What men and women are actually watching

I was a little shocked after reading the Poniewozik and Rosenberg articles and the analysis of the Playboy Club and Charlies Angels. I am very surprised that anyone could have thought these shows to be geared towards men. Yes, there are women who are scantly clad, but more importantly they had leading roles that were filled with women and although I never watched either of these shows, they seemed to be strong female characters. As noted in the articles it might have been this confusion that lead to their almost immediate removal from the prime time line up.

There seems to be a disconnect in the greater audience and those who produce the media on what qualifies as t.v. for men and t.v. for women. This disconnect can also be seen in two other shows mentioned by Poniewozik and Rosenberg, New Girl and Whitney. The show New Girl was created and ideally marketed to men because of Zooey Deschanel's character. Ponziewozik describes it as the male fantasy character, "known as the Manic Pixie Dream Girl."However, this show is overwhelmingly viewed by women. This polarity in who was expected to view a show and who actually views it can be seen in Whitney. This show, like many of the other new prime time sitcoms and series, has a strong female leading character and was expected to be predominantly viewed by women, however, Ponziewozik points out that this is a show that is viewed by a large audience of men. The disconnect found between what is expected to be a show for men and a show for women, and what is actually viewed by men and women is so great due to the changing views of femininity and masculinity.

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.