brought into real-life form. They say this is to bring in specific audiences, especially male ones but even in shows that are suppose to be directed toward women, they are actually directed toward men because of the way the female character is depicted—but here’s the kicker, female audiences end up gravitating toward these shows. Now isn’t that a nice plot twist! Take New Girl for example, Jess is suppose to be the “adorkable” roommate that helps her male friends solve all their problems, as Rosenberg so cleverly puts it. But this show, which was catered toward men, has a 60% female audience. Huh? Interesting…. so if they want a show to be geared toward men, should they make the male character an idolized female fantasy? Even Kim Possible couldn’t figure this one out!