Tag Archives: Aaron Sorkin

Things that are not the opposite of misogyny

Remember when I wrote about Newsroom? This is what I was trying to say:

“And yet semi-hallowed reverence for women is not actually the opposite of misogyny. The feminist utopia version of Newsroom isn’t the one where the female characters are Perfect and Powerful. It’s a version where the female characters aren’t completely othered at every moment; where their motivations make as much sense as male characters’; where they’re given the same opportunities to be perfect and imperfect, powerful and disempowered, as right, wrong, scared, and brave as their male counterparts.”

That’s Margaret Lyons at New York Mag and I could kiss her right now.

Much like racists protest their racism by pointing vaguely at their black friends, and Sarah Palin protests calls of bigotry by waving at her gay hairstylist, misogynists have created all sorts of misguided diversions to distract from their misogyny. Let’s take a look:

1. Protectionism: This ancient strategy involves demonstrating your “respect” for women by protecting their delicate sensibilities from the less pink and sparkly parts of life. Ladies might not understand how sad they’ll be after an abortion, so we should make this decision for them! Women don’t understand biology, so we must push an ultrasound in front of their faces!

Why this is dangerous: A central tenet of equality is the belief in the autonomy and decision-making power of adults. The perception that women possess lesser powers of discernment and need “coaching” to understand complex concepts is insulting and belittling.

2. Pedestal-ism: I made up this word, but I think it accurately describes the notion that women exist to be admired instead of included. Anybody who refers to keeping women “pure,” “innocent,” “ladylike,” etc. is a proponent of pedestalism. Anyone who insists that the maintainance of beauty standards is essential to “womanhood” is invested in perpetuating the role of women as objects of adoration.

Why this is dangerous: Pedestalism is about restricting the female sphere of influence and ensuring that women waste their time pursuing physical admiration instead of learning, communicating, growing, evolving, and being rock stars.

3. Chivalry: I’m not talking about opening a car door (though honestly, good rule of thumb: be nice to people and help each other out. Duh.) Being a provider is not the same as being a partner. Paying the bills or picking up dinner doesn’t make you not a misogynist. Recognizing women as equal partners in social engagements, relationships, the workplace and the home is what makes you not a misogynist.

Why this is dangerous: Chivalry creates patterns of entitlement and transaction in social engagements based on gender. Kindness and generosity, however, create goodwill and reciprocity between peers.

4. Separate but Equalism: Acknowledging lady-talent in traditionally lady-spheres is not the same as recognizing that human variation in talent and preference cuts across genders. There are not “natural” career fits for women vs. men, and even if there were, do you think it’s accidental that the lowest paying professions (caretaking in all forms) are traditionally female? We make career decisions based on what we’re good at, yes, but what we’re good out is often borne out of deeply ingrained and unfair societal messages about gender and skill.

Why this is dangerous: Encouraging your daughter to be a nurse and your son to be a surgeon because she’s a girl and he’s a boy perpetuates long term wage disparity. Maybe those are their ideal careers, but maybe you just can’t wrap your head around your son’s caretaking strengths and your daughters’ love of knives.

5. Family: Having a wife, sister, mother or daughter does not make you not a misogynist.

Why this is dangerous: You can’t hide your misogyny behind a family photo.

Related Post: Why family leave policy is at the root of gender disparity in leadership

Related Post: The death of “pretty”. Ick.

7 Comments

Filed under Gender, Hollywood, Politics, Sex

Three Strikes, Newsroom, Three Strikes

Three episodes is the standard hook-me-or-I’m-out window I give new shows. That’s about all the time I’m willing to spare for something unproven. My attention span shrinks by the day, but some of my favorites, old and new (The Wire, Girls), took more than the first 8 seconds to convince of their merit.

Last night, I hit the three-episode mark with Aaron Sorkin’s The Newsroom, and ladies and gentlemen, the jig is officially up. It’s not that the show is irredeemable, it’s just that my time is better spent on Next Food Network Star. Yes, The Newsroom is that bad.

There are many problems included but not limited to epically long and boring monologues, terrible musical selections, a distorted nostalgia for a past that doesn’t exist, and not a single likeable persona among the bunch. But the biggest problem, which I’m not the first to note, is Sorkin’s attitude towards The Women.

In the world of The Newsroom, women are shrill, spastic, pathetic, manic, melodramatic, jealous, petty, technologically incompetent, unprofessional, obsessive, preoccupied with “saving” men, frantic, disorganized, bossy, irritable, and above all, frazzled and desperate. They exist as two-dimensional paper dolls onto which the men can project their opinions and reinforce their own (admittedly limited) identities.

After I finished episode 3 last night, I returned to Season 1 of Friday Night Lights, which I have been rewatching because I miss the Taylors and summer sucks for television. This is how emotional drama about the American experience is done. The character that would be the easiest to pigeon-hole, the sweet and sassy coach’s wife, is as robust and multi-faceted as the rest (a credit both to the writer and the insanely talented Connie Britton).

I’ve talked about this before regarding Game of Thrones and I’m going to quote myself, because today I’m just that cool:

Despite the confines of their societal roles, the women and girls in Game of Thrones have lives as ethically complex and emotionally difficult as the knights and swordsmen. The roles of wife, mother, sister, daughter are never one-note labels, but mere pieces of very nuanced portraits of human life. Just because these characters are limited by the inequality of their environment doesn’t make their stories any less rewarding.

This is a lesson Aaron Sorkin seems to be forgetting. In the most recent episode, the nervous, manic Maggie suffered a panic attack, from which the heroic Jim rescued her. The panic attack could have been a window into Maggie’s mind and experience, instead it was used to showcase Jim’s skill and to teach us about his history as a reporter embedded with troops.

Sorkin has already chosen which characters he finds independently interesting, and surprise of all surprises, they look a lot like him.

Related Post: White guy, white girl, non-white guy, how to fake diversity on television.

Related Post: Some characters from West Wing will always be my favorites.

2 Comments

Filed under Art, Gender, Hollywood, Media