A rant about a TV I totally shouldn't care about
So, according to , this one female lead from the show Criminal Minds is being cut, another is having her time on air cut to cut her contract. There are three female leads, and four male leads. None of the men had any of their on-air time, or contracts, cut. CBS has explicitly SAID it's because of the action-aspect of the show.
I shouldn't care. I KNOW I shouldn't care about this, because really, it means nothing. My boyfriend and I are even in a FIGHT over this, because he says he sees no sexism in the issue. But I can't look at this situation and NOT see it. It SMACKS of male-gender priveledge, and his comment that he thought they were "just cutting the least interesting characters," (which is his opinion, anyway; personally, I loved both) was also insulting because it suggested that I was being overly sensitive to the idea of gender being an important deciding factor. He also insinuated because women are no longer "legally" discriminated against, it's somehow OK. That because it's ILLEGAL, soft sexism doesn't exist.
Anyway, I wrote the following rant. I don't know if I'll send it anywhere other than here (I had a couple of people say CBS, others said to link it to my twitter), but I really am horribly offended.
"If the rumors of Ms. Brewster and Ms. Cook being offered less money/less on screen time and being removed from the show (respectively) are true, I’m highly concerned about the message this sends to female viewers, especially to young female viewers who too frequently look to find their identity, societal roles, expectations, and possibilities available to them through what they see represented on television. The cutting of two prominent female characters on the show suggests that, not only are women unimportant as FBI agents in field (suggesting they don’t have the adequate power resources, independence, or ability to keep pace with the men, and as such, are less important and contribute less to the success of the overall team), but that they also aren’t important to the continuation of a successful show. The former is less concerning, as these are fictional characters, in a fictional FBI, doing fictional work (I highly doubt actual hiring and firing of government bodies will be effected), but the second is horrendously disturbing, unfair, and suggestive of CBS’s view of women: when there is a money crisis, cut the female characters first, as fewer people will care. This only further reinforces the idea that it’s OK to afford fewer opportunities to women in multi-billion dollar industries, such as television, by suggesting that they are less responsible for any and all amounts of success. Despite how much I love the show, the cast, the characters, and the story, there is no way I can continue to support a television station that promotes such reductive views of women, or such sexually biased fiscal decision making during times of hardship. The social implications are just too plaintive, sweeping, and dismissive of women, as well as their relative lack of position, agency, and authority within situations relating to gendered power dynamics, to be ignored in these contractual decisions. I only hope that this particular aspect of contract negotiation is addressed when the final decisions are being made. The plethora of subtle and sub-contextual ways in which women are being shown to be powerless or “less important” in terms of the show’s success in this situation is horribly disheartening and unfair. As a female viewer, this tells me that if female leads are not needed in the creation and continuation of a successful show, they are obviously unneeded in the viewership to help promote and sustain said success of a show."
Anyway, it's short and not completely thought out, and there are some issues I'd like to go a little furhter into, but still. It's a start, and I had to get that out.
You know I'm ridiculous when I'm seriously picking fights over TV shows. Maybe Cliff is right: I need to pick my battles, be offended by less, and stay focused.
I shouldn't care. I KNOW I shouldn't care about this, because really, it means nothing. My boyfriend and I are even in a FIGHT over this, because he says he sees no sexism in the issue. But I can't look at this situation and NOT see it. It SMACKS of male-gender priveledge, and his comment that he thought they were "just cutting the least interesting characters," (which is his opinion, anyway; personally, I loved both) was also insulting because it suggested that I was being overly sensitive to the idea of gender being an important deciding factor. He also insinuated because women are no longer "legally" discriminated against, it's somehow OK. That because it's ILLEGAL, soft sexism doesn't exist.
Anyway, I wrote the following rant. I don't know if I'll send it anywhere other than here (I had a couple of people say CBS, others said to link it to my twitter), but I really am horribly offended.
"If the rumors of Ms. Brewster and Ms. Cook being offered less money/less on screen time and being removed from the show (respectively) are true, I’m highly concerned about the message this sends to female viewers, especially to young female viewers who too frequently look to find their identity, societal roles, expectations, and possibilities available to them through what they see represented on television. The cutting of two prominent female characters on the show suggests that, not only are women unimportant as FBI agents in field (suggesting they don’t have the adequate power resources, independence, or ability to keep pace with the men, and as such, are less important and contribute less to the success of the overall team), but that they also aren’t important to the continuation of a successful show. The former is less concerning, as these are fictional characters, in a fictional FBI, doing fictional work (I highly doubt actual hiring and firing of government bodies will be effected), but the second is horrendously disturbing, unfair, and suggestive of CBS’s view of women: when there is a money crisis, cut the female characters first, as fewer people will care. This only further reinforces the idea that it’s OK to afford fewer opportunities to women in multi-billion dollar industries, such as television, by suggesting that they are less responsible for any and all amounts of success. Despite how much I love the show, the cast, the characters, and the story, there is no way I can continue to support a television station that promotes such reductive views of women, or such sexually biased fiscal decision making during times of hardship. The social implications are just too plaintive, sweeping, and dismissive of women, as well as their relative lack of position, agency, and authority within situations relating to gendered power dynamics, to be ignored in these contractual decisions. I only hope that this particular aspect of contract negotiation is addressed when the final decisions are being made. The plethora of subtle and sub-contextual ways in which women are being shown to be powerless or “less important” in terms of the show’s success in this situation is horribly disheartening and unfair. As a female viewer, this tells me that if female leads are not needed in the creation and continuation of a successful show, they are obviously unneeded in the viewership to help promote and sustain said success of a show."
Anyway, it's short and not completely thought out, and there are some issues I'd like to go a little furhter into, but still. It's a start, and I had to get that out.
You know I'm ridiculous when I'm seriously picking fights over TV shows. Maybe Cliff is right: I need to pick my battles, be offended by less, and stay focused.