Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

On-Screen Sex Ratios Add Up to One Big Negative

By Lynn Ziegler, Women's eNews. Posted April 9, 2008.


There are more women on TV and film these days than decades ago. But media researchers say healthy on-screen gender representation is missing.
storyimagethumbwomensenewslogo
women's enews
Advertisement

Women on "The View" may get Barack Obama showing up to pay his presidential-hopeful respects. Oprah's one-woman media empire may seem like a world without end. And Ellen DeGeneres' daily dance-and-gabfest recently has taken a more activist spin (just ask Chris Matthews!)

But that doesn't mean mainstream entertainment -- meaning TV and film -- reflects anything like our true worth to girls and women.

Earlier this year, researchers gathered from all over the country -- and the world -- at the University of Southern California to present studies that document and display the historical context of how we see females on TV (if they are on-screen at all). The conference was a first for the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media.

An overview of female portrayals on U.S. TV there reminded conference-goers that the United States television in the late 1950s and early 1960s -- had such extremes as "Rifleman" and "Bonanza" with no major female characters at all -- and shows like "Bewitched" and "I Dream of Jeannie," in which female leads had to minimize their talents when they orchestrated "real life" with their men.

Today we have more programs with stronger female characters: "Cold Case," "Grey's Anatomy," "Desperate Housewives," "Law and Order." But the fact that women make up more than half the world's population is not reflected on-screen. The male-female on-screen ratio is still only 1-in-3, up from a more dismal 1-in-5 two decades ago.

In a study presented at the conference of 13 top-grossing children's films with female leads -- produced between the mid-1930s through the 1990s and many of them from Disney--only one featured a character who wasn't looking for "happily ever after" with a prince. Dorothy Gale, from "The Wizard of Oz"--the oldest movie in the bunch as it so happens -- kept her eyes on a different prize: going home.

Animation Offers Big Challenge

Animation--where hypersexualization is intense -- offers some of the biggest challenges to gender parity. Animated females are thin and impossibly stylized. Many conference-goers talked about how there is literally "no room for a womb" in these busty, hourglass-shaped females.

In sharing her recent work with the conference, Stacy Smith from the Annenberg School of Communications, told attendees a story of two female researchers who went to a studio to meet with a very successful illustrator. He showed them a crowd scene that he was finishing. "Here are some businessmen. Over here is a cop directing traffic. There are some guys doing construction work on a building, and some kids on the corner, skateboarding . . . this is a group of doctors leaving a medical center."

Everyone was male.

"And here," he said proudly, "is the girl." For the record, she was wearing SRC (sexually revealing clothing), had a waist that was too tiny to allow blood to reach her brain and, no surprise, inordinately large breasts.

The two researchers -- keeping their eyes on the prize -- said, "Well . . . what if you added some women to the group of business people? And a female doctor talking to an EMT in front of the hospital? And over here, a female city engineer talking to the architect? And . . ."

The illustrator put his hands to his face. "Oh my God. The problem here is ME."

Like many other men in a male-dominated entertainment industry, he had gotten the idea that having one "girl" -- drawn as the "ideal" woman -- was representation. It's not.

It's about the numbers. And the shapes. And colors. And sizes. And ages. And our part in the big picture.

'We Thought It Was Better'

"We thought it was better," was the general sentiment expressed by conference-goers, even by longtime media activists used to the glacial pace of progress.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: gender, movies, pop culture

Lynn Ziegler is the author of "Spongeheadz: U and Media" (2007). She has three media-savvy Alaska Native kids who support her work for on-screen diversity and who cheerfully ignore her screeching when she watches TV.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Hmmm, so divided.
Posted by: JohnTodd on Apr 9, 2008 9:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I stand divided within myself on this issue.

On one hand, media should be more realistic and fair.

But on the other hand, not having females in the media spares the impressionable young from seeing what will be invariably distorted and corrupted role models. I think this is to be avoided.

Right now on TV I see two types of girls:

1. Suzie Smartass, who knows more than her parents (despite never having worked a day in her life.)

2. Suzie Superslut, who gets everything by batting her eyes and shaking her raisins. (Too young to have boobs yet, see?)

These are only my opinions, of course. But I just think that any archetype portrayed in media will be bent to the lowest common denominator in order to generate more ad revenue. It's all about the money, not the principle.

What do you think?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Are we talking PC media or real life here
Posted by: Andrew_S on Apr 9, 2008 10:26 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since most media is linked to commerce, some form of ideological jingle, and a particular political leaning. I am very much inclined to watch my old B and W's, to see that media has just simply regressed. Gone is real dreary old facts of life, to be replaced by the ubiquotous dream factory in celluloid, in the news and in my face. Whether my old BW's are sanctified by our PC police I have no concern, but the women portrayed in those films and documentaries, showed more balls than your current crop of lesbian indoctrinated state welfare employed ideologists and professionals. What a calamotous sideways sojourn this nation takes all in the name of progress or was it just for federal manna.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» a woman senator Posted by: e rice
Reality Check
Posted by: Crazy H on Apr 9, 2008 12:57 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Two things to note, here.

First off, the men in media are not portrayed as 'real life' either. They're (almost) all good looking; buff; super smart, super strong or both; they Save The World every week; and of course, have sex with every unattached female available. We merely mortal men just can't live up to our media counterparts.

Second off, female leads simply don't sell as well. Face it, Hollyweird isn't pushing a political agenda, they're selling something. They'll sell whatever people will buy. Supergirl, Wonderwoman, Batgirl, Catwoman, Girl From U.N.C.L.E., The Bionic Woman, Sheena, Barbarella, Electra: none of them brought in the bucks that their male counterparts did. Hollyweird tried - but the consumers didn't buy it.

Now, don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that women have it easy. But I do object to the underlying assumption that men do. If we want to end 'the war between the sexes' we'll have to do it by meeting in the middle, not by transforming the other to be what we think they should be; and certainly not complaining that the media are selling what people are buying.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Even as Superheriones Women are still Sex Objects. Maybe even ESPECIALLY as Superheroines!!
Posted by: yellow on Apr 9, 2008 3:15 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Xena (Lucy Lawless), Shalimar Fox (Vicky Pratt),and various sexy martial arts heroines played by lovely Asian women like Tia Carrera and Lucy Lu are all big dominatrix turn ons for guys. Feminists are all kidding themselves if they somehow think these images are "liberating" in the feminist sense. Their message is the same as all one dimensional, simplistic "good vs evil" narratives where the hero is male and there's lots of violent confrontation. Plus, we have the sexy ass kickin' siren to boot.

Liberating images of women in mainstream US media are a long way off. Until we have some ugly ass butch broad who's barely discernably female kicking the ass of some 400 lb. Hungarian grappler in a steel cage match, as we say here in Chicago-fugghetabahtit!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» And mcdreamy Posted by: leta
Count? Yes, indeed, lets DO count
Posted by: rickiey on Apr 9, 2008 10:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But your one man, two man, one woman is just a little too simplistic.

Because we need to consider the portrayal as well. Is it positive, or negative?

For every blonde bimbo (think christina applegate in married with children), you will find 10 potrayals of unattractive idiot men who's lives are only ok because of their smart attractives wives.

Maybe more men are shown on TV. Perhaps it's only because we like watching deeply flawed characters, and it just isn't PC to portray the women flawed enough for our tastes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Are there deeper layers?
Posted by: talkville on Apr 11, 2008 12:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It does seem to be that sexes and genders are less disproportionate today than in other days (minimally) in quantitative terms at least, but are there not deeper problems residing in the very dynamics of re-presentation in media with regard to ALL components of any particular production (settings, themes, ideas, 'realities', economic relations, etc)? From birth to death and especially in the last 70 years or so in this country a vast proportion of our "picture" of the world is internalized via audio and audio-visual means and its effects on each one of us real people, strung along this male-female continuum is conditioned in these ways.

After all, at least informally, I have noticed a great number of film and tv productions that are written, directed, produced or otherwise affected by females -- there are many more female names represented in the credits these days than in the past.

It brings up deeper problems, which are definitely still very much "patriarchal" or "parental", in the very process itself. Are our real social relations imitating what we 'absorb' from all these re-presentations or do our real social relations determine what we see in film or tv? It seems a bit acadamic, but the answer points just to WHO is it really that will bring about substantive changes in all these productions whether film or tv or any other media (not called 'media' for nothing!)

Or is our real function reduced to mere conforming to one or another Image of a man or a woman or a setting in any particular film or tv production? Are we really "free to choose?" Who is REALLY behind all those choices and options re-presented to us? The sad fact is that most of the actual work and production of artistic individuals and groups dealing with real feminist, racial or class issues is vastly confined to the margins and very, very seldom seen AT ALL on film or tv reaching mass audiences.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sara seems to have missed Ronald D. Moore's Battlestar Galactica
Posted by: DaBear on Apr 11, 2008 10:52 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Film critic and author Sara Voorhees, who led the final panel discussion at the conference, wants to see more women running studios. "Chick flicks are dissed because they feature relationships and problem-solving; dick-flicks reflect the Warrior Ethic," she told the conference. "Maybe Hollywood needs a mother to make sure that everyone gets to play."

No thanks, mom. I love ya but you made us take off the #10 tin cans we used as helmets (so what if they cut into our cheeks because we forgot to file the edges of the cutouts?!) and that's what made rock-chunking at each other actually fun.

And per the so-called "warrior ethic" (puhleeze), Sara obviously hasn't seen Battlestar where the chicks kick ass while still managing to be complex, and hot & spicy and still don't have to be frackin' Barbie-dolls. Granted that's one show (doh, written by men, ew, sometimes... oooh noooo) and it's made in CaNAYda's hollyweird north, but it's a fracking start. BTW, the best Trek series' episodes were written by "girls" (TNG, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise) but no one noticed because it's Trek and scifi, ew.

The geeks have the gender thing wired, even ugly people like sex and hotness is highly complex and subjective, and there's always time for a good can o' whoopass being opened up on some tyrannical RWA.... but hey, don't look behind that curtain... let's focus on chick flicks and dick flicks... more false binaries posing as feminism.

I did love the story about the male illustrator... all I could think of was what studio was it and where the fuck did he go to school because he musta been sleepwalking through his undergrad years to miss all the required gender studies courses. I mean, frack, people, every state school in CA has awesome gender studies courses and you have to be fracking brain dead not to notice if you're drawing a whole scene sans women! What a moron!

BUt not to minimize anything, our daughter wants to be a damned actor (OK, actress) instead of a director even though she makes kick ass movies for school projects using Final Cut Pro, teaches me new tricks all the time with the camera and is constantly telling me to stop making my female characters so "butch." What the hell am I supposed to do with a female director who wants to be an actress?! Her mom is even telling me to lay off but after being fucked over during the writer's strike nonstop by the studio overlords I keep telling her, run the damned show yourself, girl! It's about control, (not to mention gettin' paid) dammit!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

interesting article and pc is very very overused
Posted by: whealeydj on Apr 12, 2008 8:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Things are getting better but still a long way to go. Attractiveness still a great advantage for both women and men as actors in entertainment industry. It will take more change in attitudes of writers and producers. PC commonly refers to liberal values which are to be ridiculed but it is the right wing political correctness (like support our troops when they really mean support our President) that has held sway the last 20 years. authritraisn when of but the bolitically correctnss

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]