web
counter
 

Rocking Out Without Your Boobs Out: In Praise Of TV's Non-Sexualized Female Characters

By Joanna Robinson | Posted Under Think Pieces | Comments (102)



MagsSarah.jpg

If you’ve ever read something I’ve written, you know I have a great respect for the female bosom. But, my love for boobs aside, there is a distressing trend on television when it comes to female characters in positions of power. On the one hand, since, say, the 1970s and early 80s, there has been an upswing in the number of female characters in what used to be considered a “man’s” field. Female bosses, female detectives, female doctors. On the other hand, more often than not, these highly respected and competent women are hyper-sexualized either in their actions (seriously, how do the women on “Grey’s Anatomy” have time to practice medicine?) or their appearance. When it comes to appearance, I find whatever crack monkeys they have running the FOX costume department to be the worst offenders. I thought the ladies on “House” had it rough (nice suit, Dr. Cuddy, is that, jacket, perhaps, a wee bit small?) until I saw what those drug addled primates cooked up for Dr. Saroyan on “Bones.” If you don’t watch the show (don’t blame you), Dr. Saroyan (played by the lovely Tamara Taylor) is the head of the Forensics Division at the fictional “Jeffersonian Institute.” (“Jeffersonian” is “no duh” code for “Smithsonian.”) So, she’s kind of a big deal. The character has always favored tight skirts and dresses and that’s fine but please feast your eyes on what they have her wearing this season. It has to be seen in motion to be believed.

My credulity is as strained as the buttons on her uniform. Is it possible that any woman that smart and that ambitious would choose to wear a glorified sausage casing? Sure, I suppose, but I’d prefer to think otherwise. But, listen, I honestly came here to praise television, not to bury it. And, in the words of Dan Savage, it gets better, ladies. In Detective Sarah Linden, the lead character on AMC’s compelling series “The Killing,” we have a character who is strong, better than her male counterpart and does it all in baggy sweaters, parkas and sensible boots (because it never. stops. raining.). Let me state for the record that actress Mireille Enos is staggeringly beautiful with gorgeous hair and a fairly mesmerizing mouth. But a woman can be attractive without being stuffed into something three sizes too small and, at any rate, the point of her character’s arc on “The Killing” has little to nothing to do with her sexuality. She has sex, she has complicated commitment issues, but most of all she is a damn fine detective and the show runners would never pull a Kate Beckett-in-a-bikini stunt with Linden. Similarly, can you picture her ever fluttering her eyelashes to get the job done? No, in fact, it’s the other lead detective, Stephen Holder (played with ferrety charm by Joel Kinnaman) who shamelessly (and creepily) flirts with young girls in order to get information and advance the case.

Stephen-Holder-Joel-Kinnaman-and-Sarah-Linden-Mireille-Eno-the-killing-19837960-760-535.jpeg

Enos’s Linden is fascinating in her quiet determination, but the female character that has garnered the most attention this season is Margo Martindale’s Mags Bennett on FX’s modern western “Justified.” In fact, I’ve heard a rumor that they’re thinking of renaming the Emmy for “Best Supporting Actress In a Drama Series” the “Margo Martindale Will Act Your Face Off And You Will Like It Award.” Mags is by turns charming and absolutely terrifying and as the head of what is essentially a crime family, she has not only her sons but also the entire county under her thumb. And, as far as I can tell, she does it all without ever once running a comb through her hair. Mags is a figure we all recognize, a genial mamma bear. But with a twist. And the best thing about “Justified” is that despite the bevy of beautiful babes that populate the show (Winona, Ava and Black Pike’s Carol Johnson) we all know who the real piece of meat on that show is, and he’s usually wearing a stetson. Honorable “Justified” mention goes to Erica Tazel as U.S. Marshall Rachel Brooks who, while underused, is nonetheless a very beautiful and kick ass member of the boy’s club.

Mags-Bennett.png

Am I saying this non-sexualized representation of powerful and interesting women is anything new? No, I’m certainly not. But, with apologies to Kima Greggs, Livia Soprano, Dana Scully and all the Golden Girls (barring Blanche), Mags Benett and Sarah Linden are the most compelling and multi-faceted I’ve ever seen. Is it possible for a woman to be sexy and intelligent and powerful? Oh h*ll yes. In fact, on “The Killing” the character of Gwen Eaton (played by Kristin Lehman) not only fits that description, but, I would argue, exploits the sexual hold she has on her boss in order to gain influence over him. Is hers an interesting story? Sure is. But I’ve heard it before. Isn’t it nice to hear something different for a change?

Joanna Robinson still likes boobs. This will never change. Swearsies. Email! Twitter!









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



7 Dudes Your Mom Totally Has a Crush On | Pajiba Dirty Talk: Happy Belated Mother's Day









Comments

It's not so much that I don't like boobs, it's that I don't want to deal with anyone else's.

Now to read.

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at May 11, 2011 4:10 PM

Joanna Robinson still likes boobs.

Good, I was starting to get worried.

The FCC should institute a new rule. For each tight skirt and woman in lingerie, there needs to be a shirtless Olyphant (or if you don't have the resources, a go vernment approved Olyphant stand in). We can call it the Winona's Butt-Raylan's Abs Act of 2011.

Posted by: Socrates_Johnson at May 11, 2011 4:11 PM

There's something frighteningly sexy about Patty Hewes and Ellen Parsons on Damages, though we don't see behind Patty's facade enough to see her much beyond ball-busting. We at least know that Rose Byrne gets to play sexy with The Olyphant and a few other guys, but for all her efforts to be Patty's equal, she seems pale in terms of ruthless competence next to Glenn Close.

Posted by: Jerry at May 11, 2011 4:12 PM

I've been a fan of Margo Martindale since her bit in Paris Je T'Aime. Easily the best segment and I've been looking for her since. Justified could easily be her show.

Posted by: pausner at May 11, 2011 4:13 PM

Whenever I see a character like Mags part of me is just so happy for the actress who gets to play such a wonderful part. The entire supporting cast of Justified is kind of like that - non-pretty actors getting to do their best actressin'.

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at May 11, 2011 4:16 PM

My roommate and I have been making fun of Cam's outfits on Bones for two years. She's gorgeous, and her clothes are awesome-for a night out. Not when you're digging through the remains of PEOPLE.

Posted by: Julie at May 11, 2011 4:17 PM

I will never forgive you for excluding Kima.

Posted by: the_wakeful at May 11, 2011 4:22 PM

I work in a lab and my good clothes are old khaki pants and polo shirts. You don't want to spend good money on nice dresses and end up getting bits of people on them.

Posted by: pxilated at May 11, 2011 4:26 PM

y'know, for a website that is supposed to be an entertainment/movie website, it seems really over run these days with articles that are objectified pictures of male actors, followed by enthusiastic cat-in-heat commentaries interspersed with critical articles bemoaning the big bad sexist unfairness of hollywood's treatment of women, plus the once a week article about the glory of women's sexuality and the annoyingness of men's. if the site was simply political about sexism, or gloried in it, that would be one thing, it's this having it both ways that has become repugnant.

between that, and mind numbing celebrity gossip(that pajiba used to poke fun at, but now wallows in, while still managing a smug condescending attitude), it really isn't the fun movie nerd site it was a couple of years ago. it's just become really tiring.

I'm only one reader, but represent a hell of a lot of "clicks" over the last couple of years. and I've had enough. sites like Io9, Den of Geek, Chud, etc. are fun movie sites. this site has become like the magazine rack at the grocery store. for all the talk about geek this week, this isn't a geek site, it's the love child of Entertainment Weekly and Cosmo.

Ciao

Posted by: idleprimate at May 11, 2011 4:27 PM

I am struck by the general office inappropriateness of a wholelotta 'professionally attired' ladies on the Tee Vee. Maybe I am out of touch for what passes for appropriate office attire, but the SUPER low cut tops and SUPER high/tight skirts seem a wee bit risque. I am pretty sure that "LOOK! I have BOOBIES!!" isn't the message the average corporate minded professional woman really wants to send. I am all for wicked cute shoes though. One's feet can NOT be too sexy. Nothing says "I am going to wipe up the boardroom with you" better than some snakeskin peep toed pumps. Maybe leopard, even.

Posted by: Lindsey with an 'e' at May 11, 2011 4:33 PM

Don't make promises you can't keep, idleprimate. Our poor hearts can't take it.

Posted by: I Need More Allowance at May 11, 2011 4:36 PM

@idleprimate: Meh.

The site's still entertaining as hell and JRob specifically has been a fun addition.

Posted by: Rob at May 11, 2011 4:41 PM

C'mon Courtney, her uniform is a smidge tight I admit but it's buttoned up to her chin. It's not like they got her in a tube top and hot pants.

Posted by: logan at May 11, 2011 4:42 PM

Mags is awesome and terrifying. Right until the end, you never knew what she had a mind to do to you. She's what Lena Headey's Cersei wishes she could be.

And while I am growing in my absolute dislike of just about every character in "The Killing" I can say that I don't think of Linden as a sexual creature at all. A mother, a detective, a person, but she seems to subvert all of that for her job.

Posted by: Fredo at May 11, 2011 4:44 PM

I loved Margo Martindale on The Riches, and I loved her more on Justified.

And I believe that's not supposed to be a uniform Dr. Saroyan is wearing -- it's a lab coat like everyone else in the scene has on, except she had it tailored 8 pounds ago and then got a matching skirt...which makes it even worse.

Posted by: Three-nineteen at May 11, 2011 4:46 PM

Sorry but like Gillian Anderson before her, Mireille Enos can't hide the sexy. I don't care how dowdy she dresses.

Posted by: John W at May 11, 2011 4:48 PM

Leslie Knope! She's my favorite. She's a professional woman, who wears pantsuits with pretty tops, and does her job well and not one little bit of her is sexualized. And yet she still -gasp!- goes on dates and seems to have an alright love life. AND, she's a fierce feminist and proud of it. She's the best.

Sorry to do this on your column, JoJo, but: Yes, please leave and never return, idleprimate. It will make Pajiba an infinitely better place.

Posted by: Figgy at May 11, 2011 4:49 PM

Jennifer Carpenter on Dexter.

Posted by: samantha t at May 11, 2011 4:50 PM

Figgy is too right. KNOPE! KNOPE! KNOPE!

Posted by: Optimus Rhyme at May 11, 2011 4:56 PM

@Figgy - I concur on Leslie Knope. She gets it done without being either a hag or a whore. She's just a person.

Posted by: FyreHaar at May 11, 2011 4:56 PM

@Socrates: Be warned, the current poor man's Olyphant is Josh Duhamel. Be careful what you ask for.

Posted by: Markus at May 11, 2011 4:56 PM

"Let me state for the record that actress Mireille Enos is staggeringly beautiful"

Uh, no she's not. I kinda like The Killing and Justified is decent enough but those two actresses are not examples of boobaliscious women. They are, however, very good characters.

Posted by: James S at May 11, 2011 5:02 PM

We get it: Joanna like boobs. And she feels the need to remind us of this in an article about not-sexualizing women.

Joanna, you are a very good writer with interesting ideas. Why do you feel the need to be in the boys' club and take your writing down to adolescent levels that tend to alienate sections of the female readership? It's nice that you appreciate (one type of) the female body, but what does it have to do with the mandate of this site? I'm sorry, but it reeks of desperation for acceptance by the guys.

I think your contribution to Pajiba has been good, but enough with the "I love boobs" declarations. Is that really what you want to define you as a professional writer? Is it really the most interesting thing you have to say? I realize your columns aren't very serious or critical, but it would be nice to read something new and not related to you personal body part preference.

(Oh, frustrated I really, truly wish you had left a real email address on this so I could respond directly because I think you make some interesting points and I appreciate the praise (however faint and damning), if you did want to email me directly, that would be lovely, but if not, that's fine, but I will mention that our site's name rhymes with vagina. It really does. That may or may not flavor the professionalism of my writing. Cheers!--JR)

Posted by: frustrated at May 11, 2011 5:04 PM

Posted by: Joanna Robinson at May 11, 2011 5:05 PM

Can we correct the title?

Technically it's Jam Out with Your Clam Out

Posted by: meh at May 11, 2011 5:31 PM

I'm sorry, but it reeks of desperation for acceptance by the guys.

Didn't we cover this yesterday?

Leslie Knope is a perfect example, figgy.

Posted by: Socrates_Johnson at May 11, 2011 5:38 PM

If you're threatened by frank talk about gender issues and feminism maybe you don't belong, but don't petulantly compare it to Cosmo and EW. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The reason I read Pajiba and spend a considerable amount of time and energy contributing through comments & discussion (and the occasional amateur book review) is precisely because of posts like this.

It's the internet, and this is not China. You can find pretty much whatever you want and most everything is free.

Pajiba is great because it defies expectations and refuses to be pigeonholed. Pajiba is great because the conversation goes pretty much wherever the writers & readers want to take it. The readers demonstrate intelligence and critical thinking but no one wants to take themselves too seriously. Thoughtful commentary sites side by side with immature humor and awesomely bad puns. In short, it's made up of the kind of people I would want to spend time with in real life.

So yes, we can have a serious discussion about the many bad examples and the few good examples of female characters wearing sensible, realistic clothing and what that says about society. We can also admire and post photographic evidence of a nice chest, be it attached to Salma Hayek or the guy who plays Thor. We can tackle issues like rape culture and film marketing or white privileged and have honest and open (occasionally heated) conversations that I seriously doubt many other web sites could sustain.

If you've got better things to do then by all means do them. Don't let us stop you. But what in god's name is there to complain about when a group of smart people hang out online and talk about shit.

Posted by: Yossarian at May 11, 2011 6:11 PM

Oh yeah, and they've got movie reviews, too.

Posted by: Yossarian at May 11, 2011 6:11 PM

Yes, please leave and never return, idleprimate. It will make Pajiba an infinitely better place.

Wow, really? I've enjoyed idleprimate's posts and I consider him/her a valuable member of the peanut gallery here. Pajiba's loss.

Posted by: snapnhiss at May 11, 2011 6:13 PM

What Yossarian said, but I've enjoyed idleprimate's poo-flinging in the past, so I'll be sorry if he really goes.

What about Mariska Hargitay? Regardless, Leslie Knope is perfect.

Posted by: RobP at May 11, 2011 6:18 PM

Yeah, you guys are pretty much hypocrites about this whole thing; I really can't take anything you say seriously.

I also think you're idiots because you feel that women can't be sexual and still be in positions of power or authority with it being objectifying. Like poor Cam, whom you tease. She's a smart, respected, sexy woman who doesn't take crap from the childish antics of her co-workers...and all you can say is she can't be taken seriously because her dress is too tight.

Don't you see, it is YOU who are the heretic.

Posted by: Salad_Is_Murder at May 11, 2011 6:22 PM

Hey, he's the one who's "had enough". I'm just helping him along.

Also: Leslie Knope forevah.

Posted by: Figgy at May 11, 2011 6:27 PM

Salad, you do realize Cam isn't a real person, right? I'm worried that you might not understand that. You know she's a fictional character created by a man but clothed, alas, by a woman?

Posted by: Forever Jung at May 11, 2011 6:41 PM

I think the point is that characters like Cam are the norm. Most women on television are super sexy and in tight clothes, and we have to strain to think of characters who don't fit that type.

Posted by: Socrates_Johnson at May 11, 2011 6:47 PM

Jennifer Carpenter on Dexter.

Yeah, isn't it great how they didn't debut her character as an undercover whore in a bikini and heels?

Posted by: SaBrina at May 11, 2011 6:49 PM

I'm frankly confused both by this article *and* by the comments.

Firstly, Joanna likes boobs. This is well established. I am also an (ostensibly) straight girl who likes boobs. I don't think either one of us like boobs because we want to be in the boys' club. (WTH??)

Furthermore, isn't Joanna, in this article, saying she likes the female characters where the boobs *aren't* hanging out all the time? Like Detective Linden on The Killing? Still, though, I'm unclear: does she want the powerful female characters to be more sexy or less sexy? Is she just saying it's dumb to make their clothes really tight in an attempt to make them sexy when all that really does is make them look uncomfortable (as in Cam on Bones)? That's what I think I'm getting from this article, but I'm not really sure.

Now, there are tons of articles that are strictly "fluff" and "ogle fests" here on Pajiba, and there are usually comments complaining, which I don't think are entirely undeserved. (Although I like the puff pieces just as well as the serious articles.) But this article is an actual piece with thoughts n'stuff. And it's very much non-ogly. None of those pictures above are particularly ogle-rrific. So the complaints here seem mis-placed. Are you sure you're not just grumpy about puff Pajiba articles in general and choosing to take it out on Joanna's article today?

Posted by: MM at May 11, 2011 6:50 PM

Sometimes when I read this site I feel like I literally need to wash the excess estrogen off my skin that has somehow splattered all over me.

Posted by: superasente at May 11, 2011 7:01 PM

superasente, I think the grown up word for that is "cooties."

Posted by: coveredinbees at May 11, 2011 7:03 PM

I'd just like to see more female characters in *normal* clothes, whether they look sexy or not. If being wealthy and fashionable is part of the characterization, okay, fine. But so many women on TV look hyper-styled even when it doesn't make sense for their characters. It is refreshing to see a gal with sensible shoes and a ponytail every once in a while.

Posted by: T at May 11, 2011 7:04 PM

We're getting more of these awesome non-over-sexualized female characters on the Tee-Vee, but there's a "disturbing trend" toward the over-done eye-candy?

Nope. Can't have it both ways. Maybe disturbing but the trend is apparently in the other direction. How about let's cheer for the increasing craft and courage to go with female characters that aren't overly, oddly sexualized, even in a medium that rewards exactly that?

Mags caught you thinking this off-square, she'd have you marked in an instant. And boobs wouldn't save you.

Posted by: BierceAmbrose at May 11, 2011 7:47 PM

I'm with Yossarian. I come here for the thoughtful articles as well as the silly fluff, because I consider myself a reasonably intelligent person who doesn't take everything seriously all the damn time, and I enjoy reading the words of like-minded folks.
It's a friggin' entertainment site, people. Get over yourself and learn to have a little fun every once in a while, jeez.

Posted by: Jessie at May 11, 2011 7:52 PM

Mireille Enos might be "staggeringly beautiful" in RL (*might* being the operative word, to me she looks like a porn version of Julianne Moore) but her character looks like a slob, I wouldn't be surprised if in the next episode she showed up in rollers and wearing sweatpants.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at May 11, 2011 7:53 PM

So...are we trying to say that we sexualize the women of television and not the men?

Right, let me remember that the next time I see some dude with insane abs grace my television screen.

I mean, you're screaming for more demure strong female leads while at the same time declaring the need for a more shirtless Olyphant. I'll agree with the hypocrite comments.

Posted by: DeistBrawler at May 11, 2011 8:00 PM

I love Pajiba. Sure, I don't always read everything here, but if I don't care for something, I just don't read it. That said, I ain't goin' nowhere! JRob is a great addition.

Mags is the SHIT....Margo Martindale was the only one who could follow the amazing Walton Goggins from last season. But, I kinda hope they bring back Carol Johnson next season.

Posted by: dammitjanet at May 11, 2011 8:30 PM

As far as the tits and hypocrisy debate goes, I'm pretty sure Joanna has a nice rack and that's good enough for me. I'm more disturbed by how she seems to put Mireille Enos in the same acting category as
Margo Martindale. I have a problem with that. Margo flows as Mags she IS that momma bear (or your favorite aunt) the other one just waddles around like she just walked out of a Wal-Mart with a constipated look on her face. That's not acting, people.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at May 11, 2011 8:43 PM

Idleprimate, I want to respond to your inital post first. I agree entirely that this web-site is some-what hypocritical when it comes to sexism. It's okay to objectify men, but women's issues somehow are worth more serious attention. It's as if the assumption is that men have thicker skin. Or have it coming somehow. This tone of this website has either failed to integrate, or has willfully ignored the core tennent of feminism: that men and women are equal and deserve equal treatment (I should point out that Joanna individually grasps this concept wonderfully, and exemplifies feminism perfectly -- she discusses gal-related issues with a fair, intelligent tone that has a coy sense of humor -- and it's only within the larger tonal context of the whole site that it becomes a problem). For every picture of Jon Hamm that's dripping with female ejaculate, we should get a picture of Natalie Portman's ass. And we don't. And heaven forbid we ask for it. The hypocracy is there; it's just ignored by most.

For what it's worth, Idleprimate, I enjoy your contribution. You're a voice of dissention -- let's not mince words. But it's a voice that is dearly needed here. Oftentimes that voice of dissention highlights some hypocracy or iniquity, and I appreciate that. Some people take this site way to seriously. It is just a website. It's not of crucial import. It shouldn't define the way we feel about things (though we shouldn't resist being open to some new idea). It shouldn't monopolize our attention. It should be the page you flip to between the web-sites that align more to your interests (for me, it's ComicsAlliance) or those designed purely for entertainment (theChive).

And, as Yossarian so eloquently put it (as always), it should be a place where we can enjoy intelligent discourse with other like-minded individuals. That's why I keep coming back. Not for the gossip, which I detest. Not for the movie reviews (seriously, Dan the offer to blow you is still on the table). Not even for Pajiba Love, the highlight of my day for over three years. For this. For this exact conversation.

Oh, and Rowles: That you have allowed your contributors (former or current) to tell the readership that they are not welcome -- you should be ashamed that happens here. You purport to host a site of inclusion, sir. Whether you agree or not, many will see Figgy's comment as the voice of Pajiba in general.

Posted by: superasente at May 11, 2011 8:48 PM

"Not for the movie reviews (seriously, Dan the offer to blow you is still on the table)..."

Wait, what?

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at May 11, 2011 9:02 PM

Here's the most striking thing to me about the case of Cam on Bones: Over the course of her tenure on the series, as her clothes have gotten tighter and shorter and (sometimes, though not in the example above) lower cut, she's gotten a little less ...well, a little less Cam: not less smart, per se, but more dependent on the others for answers sometimes; not less strong, per se, but less likely to have storylines that require her to have that strength that she previously had. Similarly, Bones herself has gotten goofier and more emotional and more familiar with pop-culture (which was a HUGE part of her character the first couple of seasons), and while her "office" clothes haven't changed that much, we have more episodes of her outside of the lab in "dress-up" clothes. And sadly, rather than giving the characters added dimension, it's flattened them out a little bit.

I'm ignoring the rest of this mess (the comments, JoRo, not you, SugarPie).

Posted by: Anna von Beav at May 11, 2011 9:14 PM

Really, fellas? Do we really feel like these uppity broads are trying to have their cake and eat it, too? Has this site ever been intolerant of admiring the female form? Is this not a place where pretty much anything goes from the sexually suggestive to the downright lewd? If there is a marked disparity in the ratio of shirtless Hamms to Portman asses I honestly haven't noticed. Now, there might be more male objectification on this site than your average movie blog, but I think that is a move toward equity (and possibly another good conversation topic if you aren't to sensitive to hear it out) and not an offense to our delicate male modesty.

Nobody is saying that we sexualize the women of television and not the men, what they are saying is that we sexualize the women of television more than the men. Simple thought experiment: It's not too difficult to think of examples of male characters on television who are sexualized, but when we think about women we try to think of examples of women who aren't sexualized, because that is the exception. Female characters in film and television rarely get to be a simple well-rounded person. The default is to be defined as sex object or love interest. The Bechdel test doesn't mean we should never watch movies without at least two female characters who talk to each other about something other than a guy, it just means that we should stop and think sometimes about why that rule even makes sense, and how ridiculous it is to even consider that question with the gender reversed.

It's not supposed to be threatening and it's not meant to cast blame or to lay the responsibility for this fucked up world at the feet of male oppressors., All we are doing is taking a critical look at our popular culture. No one is writing a manifesto or declaring war on the sexualizaion of women. What some people are mistaking for hypocrisy or lack of professionalism is simply the female writers (and readers) attempting to present a well-rounded and complex portrayal of being concerned with feminist issues while still wanting to exist and enjoy themselves in the real world.

And that's the key, guys. That's the only way it's going to work. You can't live in the extremes of hardcore porn and rape culture on one side, burkas and slut shaming on the other. We have to live in a world where I can enjoy women and still encourage my daughter to grow up and be one. That means balance, perspective, critical thinking, and moderation. That means have fun, but be smart. That means enjoy life, but question things. That means people like us having conversations like this maybe even learning something from each other.

Posted by: Yossarian at May 11, 2011 10:26 PM

What's this about superasente blowing Dan?

Posted by: Snuggiepants at May 11, 2011 10:28 PM

OK, there's your sanctimonious Yossarian perspective post. Let the healing begin. Let's hug it out.

Idle Primate, if you're still reading, for what it's worth I think you are a great addition to to this site. There are a lot of comments that I enjoy or that make me laugh, but it's more rare to actually learn something down here. You bring the knowledge on many occasions. That would certainly be missed.


And in case anyone missed the memo it is the unofficial Feminazi Week here on Pajiba so you're going to have to tough out the higher than normal estrogen count for a couple more days while we talk about chick stuff. Maybe C. Rob or Tracer can give us a sports post to go hang out in until it passes. Or a SRL of favorite ass shapes.

(Fear not, gentle readers, tomorrow is the last day of Unofficial Feminazi Week here on Pajiba. For feminazis, Friday is a day of rest. We will then return you to your regularly scheduled programming of boobs and ass shapes and puns.--JR)

Posted by: Yossarian at May 11, 2011 10:37 PM

Maybe it's because Dan is always so cranky.

Maybe superasente is going to take one for the team so that the next highly anticipated critical favorite can get a fair shake from Mr. Carlson.

Posted by: Yossarian at May 11, 2011 10:41 PM

I'll just pipe in, again, to say I agree with Yossarian. Duh-doy.

And, I'm pretty sure Dan punches his own dick when he watches some movies. That's what I assumed the fellatio was in reference to. I guess "cranky" works, as well.

Posted by: RobP at May 11, 2011 10:48 PM

Posted by: Yossarian at May 11, 2011 10:26 PM

This is exactly why I reload the page before I spend time writing responses. Someone typically finds a better way to say it, albeit less succinctly (kidding, of course). I call it The Yossarian Corollary.

Posted by: branded at May 11, 2011 10:51 PM

I would hang out in a sports post.

Posted by: Snuggiepants at May 11, 2011 10:57 PM

Yossarian, no one is saying that the objectification of men is offensive to our delicate sensibilities. No one is saying it's threatening (honestly, I don't know where you're getting this stuff). We're saying that women receive more delicate treatment on this site, and men are treated more casually.

This site recently had an article "Ugliest Hot Dudes" or something to that effect. It had a list of sexy men who weren't traditionally attractive. It was a cool article. Fun. The next day, rather than posting a list of "Ugliest Hot Chicks" there was a post about how we shouldn't be focusing on womens' looks so much. That is was propagating the flaws in Hollywood. Pajiba would not be doing a list of "Ugliest Hot Chicks" because Pajiba wasn't going to be part of the problem. That was also a cool article.

But that's not equality. By offering women preferential treatment we do more to hinder than help. It coddles women. It says, "This just isn't right -- because they're girls." Feminism would have been saying, "We know this is wrong but we're going to do it anyway because the list we did for the dudes was so fun and we want to have that much fun again today." Equality.

This is just one example, but it's a recurring theme throughout the site. We're amused with repeated lasciviousness towards sexy men while simultaneously decrying the exact same treatment of women. It's hypocrisy. If anything offends, it's this.

Posted by: superasente at May 12, 2011 12:03 AM

superasente, I think you are putting way too much emphasis on equality at the expense of accepting reality. While it is a goal of feminism to make things more equitable and correct some of the more egregious disparities that does not mean that we give up any need for sensitivity or acknowledgements of differences between the sexes.

As a privileged young white American male with a college degree I feel pretty confident in saying that the way I am perceived in the world is not the same way I would be perceived if you changed any one of those variables. Especially gender. The whole point of having these posts this week is to gain an appreciation for that fact. Focusing on equality as if that is the goal and we are already capable of it is naive. The point of feminist cultural criticism (as I see it) is primarily to gain a better understanding of how and why things are different.

Women are portrayed differently in film and television. There are fewer complex female characters and fewer roles that do not primarily or secondarily emphasize a character as being sexual and glamorous. This, in turn, shapes our cultural assumptions and expectations. It's something worth discussing. It doesn't mean we can't ever have sexy powerful female characters, it just means we should stop and question what we are consuming if that's all we ever see and exercise a little critical thinking.

And I think you are way off base by saying this sensitivity coddles women or hinders them in some way. Honestly, if there's one thing that Pajiba women aren't, it's mollified. They can dish it out and take it in equal measure, the picture of class or of crass, objectifying either sex and commenting intelligently on the cultural implications thereof. If anything, Pajiba is a site where women aren't marginalized or browbeaten into conformity. I really don't see an imbalance or a shouting down of anything as a result, except maybe "torture porn" and the I Spit on Your Grave remake, but even then there was plenty of open discussion.

Maybe I just honestly don't get it. You don't want to be accused of feeling threatened or over sensitive, OK, well then what is it? Is there something you really want to see here that you think won't make it past the censors? Is there a male point of view that you think is being crowded out (it's not Christina Hendricks gifs or Sarah Jessica Parker jokes, although we could probably do without the later).

If you just don't think it's fair that Figgy can objectify Don Draper and Thor while still complaining that there aren't more female characters like Leslie Knope, well, I think you are missing the point. There's nothing wrong with questioning sexism in our society while still giving voice to your own sexuality. That is not hypocrisy. If you don't feel like engaging the issues then ignore them quietly but if you are going to be dismissive and question the legitimacy of the topic expect to be challenged on it.

Posted by: Yossarian at May 12, 2011 1:19 AM

I agree with the critiques of Joanna's writing. I have boobs, I like boobs, they're cool. That doesn't mean I need to mention it every post, or mention it at all actually. What is the point? It isn't new, or interesting, or funny. What it does is get men to pay attention to otherwise mediocre writing. It's pandering and it's lazy. Girls, talking about how much you love your boobs when there is no context for it and when we're outside of the bedroom makes me think you lack anything substantive to say and for god's sake WE GET IT ALREADY.

Posted by: stump at May 12, 2011 1:54 AM

You're reaching, Robinson. There's nothing wrong with what Dr. Saroyan is wearing.

Yes, I'm an occasional "Bones" watcher. I think Emily is the hot Deschanel. So sue me/fuck you.

Posted by: , at May 12, 2011 1:56 AM

Yossarian,

Wait, what? I thought you were black.

Why did I think that?

Posted by: , at May 12, 2011 1:57 AM

Holy shit, these people aren't real!? I thought they were magic midgets parading in a large plastic box for my amusement!

Thanks for setting me straight on that one.

Posted by: Salad_Is_Murder at May 12, 2011 2:10 AM

I agree with all Yossarian said. I could not have said it better.

Posted by: Ranting Raven at May 12, 2011 2:32 AM

The Emmys screwed over Katey Sagal's searing performance in season 2 of Sons of Anarchy, they screwed over Walton Goggins for Justified last year, I'm sure they will continue that trend and snub Margo Martindale as well. Let's face it, the Emmys don't like FX.

Posted by: TylerDFC at May 12, 2011 6:14 AM

"In Praise of tv's non-sexualized characters"

Margo Martindale? Really not a good example for this column. Me thinks putting her in a teddy and a thong would not lure the male viewers in. She really has no place to go but "interesting female character"

Sara Sidle and Sophia the cop! No boobs, just brains.

Now if the producers would dress the rest of their CSI's more job appropriate. I'm talking to you Catherine Willows and Natalia BoaVista,

Posted by: kirbyjay at May 12, 2011 6:23 AM

Factoid: Marg Helgenberger's only contribution to the CSI franchise was to harangue and whine consistently to the producers so they would let her character dress like a slut. This happened at the end of season one.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at May 12, 2011 7:01 AM

What the Fuck!?!

What the hell has happened to you all today? Were you all this angry and obtuse before?

People worried about men: Stop! There is more of a focus on the sexualisation of female characters than of male. There is also undeniably more sexualisation of female characters.
But! There isn't a prohibition on admiring the female form (indeed some feel there is pandering going on). No one is saying that men are never objectified, they just aren't as bothered by the smaller amount, or at least not enough to write articles about it. This is primarily a movie site, so not the place for MRA philosophy, but it is the place to point out that all women on tv are almost exclusively 'hot' by some standard or other, and though there is pressure on all in the industry to conform to 'hot' there is far greater pressure on women, and it is much more possible to be a highly successful but 'ugly' male star.

People worried that the article is pandering: Shut the fuck up. It's a well known comedic device. People like sex. You criticise the over-sexualisation of characters, but include joking references to your love of boobs to emphasise that your argument is not anti-all sexualisation, or anti-boobs, but merely a criticism of how it's done, or how much it's done or whatever.

How the fuck don't you get that?

Posted by: Ender at May 12, 2011 7:02 AM

I've got no problem with the article and I happen to agree with it since I've frequently thought Cuddy and several of the female characters on Bones dressed like call girl parodies but I DO have to agree with idleprimate's comment that "...articles that are objectified pictures of male actors, followed by enthusiastic cat-in-heat commentaries..."

Man, that shit gets old. I'm female, I appreciate an interesting looking and/or handsome man as much as the rest of you but the simulated orgasms when Torchwood, Doctor Who or (usually) some other British show is discussed ruins the comment section for me. It stopped being cute a long time ago. Whip out your vibrator if you must but for god's sake, leave the rest of us out of it.

Posted by: snapnhiss at May 12, 2011 7:23 AM

If you don't feel like engaging the issues then ignore them quietly but if you are going to be dismissive and question the legitimacy of the topic expect to be challenged on it.
Yossarian, I appreciate the way you write, but I get tired of you putting words in my mouth. I clearly do feel like engaging the issue. I clearly have not been dismissive of yours or anyone else's position. We just don't agree. Comments like these tell me you're not listening; you're only slugging through our words to better plan your retort. Oh, and if you're implying that I shouldn't share my opinions on the subject in this forum -- should just "quietly ignore" what I see as an iniquity -- well, that sort of thing makes me wonder how snuggly your opinion might fit up your ass (I hope I speak for Idleprimate here as well).

I'll be the first to acknowledge and appreciate the difference in the sexes. I just don't think we should be focusing on those differences. We have way more in common and equality starts by focusing there. It's not that a woman should be paid the same amount as a man even though she might have a baby and have to leave work for several months. She should be paid the same because she is capable of doing the job just as well. It's not that women should be given more complex roles even though they have boobs; they should be given the roles because the real world is filled with just as many complex women as men. It's not the differences in the sexes that promotes equality; it's the similarities.

I understand there are differences in the way women are treated in TV and cinema. Just like any other field. And I think Joanna's recent articles have struck the right tone. It's not these articles with which I have a problem. It is the way these articles fit into the larger Pajiba umbrella that I, and others, are tired of. Yes, we all agree that women are poorly portrayed and often over-sexualized in Hollywood. You want to know how not to make that an ongoing problem? By treating other people -- any people, of either sex -- like pieces of meat. We talk a good game about promoting a better vision of women, but when it get's down to it, we have to present a responsible alternative.

Posted by: superasente at May 12, 2011 8:28 AM

Oy.

So....

Ladies be all sexay, yes?

OK. Yikes.

/backs out slowly

Posted by: Scully at May 12, 2011 8:32 AM

I don't know, I find myself agreeing with superasente. If we (women) dish it out, we better be able to take it, too.

Since I don't really care to see articles bashing women for their looks or slut-shaming, I think the answer is to not do the same to men.

Seems pretty simple to me.

Posted by: Snuggiepants at May 12, 2011 8:45 AM

I like turtles.

Posted by: Paultera at May 12, 2011 10:01 AM

Mariska Hargitay is the most beautiful breasts on television and is very beautiful. Perfect.

Posted by: Anon at May 12, 2011 10:30 AM

Does no one recall the annual Pajiba 10? Having our cake and eating it, too, is what this site is about.

@Paultera: Clearly, you're an maroon. Rabbits are so much better than turtles.

Posted by: RobP at May 12, 2011 10:35 AM

Turtles are condescending.

Posted by: Figgy at May 12, 2011 10:44 AM

I see your rabbits and raise you baby seals:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtxTW394L_4&feature=player_embedded

Everyone knows baby seals are the best.

Posted by: Scully at May 12, 2011 10:45 AM

, Yes. Emily is the hot Deschanel. The real issue on Bones that is way more damning than a booby wardrobe is the completely opaque product placement.

Posted by: LEROOOY at May 12, 2011 10:48 AM

Oh lord yes! The product placement on Bones has gotten completely out of control. It's not enough to simply point a camera at the car/phone/whatevs, but now they actually write dialogue for the product? Shameful. I don't know how this is effective. It makes me swear never to buy those products. And it's like that on Fringe as well. And on The Vamp... never mind. I don't watch that show. I swear.

Look over there! Pandas!

Posted by: Scully at May 12, 2011 10:56 AM

I don't generally contribute at length, I leave that to the men and stick to the quippery, but this kind of long form commentary is exactly why I read Pajiba. I look forward to learning what our overlords make of/do with it.

IdlePrimate's voice of rational contrarianism was, at the very least, consistently interesting.

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at May 12, 2011 11:40 AM

Mariska Hargitay, who plays Olivia Benson on SVU normally uses pants. But it has episodes that she appears in a dress. And then, my friend, you see the beautiful woman who is behind those clothes. She has a gene that fosters true. Jayne Mansfield's daughter Mariska is naturally sexy and beautiful. And breasts? ah! these are wonderful.

Posted by: Alex at May 12, 2011 12:07 PM

superasente

If I've been too heavy handed with my rhetoric I apologize. I'll stop putting words in your mouth and try to keep things open this time around. Feel free to clarify anything you want. I'll focus on my last paragraph which you seemed to take exception to but I think is kind of the crux of my whole argument:

If you just don't think it's fair that Figgy can objectify Don Draper and Thor while still complaining that there aren't more female characters like Leslie Knope, well, I think you are missing the point. There's nothing wrong with questioning sexism in our society while still giving voice to your own sexuality. That is not hypocrisy. If you don't feel like engaging the issues then ignore them quietly but if you are going to be dismissive and question the legitimacy of the topic expect to be challenged on it.

Ok, that closing line may have been a little snide and dismissive. If you really feel that there is a problem with hypocrisy and that the "lasciviousness towards sexy men while simultaneously decrying the exact same treatment of women" is an issue on Pajiba, you have every right to comment on that.

But as for the rest of what I said I stand by it 100%. I don't agree that promoting a better vision of women carries with it a responsibility to never undermine that vision by playing up their sexiness or to always promote that same standard for treatment of men. In fact, I would go so far as to say that attempts to hold women to this kind of standard is itself a form of oppression. Why can't we be critical of how sexuality and gender are portrayed in popular culture and still enjoy our sexuality and some of the finer examples of each gender?

You say "Joanna's recent articles have struck the right tone. It's not these articles with which I have a problem." And where you do have a problem is with "treating other people -- any people, of either sex -- like pieces of meat".

Do you think that being free to admire, appreciate, comment on and objectify people (for the most part in a healthy, open, and equal opportunity way) is counterproductive? Do you feel like oogling the man candy invalidates the feminism, or staking a claim to the feminism precludes the right to check out hunky dudes?

Our society has a lot of problems with the way we treat women (and minorities, and each other, and the environment, etc.- a LOT of problems) and to the extent that we are all part of society we are all, to various degrees, part of the problem. You can't live in this society without committing a million little hypocrisies every day. There is a complicity that all of us have and cannot avoid, not just us guys but the ladies too. Of course they dress pretty and bat their eyelashes and flirt. Of course they check out guys and judge us for our looks. Of course they make harsh judgements about other women based on how they look or carry themselves. They're human.

But the goal isn't to live a perfectly gender neutral existence, the goal is simply to survive in this society, make the best of your time, and maybe make some small contributions that make you and the people around you a little bit better. Toward that end I think that both the feminism discussions and the hot man objectifying are net positives, and more power to the men and women that comment in those threads. Throw in some bad puns, book recommendations, and the occasional movie review and you've got a pretty nice little community. Telling people in that community they can't have these really good thoughts if they have also have those perfectly ok and acceptable thoughts, too, is wrong. I also think that voicing that criticism on the post that addresses feminism as opposed to the posts that objectify men is a little suspect, but that's just my opinion.

We won't always agree- it would be boring if we did- and I'm not always right, even if I argue as though I am. But I don't like to see people calling out contributors to this site and trying to admonish them or shame them for having some harmless fun and still having the nerve to expect to be taken seriously when it comes to serious issues. (you can probably call me on a little hypocrisy there as well, but what can I say, I'm human).

Posted by: Yossarian at May 12, 2011 12:13 PM

Damn it, Yossarian. Some of us are trying to elevate this conversation by comparing the relative merits of creatures we adore...


To recap, we've got Turtles

Posted by: RobP at May 12, 2011 12:31 PM

Heh. That comment worked out to be kind of humorous, but apparently greaterthanlessthan symbols are not allowed? Here's what I meant:

Turles (are less than) Rabbits (are less than) Sea Otters (are less than) Pandas (are less than) Mariska Harigtay (are less than) ?


...this joke is not worth my time or my rising lack of shame...

Posted by: RobP at May 12, 2011 12:34 PM

Fuck it. Let's be hypocrites. I'm pro-life and in favor of the death penalty now.
I am... Cognitive Dissonance Man!

One fateful spring day our hero, Matthew Conor Asente, fatefully suffered an industrial accident in which he had his cake and ate it too, and as a result gained the fantastic powers of logic-avoidance. With his radioactive beams of mutually exclusive ideologies, he fights common sense and good will, and will cause your brain to EXPLODE!

Posted by: superasente at May 12, 2011 12:40 PM

So I should forgive Joanna's laziness because it's a comedic device? It is almost EVERY SINGLE POST SHE WRITES. I am sorry that the only way she knows how to make a delicate point about over sexualization is by yelling out "I love boobs!!!DKJDW" every chance she gets. It may be appropriate in some cases, but for christ's sake her doing this type of stuff every post IS pandering, not making a statement. It's hilarious you would even try to make this argument.

Posted by: stump at May 12, 2011 12:40 PM

My go-to example of how to write a not-blatantly sexualized female character is Kira from Star Trek DS9. Sure, she was very attractive and kitted out in impractical heels and bright lipstick, but her story arc was about a terrorist learning to live with peace, not sexy sex. Even when she had sex and was pregnant, it was made to fit with her character arc instead of changing it.
I think a lot of the problem with hypersexualization is lazy writers not knowing that there are things you can do with a female character than other than get her naked or pregnant. And just because Shonda Rimes is one of the worst offenders doesn't make hypersexualization any less sexist.

Posted by: Inaras at May 12, 2011 12:49 PM

I understand what you're saying, Yossarian. You're saying that both serious thoughts and goofy thoughts can co-exist. And I agree. Of course I agree.

I'm talking about an lack of editorial discretion. The posts on this (or any) web-site should not be random and disjointed. These fine articles are hidden in a dim fog of drooling sexuality. They're hard to actually take seriously because of all the other nonsense that goes on in other posts. By all means, let's take a serious look at sexuality. Let's be goofy (God, please let's be goofy). But let's try to hold ourselves to the same standard of decorum while doing both.

(For the record, the post I wrote immediately preceding this one was written before I read your response -- when I was trying to get back into the goofy spirit of...of turtles I guess. Seriously, fuck turtles.)

Posted by: superasente at May 12, 2011 12:53 PM

Cognitive Dissonance, existential dread, relativity and uncertainty- this is where I live, baby. It's the only way I can reconcile what I do, see, think, and feel on a daily basis.

The Rachel Weisz cleavage a few posts down pleases me (I might refrain from posting "nice rack" but I certainly do think it). The Wonder Woman cleavage a few posts up makes me despair and wish someone would kick David E. Kelley in the balls. The writing of Joanna Robinson makes perfect sense even though it is bursting with commas and apparent contradictions. The people who preach consistently for chastity and restraint don't make any fucking sense at all.

For me, trying to convince myself that I have all the answers is what causes my head to explode. Moral relativism is a coping mechanism.

Posted by: Yossarian at May 12, 2011 12:58 PM

oh damn you out of order posts! And your 12:40 PM was so damn topical for my preceding comments.

Posted by: Yossarian at May 12, 2011 1:00 PM

Baby elephants. Top that Mariska Hargitay!

You know what I love about this place? Everyone can agree to disagree and still treat the disagreers with respect and humor. Try that on other sites and you get

" You ignorant effin moron, go kill yourself"

Usually spelled wrong. Thank you for giving me a little faith in humanity.

Posted by: kirbyjay at May 12, 2011 1:03 PM

As for editorial discretion, I don't want to speak for the man but I think the site is random and disjointed because Dustin wants it to be both goofy and capable of serious discussion, because that's what most of us are like in real life.

I have no problem switching mental gears for the think pieces and the Dan Carlson reviews, and adjusting my expectations for the silliness of SRLs and Kate Hudson movies. I pretty much know what I'm in for when I open the post. I can skim the comments section and move along if it doesn't interest me. Sometimes it is just as funny to hear the women articulate their lust over Olyphant as it is to hear the guys rip into the latest Kevin James movie.

Other days I just do a quick search for Mrs. Julien comments because I don't have a lot of time and I just need the highlights.

Posted by: Yossarian at May 12, 2011 1:19 PM

Turtles are creepy.

Posted by: Anna von Beav at May 12, 2011 1:42 PM

Personally I'd LOVE to be sexually objectified.

Posted by: logan at May 12, 2011 1:46 PM

Oh yeah. The disjointed nature of Pajiba is part of it's charm. But y'know -- you still reap what you sew.

Posted by: superasente at May 12, 2011 1:51 PM

That wasn't meant to sound so preachy. I said that in the same tone someone would say, "Y'know, the easter bunny craps jelly beans."

Posted by: superasente at May 12, 2011 1:56 PM

You rip what you sew. You reap what you sow. Turtles are the Devil's doorstop. An argument leavened with humor is better than an argument poisoned with stiff necked righteousness. Adventureman is a prophet and a genius. I just cannot spell worth a damn. I come here for the interesting articles, the funny and often insightful commentary and the general lack of idiocy. I encourage the oogling of both men AND women in the public sphere. With the exception of Tom Arnold and Greta Van Sustren. I have my reasons people!

Posted by: Mrcreosote at May 12, 2011 2:55 PM

Mariska Hargitay is a dude.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at May 12, 2011 4:45 PM

Dang, I've been over on Dr Pisaster's piece all day getting flamed for being selfish and defending natural childbirth and home birth. I had no idea I'd been missing out on all of this. I guess I shouldn't judge a Think Piece by it's un-sexy header photo and JRob byline.

Oh, and if you want to see some highly inappropriate work clothes, check out Body of Proof before it's cancelled. That show is awesomely bad, but apparently it has a great wardrobe budget for the female characters played by Dana Delany and Jeri Ryan. I had no idea that coroners show up at murder investigations and perform autopsies in a satin skirt, with a Chanel purse and Louboutin 5" heels.

Posted by: Mrs Smith at May 12, 2011 5:27 PM

"So I should forgive Joanna's laziness because it's a comedic device? It is almost EVERY SINGLE POST SHE WRITES. I am sorry that the only way she knows how to make a delicate point about over sexualization is by yelling out "I love boobs!!!DKJDW" every chance she gets. It may be appropriate in some cases, but for christ's sake her doing this type of stuff every post IS pandering, not making a statement. It's hilarious you would even try to make this argument."

I don't think you know what the word hilarious means. If she's constantly writing about over-sexualisation then there's no reason she shouldn't consistently negate it either. Oversensitive prudes like you just focus on it too much. I've read and enjoyed all her columns, I also like boobs, I've barely noticed the references (perhaps because I understand comedy and what is being said) whereas you apparently find every instance very memorable.

Posted by: Ender at May 13, 2011 5:20 AM

I'm sorry but I actually worked at a branch of the Smithsonian and there are people in high-powered jobs who dress all sorts of ways--including what you would consider inappropriate. The director of this particular museum was quite the looker and wore outfits that might give Carrie Bradshaw a run for her money. No one questioned her judgement because she did her job. She is an amazing person. So, I think you have your own biases about what an intelligent and capable person should look/dress like.

Posted by: Sar at May 14, 2011 9:04 PM

Posted by: Lucy at May 16, 2011 9:03 AM

"AND, she's a fierce feminist and proud of it."

Tee hee isn't that the cutest little thing you ever saw? You go girl! I'd love to slap that little fanny for a job well done!

Posted by: Jack Storm at May 16, 2011 9:53 PM

Very awesome, some interesting arguments! I appreciate you making this article online, the rest of the site is also well done. Have a great day.

Posted by: Solid Color Tableware at June 7, 2011 6:28 PM