Why do we see so few working class women portrayed?

[Hello_Kitty]

I mean anywhere. In movies, on TV, even in the news and magazines all I ever see are women who have "made it". That is, that small percentage of women who have ascended to executive positions in business or hold powerful political offices. And of course celebrities in music, acting, or modeling. The only other portrayal of women is that of wife and mother, which does represent a lot of women but what about the majority of working women who are in pink and blue collar jobs? Waiting tables, secretarial work, teaching, driving trucks, and the numerous other non-glamorous types of employment that most of us really do.

I swear if I see one more movie where the female protagonist is a (hot looking, natch) high-powered, power suit wearing, go-getter snapping orders on a cell phone I'm going to scream! Likewise, I'm tired of seeing news profiles and articles only about highly successful real-life women. Don't get me wrong, that's great, but the impression it gives is that ordinary women don't count or don't even exist.

I suppose they are trying to reflect the advances made by women in society, but frankly, most women haven't made those advances as evidenced by statistics. I think it serves to undermine arguments about continuing inequality. How can guys believe there is a glass ceiling when they see so many portrayals of women in management? It creates this dissonance in peoples' minds. And most Americans watch so much TV and other forms of media that there is often a blurring between that and reality as we all know.

I started a thread about perfectionism before but I wasn't sure where I was going with it. I'm just thinking about this stuff a lot lately and was feeling like a loser because I'm in my 30s and haven't made a big splash with my life and it seemed like every other woman my age had her shit together complete with a great job, gorgeous home, and fulfilling personal life. Then I realized that I wasn't thinking about the actual women I know, this came straight from the media. Any thoughts on this?

[efhmc]

1. Don't watch enough movies to comment but I am thinking that movies

have really never been very realistic about anything. Wasn't Sandra Bullock in several movies where she was a working girl, a toll booth employee and some other job I cannot remember. Also J. Aniston was a grocery store employee in the perfect girl or some such title. Not arguing but just trying to remember in my small amount of info stash.

[Hello_Kitty]

2. Oh yeah there are movies like that

But there is a disproportionate representation of elite working women. It could also be because most movies and TV shows have urban settings.

I'm just saying that if you were to believe that entertainment and even the news reflected reality, you would think the majority of women are rich, successful, and highly educated and that is just not the case.

I really enjoyed Bridget Jones' Diary, the book and movie for that reason. Though she was not the ideal feminist role model by any means, it was such a breath of fresh air to see a female character who wasn't competent at everything she tried. She was a flawed human being who wore her foibles on her sleeve and struggled with work and her relationships. Just like me and most women I know.

[efhmc]

3. I liked that movie. What was the second one like.?

[Warpy]

4. It's the same reason most blacks

are portrayed as either ghetto types or unrealistic Cosby family wealthy types. Hollywood is happy with stereotypes and TV is there to make us discontented with our lives and sell us stuff to fix that discontent.

The last show that had realistic working class people on it was Roseanne, even though it got a little off track with some of the characters in later years. It still took on the tough issues working class people were facing during the dismal Reagan years.

[Hello_Kitty]

8. Roseanne was a rarity

I was thinking of that as I did my OP. I remember when it was on how that show was practically the only one that showed how most Americans really live. I've talked to people in other countries who say they grew up assuming that all Americans lived in mansions because of what they saw on TV and the movies. I watch BBC and European programs and notice that they seem to feature more "ordinary" characters and storylines.

[Heddi]

5. I think like everything,

the "media" (And when I say "Media", I mean everything from advertising, news, print, videos, music, movies, TV shows, etc) strives to portray the "Unobtainable Reality".

Even if a movie shows a woman working as a cashier, making $2.15 an hour plus tips, she STILL lives in a decent house in a decent neighborhood, has a decent car, wears decent clothes, tons of beautiful friends, no facial blemishes or bad hair, and STILL has the money to socialize at bars and restaurants---an unobtainable reality for many working-class poor. I remember when I was a waitress, making $2.15 an hour plus tips, I was in my mid 20's, living in a slum in the ghetto, wearing clothes I'd been squeezing myself into since High School, not enough underwear, not enough money to do clothes, DEFINITELY not enough money to go out and so such frivilous things as go to a bar or eat at a restaurant.

I grew up very poor. My mom was a single parent, we lived in a trailer that by all rights should have been condemned because it had holes in the floor, infested with roaches, etc. She often worked 2+ jobs PLUS owed her soul to small time loan companies just to make ends meet. We had no phone, no cable, and all of my clothes were hand-me-downs.

I remember watching "Pretty in Pink"--classic tale of the poor girl who hooks up with the rich boy. Only, for being so poor, Molly Ringwald certainly had a nice house (not a hovel), had nice clothes (not hand-me-downs donated by the church up the street), had a 2 bedroom house, a large room, a car....

I never felt that *MY* reality (and by proxy, the reality of MILLIONS of adults & children in this country) was ever accurately portrayed by the Media. Even if you were poor, you were never *that* poor unless the movie was about blacks living in the ghetto...and even then, their hovels and shanty shacks were much nicer than any shanty *I* ever lived in.

I remember when "Roseanne" came on TV--finally, a show that kind of captured my reality, but again, not really because it was a 2 parent household, 2 story house, and they had things. No trailer, no roaches, no holes in the floor, no plastic on the windows in the wintertime to keep the cold out.

I grew up always feeling like I was on the outside of society. THe area I lived in was very impoverished, so 99% of the people I grew up in were either in the same situation as I, or one slightly better or slightly worse. Even with their influence, I still felt as if *I* was a nobody since NO ONE took the time to see what REAL poverty was like and portray it accurately and without stereotypes or 'rags to riches' ending where everyone hugs on the porch and life goes on peachy-keen.

Even now, as an adult who lives a fairly affluent life (and by affluent, I mean that I want for nothing, am financially stable, and don't have holes in the floor, even though technically I live at the poverty level by census standards), I still don't see realistic portrayals of REAL families, of REAL people who live in not so idyllic situations.

This really doesn't have shit to do with your post :) about showing 'real' women, other than the fact that the media rarely shows anything 'real' or obtainable. Even IF the woman has her own business (which is good), she can't be dumpy or fat or have bad hair. She has to HAVE IT ALL, which just isn't REALITY.

If the media didn't show constantly the Unobtainable Reality, then we would have nothing to strive for (in their eyes). They would have nothing to market to us if we were perfectly happy with our station in life. Why would we buy X product if we felt TRULY that we were content without it?

So they have to show the unobtainable reality. They have to always make it seem that there is SOMEONE out there who, in one way or another, has it BETTER than you, and that YOU can obtain that only if you try hard, work hard, and by all means, BUY BUY BUY and STRIVE STRIVE STRIVE.

[efhmc]

6. Wonderful story, wonderful post, wonderful you. Thanks for sharing some

of your reality with us.

[Heddi]

7. Thanks yourself

I get really upset when I watch TV--being a student and being home alot of the time, i really have no choice but to watch TV or go online (so, ergo, I tend to go online alot).

The images shown CONSTANTLY through the tube are just so unobtainable. I know I use that word alot in my post above, but that's the only word I can use to describe it.

Being 29, I'm of the MTV generation. I still fip by occasionally---generally, just to know what is being shown to the youth of our society. I'm always sitting there AGHAST at the trash I see being peddled as 'entertainment' when it's NOTHING more than 24 hours of clever product placement.

Their shows seem to highlight the "model-like" youth of today. I don't remember there being a fat girl on Real World since the black girl in England...and she was relentlessly made fun of because of her weight (Btw--she was hardly fat. But I suppose that anyone who weighs more than an uncooked noodle is 'fat')

These are cookie-cutter kids with pecs and boobs and butts and promiscious attitudes. These shows, marketed to the teenagers of today, are all about promiscious sex, reckless lives, and being as shallow and unintelligent as humanly possible.

Where are the GOOD role models for our girls AND boys? Certainly not on network TV. Certainly not on MTV. Certainly not in Sports---and this is what is hyped 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

And now, the adults are on the receiving end of it. Every adult female lives and unobtainable life. Every male on TV lives an unobtainable life. ANd it sickens me.

Even reality TV isn't 'real'. It stopped being real after the 1st season of any given show, when people started getting the attitude of "Well, *I*'m going to be the bitch" or "I'm gonna be the stud"...how can it be reality when every person is cast (and/or edited) to fit a certain role?

What happened to people just LIVING....not being poor, not being middle class either. Not having a house that looks like it's off the pages of a magainze, but not living in a hovel either? Not drop-dead gorgeous, but not stereotypically ugly either? Why no NORMAL people who live NORMAL lives?

I suppose that wouldn't be complelling television, and it wouldn't give people the 2 feelings that the media wants to elicit from us:

1) Wow. I'm glad I don't have it THAT bad
or
2) Wow. I wish I had it that good

There is no inbetween. There is NOTHING that we can relate to on a regular basis.

Entertainment shows often feature segments about how Julia Roberts was seen BUYING A PLUNGER FOR HER HOUSE! Oh my god! What a fucking major accomplishment! I even heard Julia Roberts on Oprah a few years ago 'bragging' about how, even though she has numerous housekeepers, she COULD pick up a broom and sweep IF SHE HAD TO. Oh spare me, Julia. We are not worthy of your immortal presence. :eyes:

I have no patience for celebrities or the cult of celebrities that is thrust upon us, and always has been since movies were silent and lasted no more than 10 minutes. I don't care one whit about the day-to-day troubles of a poor, downtrodden millionaire actress. Julia Roberts was seen shopping for a Plunger? Great for her. The other day, I went shopping for a plunger too. Why, that means that in some very insignificant way, *I* am LIKE JULIA ROBERTS. Why, I'm nearly a celebrity by proxy :eyes:

But I wonder, Julia, when you went shopping for that plunger, did you have to hedge a check to the phone company so that you could buy the $5 plunger AND not bounce a check at the same time? Tell me, Julia, did you buy the plunger with the hope in your heart that whatever was wrong with the toilet could be FIXED with a plunger, and not entail having to call a plumber and be forced to pay money that you not only have, but have no way of getting?

Entertainment WEekly would have us believe so, however, I seriously doubt that is the case.

[Hello_Kitty]

9. No! Your post has everything to do with mine!

That's what I'm saying! Real women are struggling to make ends meet at shitty jobs everywhere and there's little to no depiction of it in any form of media. Like you said NO ONE takes the time to notice how the vast majority of us REALLY live. It's like if you're not a swinging Sex in the City gal or a perfect Martha Stewart-esque wife and mom, you don't exist.

Like you, I attribute it at least as much to consumerism as I do to sexism. But I do think it's giving people false ideas about how much has been accomplished by the women's movement and how far we need to go.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

50. Believe it or not, Japanese TV is more realistic in that respect

American TV doesn't show much of blue collar anything, not just women.

When Japanese TV portrays different social classes (which it does more often than American TV), it portrays them as they are. Perhaps this is because Japan doesn't have a lot of spare land for building movie studios and has to use actual locations more than U.S. TV does.

There's a mystery anthology series called Tuesday Suspense Theater, which has about six or eight recurring main characters, as well as stand-alone dramas. The recurring main characters include a cab driver, an older woman who works for an agency that places temporary household help, and a low-level local reporter for a national newspaper. Even in the other series, which feature cops or detectives, the crimes often take place in a working class or lower middle class setting, not in a gritty Law and Order way, but in the sense that the crimes happen to or are committed by very ordinary people.

I also see more realism in the mystery series that BBCAmerica shows on Monday nights.

One film that really showed the difference between American and European attitudes was an East German film I saw about twenty years ago. The main character was a middle-aged divorced woman raising a teen-age son and wondering where to proceed in her affair with a married man. This woman not only lived a very ordinary, unglamorous life but was actually overweight by Hollywood standards, i.e, normal looking for her age.

[raccoon]

55. Great post.

I've noticed in about the last 25 years more and more wealthy protagonists on TV, in movies, in novels, etc. At least they are upper middle class.

And a corresponding dearth of lower income protagonists I could relate to better.

[noamnety]

10. Grace under Fire

Working class all the way, and just a normal intelligent, hard working woman who didn't look like a barbie doll.

[Hello_Kitty]

13. Thats another one but it's not on anymore. n/t

[OldLeftieLawyer]

11. Are you kidding?

"Alice"

"Cagney and Lacey"

"All In The Family"

"Archie Bunker's Place"

"Taxi"

"The Honeymooners"

"Cheers"

"WKRP In Cincinnati"

"Roseanne"

"Baywatch" (like it or not, lifeguards are not high-powered jobs)

The "Prime Suspect" series with Helen Mirren

"Hill Street Blues"

"NYPD Blue"

"Mary Tyler Moore Show"

"Kate and Allie"

"One Day At A Time"

[Heddi]

12. Wow! What an impressive list of modern shows

The most recent show on your list is Baywatch, which hasn't been on the air in...8 years?

Every other one is way old and most aren't even shown in syndication anymore.

And re: Baywatch. Yes, lifeguarding isn't a high-powered job, but I guess I can do without an hour-a-week devoted to silicone body parts jiggling in front of the camera.

How does WKRP show real life working women? Certainly you're not referring to Loni Anderson's character...sex vixen, office 'peice-of-ass', tight shirts & shorts.

Please excuse me while I guffaw at your barely relevant list of "real women" in the media.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

15. Oh

You wanted "modern" shows. I had no idea. Mea culpa, then, and I'm glad I was able to entertain you.

Maybe the kinds of shows whose absences you lament aren't on because the demographics aren't there? After all, it's a business. Write a show that's interesting, compelling, entertaining and meaningful about the kind of woman or women you want, and make it happen. That's a real positive start, I think.

But, most of those shows are still on, in syndication. And if you don't like how Loni Anderson's character dressed, when she was just a high-school graduate working girl in a lowly office job, I'd say you're being rather intolerant of how a sister chooses to present herself. I see women who look like that every day.

"Baywatch" is a great show. Pretty people running around looking beautiful, and not a viable story line in sight. Nothing wrong with eye candy, that's what I think.

I honestly don't watch all that much TV. Having written for the medium, I know there are better forms of entertainment - books, for one.

[Heddi]

20. Well I suppose the same could be said for racial minorities

very few shows in the Prime Time lineup feature black families, or Asian families, or people with physical disabilities.

Does that mean that they're not in the 'demographic' being attended to? Of course they are. Black people shop at the stores advertised during commercials just as people with physical handicaps buy products advertised and showcased on different shows.

To say "the demographics aren't there" is, imo, a very convenient way to say "You're not important enough to be featured."

The demographics ARE there. The majority of people in this country AREN'T absurdly wealthy, absurdly beautiful, and lead absurdly perfect lives. But according to you, they must be, otherwise they'd be featured on television.

I suppose that no black people existed in America prior to Amos and Andy being shown on television, right? "The demographics aren't there," you say. Otherwise, had there been black people in America prior to the 1950's, we'd have seen them on television in starring roles and playing things other than porters or maids :eyes:


The choices out there make it very difficult for anyone to choose to see anything other than what is presented to us. As far as your attempt to be condesending (Write a show that's interesting,....), it's laughable at best. Surely, being someone who's written for the medium, you're quite aware that just having a good show with compelling characters isn't ALL that's needed to produce a widely distributed, prime-time television show, right? Or a non-independent, non-movie-house motion picture, right? But to you, oh! it's just as easy as picking up a pen, jotting a few characters, and voila! You've got a show that comes on 3x's a week, 9pm, and wins Emmy after Emmy.

I'm not sure why you're so quick to dismiss those of us who see inequality not just on television, but in movies, in music, in advertising, in reporting, in clothing, and try to bring these issues to the front burner. If these aren't issues you care about (which it seems to me, based on your posts, that you don't, or at least not to the level that others of us in this community do), then why do you care what WE think? Why are you so quick to always jump in and show us silly children the errors of our ways...that we should just accept the status-quo, accept that every image of a woman shown is one of unobtainable beauty, wealth, body type, and life?

Well I'm not going to accept it, and I find it quite telling that you are more than willing to.


Have you even READ the mission statement of this group?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

21. You're absolutely correct

That is exactly what "demographics" means.

There's no comparing the concept of entertainment v. demographics. No common ground, except for the profit factor, and the truth is that the profits are from the pockets of the younger age groups.

I think it's unfortunate that you find my suggestion condescending. There's nothing I can say to that. The suggestion was made in good faith. I'm sorry it was not taken the same way.

As a woman who worked for years in the man's world of television writing, I was simply trying to contribute whatever small information I had, perhaps making the situation posited a bit easier to understand by someone not in the industry.

I can see that I failed, that it was taken as some kind of "condescending" and personal attack upon people I do not know. I regret that, and I am confused by it.

You do seem to dislike me and what I try to offer a great deal.

I don't know you and I don't understand why my opinions might be worth less than yours. I have lived a life where women stuck together and exchanged everything we had and tried to understand and keep moving forward. If that doesn't honor your "mission statement," I don't know what does.

[Hello_Kitty]

23. You honestly don't think you're condescending?

Read some of your posts to others and put yourself in their place.

How would you perceive it?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

24. As intended

I take posts as I read them, for the content there. I cannot know what is in another's mind, and that's what I would have to know if I were to attribute other characteristics to the post or the poster.

My experiences have been different than yours, I suspect, so we approach a message board with different perspectives. To me, the message is what I find interesting.

If you take my posts as some sort of personal affront to you - and I do not know you, so I don't know why you would think that - then perhaps you should not read my posts.

As for the subject at hand, the matter of ordinary people, working-class people, people like so many Americans not being portrayed in a "realistic" manner by the media, I can speak somewhat for the television and movie industries and say that there's not much that's entertaining about poverty and the business is entertainment.

There are, though, some terrific documentaries that have been done about different areas in the country where poverty abounds. Appalachia - which is home to me - is one of the places that's been extensively documented, to prize-winning effect.

As for publishing, there was a remarkable book out a few years ago - http://tinyurl.com/9ybla - that you've probably read. I had my own thoughts on the project, but it did manage to open some eyes. Not enough, alas, in today's world, but some.

To repeat, if you are offended by my posts, I would urge you to ignore them. Above all, we have free speech. Above all, we have choice.

[Hello_Kitty]

31. I did read that book

I was also thinking about a poster on this thread (too lazy to find the post) who said that she watched TV for entertainment most of the time because she didn't make a lot of money and couldn't afford much else. This is true for a lot of low income people, I'm pretty sure (but again I'm too lazy to look up the stats online - perhaps later).

Anyway, if a disproportionate amount of poor people are watching hours on end of TV programming featuring disproportionately affluent characters is it any wonder that a lot of them don't vote at all or vote for Republicans? Seriously. Roseanne was really quite unusual for it's era because a lot of the storylines dealt with the family's struggle to keep it's head above water in the wake of plant closures, layoffs, and other economic catastrophes that are part of the fabric of so many lives in America. Bill Clinton won when that show was on. I don't know how much of a connection there is but it makes me wonder.

And what do we have now? If you're a minimum wage worker scraping by, you collapse on the couch to watch The Apprentice which is utter Horatio Alger bullshit to me but you might believe it and internalize that there's something wrong with you for being poor, not even realizing that you are fucked by the economic policies that favor Donald Trump. Ditto American Idol, Top Model, and various and sundry makeover shows, extreme and otherwise. Yes, it's about dollar signs and ad revenue but I think there's some serious and insidious propaganda going on too.

I just think we should call them on it. That's all.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

32. Escapism

If people are watching TV to learn something, there are channels for that.

If they're poor, there are libraries.

If they're watching TV to be entertained, I do not believe that they want to see people scraping to pay bills and somehow get through the week. That's not entertainment.

It's called "escapism." That's what people want to see when they're tired or worn out or just feel like watching TV. They want to be entertained and taken out of their own existences, which might be dreary and difficult.

One of the great things about TV is that there's an "On-Off" switch. I think there are far more insidious influences on our world than TV.

Call them on it, then. I suggested someone here write a script that would be something she'd like to watch. She did not receive that suggestion well, and, in fact, somehow wandered into winning an Emmy territory. If you don't like the stuff you see on TV, get about doing something to change it. Getting angry is a great start, but if you don't get busy, you're missing a grand opportunity.

I'd never have gone to law school if I'd listened to the people who told me women didn't belong there.

You don't have to be rich or poor or anything to watch tv. People of all sorts do it. If you take your social, self-esteem, and sociological cues from mass media, then I think that's a whole different area.

[lukasahero]

41. So where do dramas fit in your entertainment-only theory?

It's not like poor people aren't represented on TV, it's just that they're usually the criminals.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

47. I don't understand your question, sorry

Dramas are entertainment, if that's what you're asking.

[lukasahero]

49. But earlier you said "there's not much that's entertaining about poverty"

Dramas, as "entertainment", portray poverty - they just also suggest that the impoverished are the criminals. Is poverty only entertaining if it serves up the "bad guys"?

[Heddi]

27. To the contrary, I don't dislike you at all

I don't know you, therefore it's impossible for me to either like or dislike you.

However, I find your posts condescending when it comes to issues that OTHER WOMEN besides yourself find interesting, infuriating, or whatever.

I find that whenever sexist laguage is discussed, you seem to be dismissive of those of us who take offense. You've used the words like 'uber PC' and "pretending to be offended when they hardly are" when discussing women with whose views you disagree.

I think that's condescending and I'm sorry if you can't see it as being so.

I don't dislike you. I dislike the message you send continuously: Any woman who is offended by blatant sexism and mysogony is 'uber PC'. That we often pretend to be offended when we're not offended, but just want to promote an agenda. That we just need to 'go with the flow' and accept it.

Sorry, but I'm not buying it.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

28. So,

my experiences, my opinions, my conclusions, and my way of expressing those things is condescending.

You dislike the message I send "continuously."

You quote me as using the phrase "uber PC" to refer to "any woman who is offended by blatant sexism and mysogony." I don't know what "mysogony" is, but if I have used that phrase to address "any woman" in that situation, I would like very much to see that post.

You claim that I have stated (if I am reading your words correctly) that some women "often pretend to be offended when we're not offended, but just want to promote an agenda." I would like to know where you found those words of mine, since they do not strike me as anything I have ever posted or even believed.

You claim that my message is that someone should 'go with the flow and accept it."

If I have posted such heinous screeds, no wonder you would find my opinions and thoughts unworthy.

I look forward to seeing the posts you cite, since the allegations you make about me, in the sixth decade of my life, after I have spent all those years advancing the role of women and raising two daughters to do the same, are quite troubling.

So, let's clean this up, because not understanding each other is a tragedy that does not need to happen.

[Heddi]

33. I knew you would ask to see such posts

They were recently made in the lounge in 2 threads that are now deleted. They cannot be brought up, as they're not just locked, but gone.

Since I cannot substantiate what I say I know I saw written in a message under your handle, I will withdraw those statments since they cannot be proven or disproven other than "I said" "You said". Since it cannot be shown that you've made such comments, I will refrain from ever bringing them up again, however, my distaste for those comments remains--perhaps someone logged in under your account and wrote such hideous things?

I don't find your opinions unworthy in the least. I just feel that in this thread and others, you seem to make off the cuff remarks to people who view things in the media differently than you do.

You responded in this thread (a thread about realistic portrayals of working women in a realistic setting) by offering a slew of TV shows that have been off the air for quite some time, and even then still had a mysogonistic tone to some of them.

You dismiss Baywatch as "eye candy," a completely derogatory term. Can't you see THAT is the issue? That women, no matter if on television or at a grocery store, should not be defined in terms like 'eye candy'. We are not here for the sexual pleasure of every creature with a penis. You offer Baywatch, as if that show, filled with bikini models with plastic body parts, overly sexualized and cast JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE LARGE BREASTS, shows strong women in real life roles. Again--THAT IS PART OF THE PROBLEM that is being discussed in this thread and others throughout this forum: We (women) are held to a high standard (Pam Anderson) who, by your own admission, is "eye candy." Standards that no woman without HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS Of dollars of plastic surgery could attain. But this is supposed to be an uplifiting example of strong women in the workforce who've made it on their own instead of appealing to basic male instincts of sex sex sex.

If you at least can't see why that would be offensive, can you at least understand why others (including myself) chuckle sadly when you include not only dated examples of "strong women", but freaking BAYWATCH??? Come on....

---
I know it's hard to "debate" in the virtual world. You can't hear my tone or any chuckles I make. You can't see the smile on my face as I say something intended to be sarcastic--something that someone talking next to me would pick up on and understand. Equally, I can't hear your tone, your emotion, stressing of certain words or others.

I appologize if I came across too harshly with some of the things I've said--I'm sure I have come across too harshly.

However, all we can go by are the words written by others to see. If you don't mean something as being condescending, then I understand that. However, understand that *I* felt it was a brush off, something sweet to make a crying baby hush, ya know.

I am passionate about the blatant (and not so blatant) mysogony and sexisim that is just SO pervasive in our society. I think that it's so blatant because people of my generation (I'm only 29) don't really know the struggles that our mothers & grandmothers & grandmothers before them went through so that people like me could go to college for whatever I wanted to go to college for, so that I could have completely unfettered access to the contraceptions of my choice, so that I can vote and drive and work in a profession of my choosing.

I go to school with alot of very naieve, very uneducated women. They feel that everything (with regards to women's roles) has always been that way, and never will chance. That our station in life is set, and can only get better--which it CAN but not when disgressions go unchecked. They think that Margaret Sanger was just some woman who did something worthy enough to gain her a paragraph in a US History text book (if even a paragraph or a mention).

My mother taught me early on that I was living in a world where I was going to be persuaded to be kept down, kept in my place, and limited in my experiences. She told me the things SHE had to go through as a woman growing up in the 60's and 70's, and the things my Grandmothe went through the generation before, and that my great grandmother went through during the 20's and 30's.

I understand the struggles---far too many of my age (and younger) don't. They don't grasp the gravity of the situation.

So when I get upset over Baywatch, is it because there are no larger fish to fry? Hardly (there are so many fish to fry that I have neither the freezer or oven space for even 1% of them). But I get upset because of the tacit approval that "hey, it's okay...it's just some tits on TV," and that young women who haven't learned their history are getting the message that THAT IS ALL YOU ARE--TITS TO BE OOGLED.

I don't claim offence when I'm not offended. However, I can see something disgusting or not right, and while not personally offended, STILL do something to at least clean up the gutter that we, nationally, live in.

If it's not Sexisim, it's racism, or xenophobia...we live in a society that treats anyone who is different in a horrible way. Perhaps we don't lynch Blacks anymore, but we certainly hand them stereotype after stereotype in movies, TV, magazines, music, news, etc. The same for muslims, the same for Native Americans, and the same for women. If I see a transgression against someone, I will fight for it, even if I don't 'personally' have a dog in the fight. Although, I also feel that a transgression against one is a transgression against us all, and that we cheapen ourselves as a society when we allow young girls to grow into women with severe eating disorders because the only images that they're presented with are of small waist, big boobs, tight butt, and silicone lips. That's unhealthy physically, mentally, and physiologically.

SOrry for the long post...I don't want there to be misunderstandings. I've learned a great deal from DU in the past 4 years, and I fully intend to keep that trend going.

[spooky3]

34. great post, thanks, Heddi!

[OldLeftieLawyer]

35. You do not come across as harsh

You do come across quite differently from harsh.

You addressed nothing about which I inquired, and stated that your response to those alleged posts is that your "distaste ... remains."

Then you make the strange hypothesis that perhaps someone using my account logged on and made the alleged comments you can neither verify nor produce.

So, what I have is your "distaste" remaining, and your fine memory which cannot be substantiated.

That you would behave in such a manner towards a woman who simply stated her thoughts here is inexcusable.

Your behavior negates sisterhood and hurts another woman because of something you imagined and yet are determined to hold on to.

That you would strike such an imperious and specious pose as to maintain that your "distaste .. remains," even though such allegations as you made are nothing but your own imaginings is to invoke my pity for you. I feel very sorry for you, and I do hope life will be gentle with you and give you good things.

All those words, and nothing you said took responsibility. That is the very sin for which so many posts here seek to have others answer, and yet you feel free to write such false and meanspirited things to me, when all I did was to voice my thoughts.

Harsh? No. That is not the word. Not even close.

[Heddi]

36. I feel this, again, is a wasted effort

I feel it's apparent you didn't read past the first few lines of my post. I think that's a shame because I did take responsiblity for things I have said that perhaps were misinterpreted.

I still stand behind what I saw in a thread, posted by you. But I can't back it up because the thread in which that post was made is gone. Kaput. No more.

Perhaps what I read (typed under your handle) was an attempt to be sarcastic, but without the sarcasm tag. Perhaps it was misread, misinterpreted. We'll never know, because the entire exchange (which was in the Lounge, about 2 weeks ago, and dealt (in part) with the Feminists Forum) is gone. It was not only locked by admin, but deleted as well.

In fact, the more I read your post, the more it becomes evident that you read not a single word of what I wrote. Things I wrote so that perhaps you could see where *I* am coming from, and why I react to the things on this board that I react to. Why I felt that your list of "strong women role models" wasn't exactly a utopian list.

But that was all for naught.

If you had read further (which it seems you didn't), I did apologize. Should I get on the floor and grovel in your presence as well? Please, let me know what I should do and I'll be more than happy to do it. To say "all those words, and nothing you said took responsiblity." What, exactly, am I to take responsibility for? What am I responsible for? FOr misinterpreting what you said? Oh the horror! As if that's never been done before.

For calling your tone in previous posts condescending? Well that seems to be a major slight upon your ego, yet you can hash out critical words to others without a thought.

Please, I am dying to know---what do I need to take responsibility for?

I await with baited breath.

[lukasahero]

44. Regarding "you seem to be dismissive of those of us who take offense"

I suspect that this post might be a fair representative of why Heddi, among others, feels that way.

"Jesus, some of you babes really have your heads up your butts with this manbashing crap. Get over it, and quit whining."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3847201#3847709

BTW, making fun of someone over a typo or spelling error? I'm pretty sure that's the very definition of condescension (from www.dictionary.com: con·de·scen·sion - Patronizingly superior behavior or attitude)

[Hello_Kitty]

46. Yowza!

Usually it's a man saying that, to which I'd respond that him using the term "manbashing" renders him the whiner. "You're BASHING me!! Waaaah!!"

In this case, I don't know what the point is. Is it supposed to be tough love, or maybe an attempt on her part to curry favor with male DUers? Either way, it's dripping with condescension and just plain rude.

[Hello_Kitty]

22. Sometimes people who post on this site

Are just as bad as the most rabid freeper when it comes to worshipping at the altar of the Almighty Market. If it makes money, nothing we can do about it, gotta accept it. That's the antithesis of what we're supposed to stand for here, whether it's in this group or anywhere else in the DU community.

And just because one particular formula makes money, doesn't mean that no other one will. But the the strategy of the entertainment and news industries in the past few decades has been largely one of replication and redundancy. If a sitcom, reality show, movie, or cable news format is even modestly successful - with such a plethora of cable and satellite channels the audience share that I Love Lucy enjoyed in it's time would be impossible today - producers immediately generate copycats. The result is that there are literally thousands of programs within a few predictable categories that are virtually indistinguishable from each other.

I don't watch a lot of TV and most of what I watch is news, C-SPAN, or HBO. On my rare ventures into the network schlock fray, I'm astonished by how quickly it affects my self-image, despite the fact that I'm far more conscious of the manipulation than the average viewr. The average American watches several hours of TV a day and it makes it very difficult to convince them that race, gender, and class inequities persist or that they are voting for Repukes against their own best interests when images of people who "have it all" are all they see.

[Finder]

25. "it affects my self-image"

I think this may be the problem. I think I and a few others cannot imagine how media and such can possibly affect self-image especially when aware of it. Being feminists we should be immune.

I tried to discuss this in my post about seeing a pattern, but...

If the media is affecting you personally--stop watching, reading etc and work to change it.

[Heddi]

26. I found this to be the case myself as well

I don't have the ideal body image by any means. Perhaps centuries ago when women were expected to have breasts, and hips, and a nice jiggly belly...but certainly not today.

I don't read those Hollywood-as-Normal magazines like People, Us, etc.

However last year, I got a job in a cancer research facility. I would draw blood from women who were participating in studies geared towards finding early detection for breast and ovarian cancer. As it was, I spent inordinate amounts of my time in the waiting room of Dr's offices, waiting for the study participants to finish with their mammograms so that I could do 'my thing' with them.

Because I spent so much time in the Dr's offices, I was...not forced (because I did have a choice), but rather, relegated to reading these tripe weekly magazines that feature Starlets and their recent flings, Man-Stars and their recent divorces.

Shortly after taking the job, I found that I was much more critical of myself than I had been in the past. I suddenly knew what the "in" handbag was this week (the $700 one that both Madonna AND some other people are seen with). I suddenly became aware of my own body and how it in no way measured up to the standards of beauty and perfection that filled 120 glossy, colour-filled pages.

I found myself being more critical of myself and my body when I looked in the mirror. I plucked my ne'er plucked eyebrows much more frequently than I had. I shaved my legs with such scruitny to catch every hair.

I was unhappy and I didn't know why.

A few months after taking the job, I took a week off for a long-planned vacation, and wasn't around the magazines and messages and how to look great in a swimsuit and what watch *YOU* need to have to complement your summer wardrobe.

While I was away, I had a feeling of absolute freedom. I wasn't scruitinizng my body, I wasn't feeling dumpy because my clothes were old and ill-fitting.

I realized that my self-criticism came directly from being around those horrendous magazines day after day, hour after hour, week after week. When I returned to work the following week, I didn't read the magazines---I brought books or my own non-fashion magazines to read instead.

I don't think being a feminist makes you immune to being affected by the message sent out by 'the media.' It's human nature that makes us affected, and if we weren't affected, the magazines wouldn't be printed, the ads wouldn't be sold, and the products wouldn't be created. These magazines aren't magazines--they're 120 pages of clever marketing. Whether marketing a product, a person, or an idea. It's marketing, and it works. I know it works because it started to affect ME after such a short time.

I don't watch television save for the occasional news program or prime-time fluff to get my mind off of my 8-hour days spent in school. I watch alot of PBS documentaries (Frontline, POV, etc). I watch alot of independent movies. I like to think I'm immune to the persuasions and messages being sent, but I'm not. Or i'm immune when I'm not influenced by them.

I guess the key is to somehow convince my mind NOT to be influenced by them. It's hard, tho, when you realize that every message being sent by non-PBS documentary-type-entertainment is incredibly degrading to women AND men AND children who don't fit the perfect stereotype that they push and push and push.

[Hello_Kitty]

30. I wish I were immune!

Gawd that would solve so many of my problems! But you're right about limiting exposure to the media. I find when I do that I'm much more content and balanced, and get more done to boot.

And there's definitely hope on the horizon. Feminists, myself included, have been creating our own media in addition to voicing our opposition the established industry. We're doing it right here on this site and the numerous other woman-positive sites and 'zines. We do it by making and supporting feminist themed movies, plays, art, books, and music. It's working too. That's why there's so much vitriol toward things like "The Vagina Monologues" by right wingers and sexists. Women and men who don't yet identify as feminists are starting to get it. When a guy I work with, a regular Joe, tells me that he worries about the effect that sexist images on MTV have on his daughters I know something's getting through.

But 2 steps forward one step back is how it seems to go.

[lukasahero]

42. "Being feminists we should be immune."

So should 8, 10 and 12 year olds be immune? The problem is that this stuff hits women when they're young and it gets embedded in their system.

Am I aware now and relatively immune? Sure. Was I when I was 18 and starving myself to death? Not hardly. Was I when I was 25 and found myself in an abusive relationship? Well, how do you think I became aware?

The problem, however, isn't mine alone and I am working to "change it" by first identifying what "it" is and then trying to come up with possible solutions. Solutions that don't just fix the problem for me but for the multitudes of young women who are too vulnerable to protect their own self-image from the social and cultural bombardment that defines their worth by their looks.

That is, by the way, the mission of this group - not to dismiss these concerns but to address them. Telling people to just ignore it ("if the media is affecting you personally--stop watching") isn't the answer - in fact, it sounds pretty dismissive of the issue and the women here who consider it an issue. (A rather direct violation of the group rules, btw, but I'm curious to see if you really are interested in brainstorming real solutions or just want to tell people here to get over it). Perhaps a constructive suggestion as to how one might go about "changing it" would better meet the goals of this group?

[Finder]

43. I agree, we must discuss how to change it....

and I feel we have to know what the cause is rather than just calling it sexism. In an earlier thread for example, we were discussing gender wage gaps and by trying to identify and discuss one of the reasons I was piled on. I have been working with women for over 20 years in business to stomp discrimination but many parts of the problem need to be addressed especially since many of the business owners today are women. The only thing I suggest ignoring or "getting over" is self-defeating attitudes that give up thinking we can't win. Low self-esteem is something we all can change with the support of others who see more to us as individuals than the size of our boobs or waistline or label on the clothes.

I agree with you as far as younger girls especially being vulnerable but you know what---if they see their less than perfect mothers, aunts, sisters being happy and successful regardless of their looks, weight, economics, then they will see the media crap for what it is.

[lukasahero]

52. I would like to agree that seeing "their less than perfect mothers" etc

would be enough to demonstrate to the younger women that they are worth more than their looks but I'm not that optimistic. (And trust me, I tend to be hopelessly optimistic as a rule. :))

The reason I guess I don't believe that it's enough is because it doesn't seem to be working - why are eating disorders, cosmetic surgery and fad diets so much more prevelant today ever before? Women are more successful, more powerful, more visibly accomplished now but the self-image problems of young women are far more pronounced. And the media/culture/social drone of "you're only as good as you look" is more aggressive than ever.

What makes it worse, more pervasive and insidious, is that more and more "liberals/progressives" are repeating the rhetoric so some of these young women think it's ok.

Of course, it's also debatable how happy these role models we speak of are because alot of them still buy the bs and/or are more confused than ever - they've done everything they were told to do - became independent, succeeded in a "man's world", yadayadayada - but they're still vilified in the work place, in politics and, yes, in the media. ("What a bitch", "she needs to get laid", "I'd do her".) Hard to be a happy role model when you're still dealing with the crap yourself.

In fact, I wonder if that's part of why the young women are buying the bs - they've seen their mothers, aunts and sisters be successful - they just haven't seen them happy.

[Finder]

53. Good points...

and I agree there are many who are successful but may not be happy. I would argue that there are many happy yet unsuccessful(in other's eyes)women as well. Success is in the eye of the beholder.

As far as your comment--"The reason I guess I don't believe that it's enough is because it doesn't seem to be working - why are eating disorders, cosmetic surgery and fad diets so much more prevelant today ever before?"

Eating disorders are psychological or physiological in nature. Vanity is vanity and will never go away. Fad diets are just that--a fad. Also, today there is more of a focus in the media(pro and con)on the above and lots of snake oil salespeople out there offering pills and potions and cool diets with all the fav foods allowed, etc--It is all free market stuff and I agree, we need to call them out for it and educate others.

Perspective is important too. It is inevitable there will be those who see the glass half empty and others who see it half full.

I wanted to be a doctor as a child and was given a nurse's kit. Now, young girls who want to be doctors are given books and encouragement--I see that as progress.

[lukasahero]

54. Yes, the situation has improved but it has a long way to go

I do see progress but I also see that progress being challenged now more than ever before - by all sides. And I believe that it is in serious jeopardy at this point in time.

I think your point that "Now, young girls who want to be doctors are given books and encouragement" while true to a degree (and appreciated for the progress it shows) should be ammended to "Now, some young girls who want to be doctors are given books and encouragement until they get to college or into the workplace where they are rewarded for their efforts by having to work twice as hard to get recognition while dealing with sexist behaviors and values all the while trying to live up to some ridiculous superwoman standard."

It would be lovely to believe that we aren't teaching our young women all the same old stuff we ourselves were taught once upon a time, but we are and the media is at least partially responsible for that teaching.

[Hello_Kitty]

48. "Get over it"...... Aaargh!!

How I hate that! I say to these people: NO! I'm not fucking getting over it!! How about you getting the fuck out of this thread with your bullying!! Trolling assholes, that's all they are no matter how high their post count is. And I call them trolls and get deleted but whatever. I'm still gonna call them what they are.

BTW, this is a general comment, not directed at the post you're responding to, and not directed at any one person in particular. I find it necessary to say that because most troll bullies on this site are remarkably thin-skinned and quick to complain that they are being personally attacked.

Personally, if I see a thread started where whose premise I think is silly and insignificant, I don't bother posting on it. It's that simple. What would be the point of my getting in there just to dismiss what they're saying?

[Hello_Kitty]

14. None of them are on anymore

They were all popular too. So it's not like the formula doesn't work. But like other posters said, those shows weren't good venues for product placement like most of what passes for entertainment (and news) now. Working stiffs, male or female, just aren't good walking advertisements like the pretty people on "the OC" or "Desperate Housewives".

[OldLeftieLawyer]

16. I think

that's why it's called "entertainment," and, by definition, is escapist. I mean, "Rosanne" worked because she was so over-the-top, and people who never knew anyone of that particular class were vastly entertained by her uniqueness. It didn't work because Rosanne and Dan didn't have college degrees or high-powered jobs - it worked because of Rosanne Barr's caustic and brilliant wit.

Product placement? That's funny. Someone's truly watching too much TV. Check the tv-viewing demographics, and guess what? The people you'd like to see in TV shows aren't the people to whom the shows are now aired. There's a new generation, and the "working girls" are, I guess, not relevant any more.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[chicaloca]

29. How the hell can you think for one SECOND....

that you're not being condescending?

Product placement? That's funny. Someone's truly watching too much TV. Check the tv-viewing demographics, and guess what? The people you'd like to see in TV shows aren't the people to whom the shows are now aired. There's a new generation, and the "working girls" are, I guess, not relevant any more.

ccbombs posts a very polite response to your anti-working-class tripe, and you respond with this? "Someone's truly watching too much TV?" How the fuck do you know that? Are you stalking her? The subject of your first post on this thread also reads, "Are you kidding?" This phrase, in case you haven't been around humans for a while, implies that the original poster is stupid, that you can't possibly believe that somebody would be so stupid as to not realize that there are all these 10-30 year old shows which feature working class people! Haha! What a joke the original poster is!

You also call another poster "intolerant" simply because she doesn't like Loni Anderson being portrayed as an object, a piece of ass, not even really human, just there to look at. Well, maybe the poster wouldn't be so pissed about that portrayal if THERE WERE ANY OTHER FUCKING PORTRAYALS OF WOMEN IN ENTERTAINMENT. But no. Always, ALWAYS, we're portrayed as a piece of ass, a pretty THING to masturbate into. I think you know perfectly well how stupid it is to act like pretty, scantily clad women like Anderson are in any danger of disappearing from TV. You say you take offense at Heddi's attitude toward Anderson's character because you see women who look like her every day. Well, guess what? I see a lot of women every day who DON'T look like Anderson, or like anybody portrayed on TV, movies or magazines. How the hell do you think they feel? Furthermore, did you ever think of what the pretty women you see every day go through in order to get that way? Did you ever wonder how much they have to exercise, how much money they spend on gym memberships, makeup, nice hair and skin products, salon trips and clothing? I think if you read Heddi's post on her days in poverty, you'll realize that the portrayal of Anderson as a beautiful working-class girl was anything but realistic. Most working-class women don't have the time or money to mold themselves into our society's fascist idea of beauty; the perfectly coiffed women you see who look like her most likely aren't working class. I see this all the time in my neighborhood, which has a high number of poor Native Americans. I've noticed that their skin tends to either be breaking out or have a lot of large pock marks that are obviously from past breakouts. Somehow, I doubt that Native Americans are any more susceptible to acne than any other race. Rather, my neighbors don't have the money for Clinique skin care, for chemical peels and collagen injections in their scars. Yet people on the street turn their noses up at them and don't hire them, largely in part because of how they look, because they've been taught by the media that people who aren't "beautiful" on the outside also aren't beautiful on the inside. It probably also doesn't help that the media refuses to acknowledge that Native Americans even exist. They don't count to the entertainment industry because people like you think they won't turn a profit, but I frankly don't give a shit about the industry's profit margins. Their attitude hurts people, it feeds racism, classism, sexism, eating disorders, and it's WRONG.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

37. We live in different worlds

In my world, discussion is measured and thoughtful, polite and considered.

Like I taught my daughters, calling names is not allowed.

When a point is to be made, it's important to be careful with words and thoughts, and to think before you write or speak.

I do my best. I regret that my best does not meet your standards. I regret that our worlds are so different, our perspectives so disparate.

I regret that this would be a place where a woman's opinions and thoughts are not welcome, but get called "tripe." I regret that such inflammatory and condemning language, the very same sort of limiting word usage that sexists use to keep women down, would be your instrument of choice.

Anger is a great motivator. I hope yours will enable you to get out there and do great things. I have done a few things in my life. I hope you're even more fortunate and that it will be easier for you, because, you see, I'm probably old enough to be your mother, perhaps your grandmother, and I am one of those women who did everything we could to make things available to women that were never there for us before we batted down those walls, thanks to Affirmative Action.

What I am grateful for is that the women I know who have come after us have been diligent and considerate and tough and hard-working and thoughtful and informed and aware of how much they have to do to keep things getting better for our gender.

I am so proud to have been part of that movement, and we did none of it with the kind of generalized rage and rudeness you exhibited in your post. I am so proud of us and what we did, and I'm very, very proud of how we did it.

[Hello_Kitty]

38. Okay

What's with this sudden, almost concilliatory tone, when in many posts I've seen of yours it's right wing rhetoric than I'd more likely expect out of Michelle Malkin than someone who calls herself "Old Leftie" anything. I'm expecting "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" to come out of you just about anytime now.

Oh, you "regret" that your opinions don't get the reverent respect you feel they deserve, despite the fact that you trivialized mine with "You've got to be kidding" and "Someone must be watching too much TV"?

"What I am grateful for is that the women I know who have come after us have been diligent and considerate and tough and hard-working and thoughtful and informed and aware of how much they have to do to keep things getting better for our gender."

Didja ever think that maybe the current generation of feminists is every bit as diligent, considerate, tough, hard-working, thoughtful, informed, and aware of how much they have to do to make things better for our gender as you and your peers were back in the day? That maybe we know what we're doing here with respect to things like body image, date rape, and depictions of women in entertainment, topics which I've seen you dismiss and disparage in more than one post on this and other forums in DU?

Respectfully, I submit that as a woman in your 60s, you don't contend as much with the pressures we younger women face today with those things. You've moved on to other things and I look forward to the day when that will be the case for me. But right now this stuff is important to us, as evidenced by the posts in this thread. So could you perhaps demonstrate the sort of measured, thoughtful, polite, and considered responses to our discussion that you are bemoaning the supposed lack of to yours? Thanks.

[chicaloca]

45. well, I'm sorry...

that you think I don't have a right to be angry about the racism and misogyny in the world, and I'm not going to treat you any differently just because you're a woman. If I don't like what you have to say, I'll say it, and if my response is "rude" it's only because you've shown the same attitude to women here. I'm sorry, but having been raped by one guy, beaten by my dad and emotionally abused by tons of men in my life doesn't exactly make me want to play nice on issues that hurt women, and it pisses me off to no end that you think it's okay to deny another woman her anger. Bullying women into keeping quiet and nice is a tactic of right-wingers and the men's rights movement, and accusing me of being "rude" when you've done the same yourself isn't going to make me shut up, much as you'd love to see that.

[Hello_Kitty]

39. Once again

Making the "I'm not worthy" bow.

You have nailed the situation in a succinct and spot-on manner that I could not hope to emulate.

You know, we could stop watching TV, reading fashion magazines, and avoid all forms of misogynistic pornography for the rest of our lives. But we'd still have to deal with bosses, co-workers, relatives, friends, and family members who are heavily influenced by it. And at least we have the education and enlightenment to put the bullshit into perspective that many of our less fortunate sisters, like the women in your community, don't. So why do we get a ration of shit from people who are supposed to be on our side when we try to point it out and criticize it? I don't get it. I really don't.

[Finder]

40. Lack of perspective, perhaps...?

We are all on the same side but we are all individuals as well. We criticize our opponents for being ditto heads yet don't you see that shutting out alternative views makes us look the same? A few in the group see any perspective that differs as threatening--that is sad. Advice to "less fortunate sisters" is seen as being condescending or insulting. The women's liberation movement did liberate us legally but that doesn't mean equality drops in our lap--we need to take it sometimes. The glass ceiling does exist, misogynism is alive and well and we still have a lot of work to do in society, however, cutting off members in our body/group does harm.

Pointing out and criticizing is only the first step and sometimes a little stealth is required to change behavior.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

51. I'm seeing the "we're only giving people what they want" excuse

Was there a groundswell of public demand for WWF wrestling before it was on?

Was there a groundswell of demand for "reality" shows before they were on?

Was there a groundswell of demand for celebrity poker (the true sign of the coming apocalypse, televised card table kibbitzing) before it was on?

Was there a groundswell of demand to turn the Discovery Channel into nearly back-to-back DIY? To turn the History Channel into the Hitler Channel? To turn A&E from a showcase for British and Australian dramas and cultural programming into a true crime channel? To turn the Travel Channel into the Las Vegas hype channel? To turn Bravo from a foreign film channel into the celebrity poker plus West Wing reruns channel? To program BBCAmerica almost entirely with DIY shows and Benny Hill reruns except on Monday nights?

These days, the only worthwhile programming is on digital cable, and even there, the quality is starting to drop.

Every once in a while, I get into these "must drop cable entirely and go to prerecorded programming" moods, but I get my Internet service (and, by extension, my Vonage phone service) through the cable company, and it's really good.

[Finder]

17. I don't watch TV but here are a few...

Friends, Just about every show on WB, Drew Carey show, Law and order(all versions), Lifetime series(many working class women portrayed).

Regardless, sitcoms etc develop characters that the audience can relate to as well as those that are stereotyped for entertainment purposes. I think the setting for many sitcoms is important as well. Shows like Sex in the City are as much about the setting as they are the characters.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bobbieinok]

56. for ca 4 years I watched many soaps ....... very few women were

working class; if working class, they worked in cafes or bars

and the ones who supposedly were lived in very nice places

and the women doctors, lawyers, etc were rarely shown doing their job....they maybe were in hospitals or offices but were freaking out over their love life or the life or death situations of friends or relatives