Get the Feed
Women, Power and the New Television Order
The television universe has expanded and contracted at the same time. In recent years we have begun to watch prisoners, presidents and anti-terrorist agents with the same fervor we reserved for doctors, lawyers and cops. For many — including this critic — this shift was extremely welcome. Finally, the logic went, we would be able to see characters and experiences that stretched our imagination and challenged us.
Unfortunately, with few exceptions (such as HBO’s mobsters and funeral directors), television’s fascination with these “new” occupations has not raised our cultural consciousness much at all. In fact, these shows reach back to age-old American stereotypes and make those tired doctor/lawyer/cop shows feel ground-breaking.
The most disturbing aspect of this regression is in the construction of gender — specifically the patriarchal assumption that women and power don’t mix. As the season finales of the past few weeks have confirmed, television, even as it attempts to break new ground by having women in politically powerful roles, doesn’t like women who attempt to exercise that power in any significant way.
The vice president on Prison Break (who assumes the presidency in a Machiavellian coup in the season finale), the director of Homeland Security on 24, and the president on the now-cancelled Commander in Chief are all women, but none of them provided a representation of admirable women who take charge without apology, something men have been doing on television for decades.
Most of these non-traditional shows (Commander in Chief is the exception that proves the rule here) are, in fact, centered around the rugged individualist man — troubled loners who prevail and earn our admiration through their individual abilities. They might be cruel at times, but it?s a cruelty we accept.
Vice President Caroline Reynolds (Patricia Wettig) on Prison Break is a tough, determined individual, but we hate her. Power, as it apparently does to many women on TV, corrupts her completely. When her back is against the wall, she is willing to poison the president to advance her own selfish ends.
Karen Hayes (Jayne Atkinson), director of Homeland Security’s Los Angeles branch, is not the worst of the “Women of Mass Distraction” on 24 ? a phrase Christine came up with to describe women who simply through their hysteria or stupidity, not bad intentions, impede the hero, Jack Bauer, almost more than the terrorists themselves. Yet she is characterized most obviously by her powerlessness. While she makes right decisions along the way and ultimately defies the president, she appears more like a pinball responding to the actions of the responsible men around her — not just Bauer, but Bill Buchanan, over whose shoulder she seemed to watch the entire last third of the season.
And finally, President Mackenzie Allen (Geena Davis) of Commander and Chief, while thankfully the protagonist of her show, was ultimately more defined by her non-presidential qualities — as a mother and wife, most obviously — than by her ability to lead. And the Afterschool Special morality lessons she was forced to dispense frustrated viewers who expected more from the first female president. She is most noteworthy by her contrast to President Bartlett, the rugged individualist leader of West Wing.
And even if you were able to make an argument for her redeeming qualities, you would still lose, considering Commander in Chief won’t be coming back.
What make these shows fascinating, nevertheless, is how either the men show cracks in their rugged individualist armor (David Chase has been doing a season-long deconstruction of masculinity on the Sopranos) or, more interestingly, complex female characters slip under the radar.
Veronica Donovan (Robin Tunney) and Dr. Sara Tancredi (Sarah Wayne Callies) are intelligent, resourceful women who outwit and defy male authority in Prison Break. Even here, however, Donovan spent some time as the damsel-in-distress and needed the help of Nick Savrinn most of the season to get through the toughest times — although the final moments of the finale make her future role look promising — and Tancredi, after fighting her father, the governor, ends up sacrificing her job and her life for a male prisoner.
My favorite woman on TV, though, is Chloe O’Brian (Mary Lynn Rajskub), the imperturbable (or constantly perturbed, depending on how you look at it) computer genius on 24. She is undefinable and indefatigable and, defying all rugged individualist conventions — which require men to shun any genuine intimacy with women — she has become Jack Bauer?s trusty sidekick throughout this past season.
Maybe all women have to do to elevate their status on TV is start practicing the buddy system.
Posted at 2:05 PM | Permalink | | 
Email
| 
Print
June 1, 2006 at 3:40 pm
It’s a situation of looking at both sides. In the past, the situation was just like described in this article, but we all know that nowadays the picture is a little bigger.
I really dislike Xena’s way of mascule-feminism, but it was important. Of course, Buffy the Vampire Slayer got it in the right terms when proved that power, confidence and feminine identity could live together and even help one each other (Buffy’s fashion sense made her identify a vampire once, saving her best friend Willow).
And following that huge “evolution” of gender presence in pop culture that Buffy stablished alongside Sex and the City (which was started by short-but-historical My So-Called Life), there are plenty of shows looking for woman’s capacity of running a show for their own merits. I mean, of course it’s a delicate concept and not always they’re pictured as they should (as the article points), but they’re exceptions. Look at Alias, Veronica Mars, Dark Angel, Tru Calling, Joan of Arcadia, Wonderfalls, Dead Like Me, Desperate Housewives, Weeds, etc. Woman have much power in pop culture. They’re confident, hugely inspiring and incredibly efficient… And they’re everywhere.
Of course it may seem too much of an “alienated” aspect of TV, like putting feminists apart from male-oriented shows. Of course 24 and Prison Break are examples of this, but look at the awesome feminine representations on CSI, West Wing, Bones, Sopranos, House, Lost, etc. And in the case of “feminist shows”, just look at male characters on them. Gender conflict is not gender war as it was in the past. There’s an amazing balance of gender representation in pop culture.
We should thank My So-Called Life, Buffy and Sex and the City for this, but powerful feminine presence hasn’t died with the end of those shows.
June 5, 2006 at 3:30 am
While I loved watching the idea of a female in the oval office (who knows if this will come true in my life time)I was apalled at thow much the show was about the first, first gentleman. I don’t recall any of the first ladies needing *another job inside the whitehouse or the need to be offered a (traditionally masculine)job in Major League Basenball. I guess that being the first spouse is only fulfilling for women? Jackie O didn’t demand a cabinet position or need to be the CEO of some corporation….
Also the best female character on TV today is hands down, the stellar Sydney Bristow (Jennifer Garner of Alias). She brings class, ambition, wit, confidence, style, a sense of purpose and combines a plethora of emotion be it aggression or empathay to her character. The show strikes a fine balance of action and sentiment that reflects a role model and human would find appealing regardlesss of gender. She also kicks some serious boo-tay out of a lot of wanna be bad boys, that had it coming to them for trying be be so…uh bad. Puh-leese…..is anyone else over watching that brouhaha on the small & big screens??????? It is refreshing to see a woman do something besides frolick outside of the cookie-cutter factory as a frosty pop-tart that just stands there and smiles. Do something, like Sydney does (it doesn’t have to be double-agent for the CIA while going to grad school) but well, you get the idea)…!
June 7, 2006 at 8:49 am
Thanks Jodi and M. — points are well-taken. I want to reiterate, though, that the focus of my post was on women in political/authority positions on TV. None of the examples either of you brought up show women in official positions of political power.
Having said that, I think my post certainly welcomed a broader discussion of women’s roles.
And this would be my thought … While we can find many examples of strong, complex women on TV these, very few of them exist on their own as “rugged individualists” — which our most treasured male heroes have no problem doing.
Sydney Bristow on Alias is a perfect example. Yes, she kicks ass — but she does it at the service of her male boss and/or father. The true power in that show — like Charlie’s Angels, in some ways — is the man behind the curtain (or in Sydney’s ear). Furthermore, Sidney has often “frolicked as a pop tart” like the women you criticize. Until this season, Sidney’s greatest weapon was her seductive body. It wasn’t enough for her to just be smart and tough. Of course, this season has been remarkably restrained in that regard — but, of course, that is because she’s a mother and that’s different.
June 26, 2006 at 8:11 pm
Nice to hear from you, Bernie, and I actually agree with your perspective on women in political roles on Pop Culture. Obviously Gena Davis is not satisfying enough.
But besides that, I’m still on my argument about how extremely empowered woman are today, even when they’re not on a job of higher authority. But that’s just another barrier to be taken down. Things evolved amazingly since the 60’s. Feminism is normal nowadays. It’s not fully realized, of course, ’cause in this case feminism would be no more needed.
I agree with your Alias argument, although I suspect you can’t say the same thing about Buffy, whose show is so important (as Equality Now tends to agree) because explored not only personal women issues, but also social and political implicantions on women in a metahporical level, of course.
Buffy had the Watcher’s Council. But it was pretty clear that, although the “male ones” always tried to keep her in (their) line, she was a Slayer for her own. She never did it *for* them. It’s a complex issue debated among Buffy Students for years, but my perspective is that Buffy relation with the Watcher’s Council wants to show how much independent a woman can bee on her duty (or her job), doing it for herself, for what she believes in, even if it means going against their “fate”, against who was long before planned to be taken control of their lives. Men.
And of course let’s not forget about the final revelation on the show, showing that true big-bosses of the Watcher’s Council is actually a group of ancient, very wise women (using the Watcher’s Council issue to give as an optimistic feminist message).
Ok, that’s the only example I know about the issue you raised about women on jobs of higher importance and free of patriarchal influence. For the lack of other examples, this alone is a damn important and well executed one.
Evolution is a slow process. And once started, it never stops.
Congratulations on raising such important issue, and thanks for replying us so patiently.