Less and Less Women = More and More Men

Television is losing women writers. I believe that it is a skewed perception of what is actually going on with the hiring of women in the entertainment industry. Ryan makes a good point about how the economy being stagnant is having a large impact on women not being hired over men, but at the same time, it needs to be recognized the negative effects of not hiring women onto a writing cast. By having a woman and a person of a race other than white on a writing cast, it is seen by many that the quota for diversity is being met by that specific company. Ryan is trying to drive the point home that diversity is not the reason to hire women. Women should be hired in this industry because they can be assets to TV shows and movies. If women are not hired, then only men get to have the advantage of being successful because they are being mentored, gaining experience, and moving up in the world. That is the misconception. Men are only dominating the industry because they are the only ones receiving the chance to be a part of these TV shows and their writing corps. The idea of hiring women should be reevaluated.

Entertainment is a male dominated culture, but it only is because women are not getting the chance to slow them down. Many writing executives believe that the industry is "backtracking" due to only having women at the top and none coming "up the pipeline." A solution needs to be presented in order to help women prosper in this industry. Ryan believes that if the industry remains the same, there is no "downside." Many shows have stood the test of time by having seasons of shows loved by the public without having women writers. Some corporations believe that a change is not needed, but for the sake of the economy and women's futures, women cannot be left out. It is just another situation where women are not receiving a fair chance. If institutions maintain the mindset that a male dominated culture in the workplace is adequate, then this hiring framework might be adapted in other industries. Companies need to give women a fair chance. I mean, not too long ago, women were quite relevant in the entertainment industry. Why all of a sudden are they considered not worthy of a chance to be a writer for a television show? I'm sure they can answer the bell if given the opportunity.

A critique of a critique of "women in media production" initiatives

The readings for this blog posted were focused on the lack of women in the production of media. I was most interested in Dawtrey’s discussion of Sweden and Norway’s mandates that more women be included in media production. One of the reasons Dawtrey discusses for why some people think these initiatives are flawed is that there are simply not enough women applying for these jobs, so the industry has to hire less talented writers to meet their quota. For this blog post, I would like to expand on and refute this idea.

            While it currently may be true that there are not enough women applying for the jobs to make the initiative work, I do not believe that this is a problem that will  persist in the future. I believe the problem of a lack of women is not simply that women are incapable of, or disinterested in, doing these jobs but that they have historically been told that there is not a place for them in the media industry. Thus, many capable, bright young women who were considering pursuing a career in media production may have forgone training in media production, opting instead to pursue training in a field that would more readily accept them.

          However, with these initiatives, young women may now be more likely to decide that they can indeed enter the world of media production. I believe this is much similar to the presence of women in science. Women have been historically discouraged from pursuing careers in science. However, with the advent of many “women in science” initiatives, women are less discouraged from studying science, and the number of women in the field has increased. I think that, like the “women in science initiatives,” these “women in media production” initiatives will show young women that there is a place for them in the world of media production and thereby increase the number of women who receive training and apply for jobs in the field. Thus, the argument that the mandates are leading to a decrease in the level of talent possessed by hired-writers will eventually be rendered irrelevant.

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!