Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Television and the Gendered Narratives

Many times in television and movies, women characters exist not so much for their own edification but to facilitate the journey of the male character. It is unfortunate, but women characters are often less than fully formed. Many times, the men are the active, and the women are the reactive. In many situations, men know best; and all of these things are problems. I bring this up to answer this query:
So what's your opinion of House, M.D.? Cuddy, Cameron and Hadley (better known as Thirteen)all seem to be positive role models in terms of their professional careers, at least.
I love House, mostly the first 3 seasons. I haven't seen a lot of this current season, because everyone else in my house has given up on the guy and there are only two televisions - and I never get to use them singularly by product of being the one person in the house without a constant partner (there are some benefits to be a twin or married in the television acquisition department). House is well written; House is witty, and interesting, and doesn't try to make its characters saints or even sympathetic. Gregory House is an atheist - though as much as I love that I do wonder if characters like House are part of the PR problem, since House is also a bit of a dick. But that doesn't mean House is problem free; it has never been problem free. Cuddy may be in charge in theory, but that doesn't stop her from being, at times, as well constructed as a piece of tissue paper - or House from insulting her sexual history, her dress sense, her intelligence, and her life in general before almost always getting his way. It doesn't stop Cuddy from messing up the cases she does become involved in, like when her handyman fell off her roof. This isn't an issue unique to House, as my one of my favorite writers ever, Aaron Sorkin, has the same propensity for making men the smarter sex, and women the hapless creatures who need men's guidance:
Men Are from Mars — and Smarter: At least that’s the world according to Sorkin. A favorite plot device was to have one character explain a complicated political issue to another. It almost always was a Smart Man explaining to an Ignorant Woman: Sam explaining the census to CJ (who gushed about how smart he is); Josh explaining many, many things to Donna.
The same sort of instance has apparently reared its ugly head on House, in a more blatant and, for my money, stems from an even more privileged perspective:
The biggest issue with this whole plot development is just how much of who Hadley is and how she develops is based on a man and how he manipulates her. She made the choice not to disclose her sexuality in the workplace but the straight male had no problem with declaring that she was bisexual. Forget about her agency to choose how and to who her sexuality should become known, all that we need is a smart man to figure everyone out. When she goes on her “self-destruct” mission it is Foreman who partly comes to the rescue. He offers her placement in a drug treatment study and admonishes her on giving up. When he feels she is not participating in the study to his liking he breaks into her home and checks up on her medication. When she is having trouble dealing with a more advanced patient who brings back painful memories of her mother he forces her to deal with the situation. Finally, when the fact that she has a terminal disease makes her less willing to be in a relationship, he arranges for her to “see” how well one patient is doing on the treatment.
 That doesn't make it any less problematic for House, but it does make it more of a systemic failure than a House failure. And it doesn't stop me from watching and enjoying the show on its own merits. In many ways, House and many of the male characters are complex and are three-dimensional. The women are categorically less interesting; it feels like the writers don't know how to write women - which is a problem that Bryan Fuller also said he has, and thus writes women with guy names (like Chuck) in order to connect to the character more easily. I should mention that I was highly offended and almost gave up on Pushing Daisies and Bryan Fuller - and only didn't because I was at a screening of the show with a friend. And while I'm happy I didn't, because I love Pushing Daisies, I'm still disgruntled at that comment.

House is problematic in the way above, but also for the reason articulated by MaggieElizabeth, a poster at Television Without Pity:
Ninety percent of the time, the woman gets to be the normal one.
Sure, she's competent, she's tough, and she's strong -- but she's ordinary, and all the while she's surrounded by weird and unpredictable male characters with funny, charismatic personalities.
House is the eccentric; he's the genius, he's the mastermind, he's the guy who does not conform to society's standards and doesn't have to because he's so damn brilliant. Cuddy may have been the youngest Chief of Medicine around, but she is still nothing special when compared to Gregory House. This isn't House's problem, not really. I'm not advocating a world in which men are always the normal ones and women get to be the weird, charismatic unpredictable ones. Just like the problem with a movie isn't that it in particular can't pass the Bechdel Test, but that most don't. The problem isn't that Star Wars in particular doesn't have two women discussing something other than men; the problem is that a significant portion of the films made don't. The problem isn't that House is a surly misanthrope genius, but that there are a bevy of male characters in House's shoes and very few women. The problem with the genius man or the man with incredible gifts is that there is no counterbalance. The Pie Maker on Pushing Daisies with his power to wake the dead; Chuck from Chuck having the incredible ability to see and remember hundreds of data-encrypted pictures; House; Walter Bishop; the guy on The Mentalist; the guy on Lie to Me; the guy on The Eleventh Hour; the guy on Journeyman. The women who are on these shows are sometimes capable, sometimes not, but almost always ordinary as well.

There is the odd show, most often made by Joss Whedon, that has the opposite, where the normal character in question is a guy. Buffy the Vampire Slayer's eccentric characters or characters with phenomenal powers were mostly women; Buffy herself, obviously, but also Willow and Tara and even Dawn. Xander and Giles were the normal ones. On the spin off Angel, Angel had superhuman powers, due to being a vampire; but there was also Cordelia, who had visions, and Fred - who was not only a genius but also socially awkward from years of being sequestered in a hellish alternate dimension. Wesley remained normal throughout the show's run, and Gunn - though there was some mojo in the 5th season - also remained an average guy. Firefly had River as the extraordinary one. And some shows aren't made by Joss. Bones has Temperance Brennan as the eccentric super-genius, and Seeley Booth as the every man, the intelligent guy who is still, even without virtue of being compared to Brennan, ordinary. Battlestar Galactica has Starbuck as the best pilot, and the one having prophetic visions. But these shows (most of which are off the air) don't carry enough weight to strike a proper counterbalance to the overall spectrum of shows where the opposite is true. And that is the issue with most of these problems. On their own, a show with stronger male characters, or smarter male characters, is not inherently problematic. But when most shows employ that narrative, it becomes more so.

11 comments:

John said...

I think that Bones is a great counterbalance to House, and that they're two great tastes that taste great together (to blatantly steal a phrase.) Since House is a medical take on the Sherlock Holmes storytelling model, it makes sense that no one in the supporting cast (male or female) would be able to compete with him intellectually. I'd argue that Dr. Hadley was the smartest of the new doctors in Season 4, and only started to take a turn toward damsel-in-distress after the Huntington's subplot was introduced. She's still considered the intellectual equal of Doctors Taub and Kutner, but Foreman is seen as smarter than all three of them, presumably because he has more experience. When it comes to the fact that House revealed her bisexuality, I'd like to point out that he revealed dark secrets about each of the new doctors (for example, that Taub cheated on his wife.) In short, I would argue that the strata on House are fairly egalitarian: Taub, Kutner and Hadley on the lower tier; Foreman, Chase and Cameron on tier two; Cuddy and Wilson on tier three; and House reigning above them all (it is his show, after all.)

petpluto said...

"I think that Bones is a great counterbalance to House, and that they're two great tastes that taste great together (to blatantly steal a phrase.) Since House is a medical take on the Sherlock Holmes storytelling model, it makes sense that no one in the supporting cast (male or female) would be able to compete with him intellectually."

I agree; my real issue is that one counterbalance in a sea of skewedness in television doesn't really truly balance the scales. Like I said, House itself isn't the problem. It may make sense for no one to be as smart as House; but taking House separately from the grander television narrative means ignoring a large part of the status quo the show's got going on. Like I said, I don't want men to become the ordinary and women to not be, but one of my problems with House is that overall skewed perspective. It doesn't make me enjoy House any less; it just makes me sometimes roll my eyes at the "of course"ness of it all.

"I'd argue that Dr. Hadley was the smartest of the new doctors in Season 4, and only started to take a turn toward damsel-in-distress after the Huntington's subplot was introduced."

I would also argue that she had no real personality before the Huntington's was introduced. If you have a couple of days free, I'd suggest reading Sara M.'s House recaps on Television Without Pity (http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/show/house/) because she snarkily sums up many of my problems with the female characterization (or lack of it).

MediaMaven said...

Gregory House is an atheist - though as much as I love that I do wonder if characters like House are part of the PR problem, since House is also a bit of a dick.

How many other characters on TV are professed atheists? There are tons of secular (non-religious) characters on TV, but atheists themselves are rarely “out”. The only one I can think of now is Temperance Brennan.

Cuddy may be in charge in theory, but that doesn't stop her from being, at times, as well constructed as a piece of tissue paper - or House from insulting her sexual history, her dress sense, her intelligence, and her life in general before almost always getting his way. It doesn't stop Cuddy from messing up the cases she does become involved in, like when her handyman fell off her roof.

But this isn’t restricted to Cuddy. All the other cast members—Ducklings, Cottages—have at some point or another messed up cases (a patient died under Chase’s care, Kutner lit someone on fire [who I believed also died]; I’m sure even Wilson had his moments), and House insults everyone. Yes, his comments are dialed up several notches for Cuddy, but that’s not out of lack of respect, it's his way of interacting.

I read the posts you linked to, and I commented on Mizbecka’s. Unlike many others, I actually like 13, and I thought they gave her a good storyline; many fans felt that it just overtook the show in proportion to the other cast members, which is a valid complaint. While I am not a fan of how 13 was “outed”, it’s true to House’s character. My beef is that the 13 and Foreman relationship had no build-up; there was nothing to suggest in the show at all that these two characters had anything other than a working relationship. I no more saw either of them hooking up as I did any other combination of either character with other partners. That storyline was squeezed in for some sake of plot, and both characters didn’t need it.

MaggieElizabeth was one of my favorite TWoP posters, thanks for bringing her into the limelight (and reminding me that I need to follow her again!). She brings up an interesting point. As you know, I always had a problem relating to girls who just wanted to be “normal”; even now, I get annoyed when girls describe themselves as average. It’s like it’s an excuse to not be interesting, to just be one in a crowd. And while that has its place, when describing yourself you shouldn’t be average, you should have stuff that is unique to you.

I wonder, though, with regard to her point (I should probably post this on TWoP, btw), that maybe men are showcased as being the “surly” ones because they can get away with it. I know this isn’t fair—but right away I thought of all the misanthropic doctors on television that were beloved by fans—House, Dr. Cox on Scrubs, Harold Abbott on Everwood—and felt that if you translated many of those traits on a woman, the show would have a very difficult time getting on the air, if it even got there. The women would be seen as a classic bitch, too abrasive, too cruel. Maybe I’m wrong—I haven’t seen Lipstick Jungle, and from the one review I heard, they were hardly your typical group of sweet gals.

While I’ve never seen Ghost Whisperer, I was under the impression that Jennifer Love Hewitt’s character had powers. Sookie on True Blood has gifts. What about Medium or Damages? While you know Joss Whedon, I think your example is too limiting. It’s just that many of the shows mentioned (including some in response to the posts you linked to) you don’t watch. (And for the most part, I don’t either.)

I also agree with John, and Bones is a great example (and it does go so well with House; I need to start watching it again.) It’s important to remember that House insults and demeans everybody; he certainly does not limit his comments to any particular gender or character. But I understand your frustration; what works in one show’s world and only in that shows world shouldn’t get a pass from television as a whole, and can both be a symptom of the disease and yet stand apart from it, if that makes any sense.

petpluto said...

"How many other characters on TV are professed atheists?"

Mal was, from Firefly. But he was cancelled.

"But this isn’t restricted to Cuddy. All the other cast members—Ducklings, Cottages—have at some point or another messed up cases"

My issue is really, and this stems from Cuddy's lack of involvement on a day-to-day basis, is that with the Ducklings and Cottages, they have a longer history of wins and successes on show; so when they mess up, their plus-minus column isn't thrown entirely out of whack. Cuddy doesn't have that. Plus, they are supposed to be learning from House, whereas Cuddy is supposed to be superior to House.

"What about Medium or Damages?"

Truth be told, I got bored. I had a whole segment devoted to Psych and to N3mbers, but didn't end up writing it. But I think the point still stands that the amount of shows featuring extraordinary men vastly outnumbers the amount of shows featuring extraordinary women.

"maybe men are showcased as being the “surly” ones because they can get away with it. I know this isn’t fair—but right away I thought of all the misanthropic doctors on television that were beloved by fans—House, Dr. Cox on Scrubs, Harold Abbott on Everwood—and felt that if you translated many of those traits on a woman, the show would have a very difficult time getting on the air, if it even got there. The women would be seen as a classic bitch, too abrasive, too cruel."

I agree, but I wonder if being surly is a necessary component for being extraordinarily gifted. Maybe it is.

"My beef is that the 13 and Foreman relationship had no build-up; there was nothing to suggest in the show at all that these two characters had anything other than a working relationship."

My beef is that the women on House generally get stereotypical "women" storylines, and men get the universal ones. How long has Cuddy wanted a baby? How many times could we hear about Cameron's dead husband and watch her moon over House? At least Chase had his daddy issues and his religion issues and his loyalty issues before he went gaga over Cameron. And now with 13, it is another example of that, where it seems like the writers were like "What do we do now? Let's put her in a romantic relationship!"

It is kind of like how everyone on Gilmore Girls ended up pregnant after a while. Very irritating.

John said...

"They are supposed to be learning from House, whereas Cuddy is supposed to be superior to House." Whoa, there! The show's not called Cuddy, M.D., after all. She may outrank House, but he's one of the most (if not THE most) brilliant minds in medicine. The entire staff of the Mayo Clinic together isn't superior to House.

As for Psych, Juliet is the only competent cop on the force. She may not have Shawn's gifted powers of observation and deduction, but she's better at actually carrying out a police officer's responsibilites.

I'm not sure where True Blood falls on this scale, mostly because Sookie's exceptional mental powers leave her dependent on Bill for physical protection and emotional relief (until the end of the series, that is.) I guess it's some sort of middle ground between Buffy and *shudder* Twilight.

"I wonder if being surly is a necessary component for being extraordinarily gifted." Writers often rely on surliness as the go-to negative quality of otherwise superhuman characters. Sometimes they actually get creative, though, and come up with new idiosynchracies (as evidenced by Bones and Psych.)

I think that the whole "I'm dying of an incurable genetic disease" storyline is not too stereotypically girly, and it's what Thirteen is most known for. Hopefully this "Foreteen" relationship subplot will fizzle out quickly. And can we as a nation agree to stop combining couples' names? Or at the very least to pay Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez royalties every time we do?

petpluto said...

"Whoa, there! The show's not called Cuddy, M.D., after all. She may outrank House, but he's one of the most (if not THE most) brilliant minds in medicine. The entire staff of the Mayo Clinic together isn't superior to House."

Superior to, as in she is House's superior. I didn't mean that she was smarter, but I can see how that would be unclear.

"As for Psych, Juliet is the only competent cop on the force. She may not have Shawn's gifted powers of observation and deduction, but she's better at actually carrying out a police officer's responsibilites."

That still leaves her the ordinary woman - because the ordinary woman can still be highly competent, she's just not so far out of the ordinary as to be special - on a show with an extraordinary guy.

MediaMaven said...

My beef is that the women on House generally get stereotypical "women" storylines, and men get the universal ones. How long has Cuddy wanted a baby? How many times could we hear about Cameron's dead husband and watch her moon over House? At least Chase had his daddy issues and his religion issues and his loyalty issues before he went gaga over Cameron. And now with 13, it is another example of that, where it seems like the writers were like "What do we do now? Let's put her in a romantic relationship!"

I feel you with Cuddy's baby storyline; on one hand, I feel that it's very stereotypical, but on the other, I think they're generally do a very good job of showing how hard this decision is for Cuddy, all that goes into it. That's another example of how a "stereotypical" thing works within a show's world. But I also know for a fact that Lisa Edelstein first suggested this storyline to David Shore & co., and they built it from there--she said it was something on the mind's of many people she knew, and it had some personal relevance for her. That I understand, and I also know is common on television shows to write in suggestions or personal traits of the actors into the characters they play.

House overall hasn't made strictly gender-focused storylines. You bring up Cameron's inability to get over her dead husband, but what about Wilson and his grief over Amber's death? Cameron's past was relevant there. And the show on the whole has gotten more romantically focused, obviously, with 13 and Foreman, Chase and Cameron, and House and Cuddy.

I've never watched Medium or Damages either, and I was bored too with the one episode of Psych I tried (it had an American Idol parody). But I still think that focusing only on Joss Whedon-penned shows, no matter how awesome they are, ignores all the other shows that could be relevant.

Cuddy herself, BTW, does have a list; she's been involved in enough cases that her decisions matter, even if they just annoy House. It's just that they are smaller in number than the Ducklings and Cottages and have a different weight.

Part of me thinks they only had Foreteen as a couple for the name alone.

petpluto said...

" feel you with Cuddy's baby storyline; on one hand, I feel that it's very stereotypical, but on the other, I think they're generally do a very good job of showing how hard this decision is for Cuddy, all that goes into it. That's another example of how a "stereotypical" thing works within a show's world. But I also know for a fact that Lisa Edelstein first suggested this storyline to David Shore & co., and they built it from there--she said it was something on the mind's of many people she knew, and it had some personal relevance for her."

See, for me, it doesn't matter if the stereotypical thing is handled well within the show's verse. It may be handled well, and I may enjoy it, but it goes in the "stereotypical" category. Every single show could do those stereotypical storylines well, but it would still be a problem from a sociological perspective of what this says about how we see women and men. Like I said, this isn't picking on House in particular but the television landscape in general. But John did ask me about how I saw House, and the fact that it does embody some of those trends make it fall into the category of problematic on a large scale narrative when taking into account where it falls in the dominant themes of television as a whole.

"You bring up Cameron's inability to get over her dead husband, but what about Wilson and his grief over Amber's death?"

Cameron was defined in part by her dead husband and in part by her crush on House in the first season and for quite a while beyond the first season. Wilson's storyline was not dominated by Amber right off the bat. Yes, he was a womanizer, but that was a small fraction of what we knew about Wilson and what Wilson's character included. That, I think, is the difference. Cameron has grown, but even her evolution over House was partially induced by her relationship with Chase - and I find that problematic.

"Cuddy herself, BTW, does have a list; she's been involved in enough cases that her decisions matter, even if they just annoy House. It's just that they are smaller in number than the Ducklings and Cottages and have a different weight."

And that's the problem. They have a different weight, and what we remember most about Cuddy's direct involvement is generally things like losing her handyman's hand.

"But I still think that focusing only on Joss Whedon-penned shows, no matter how awesome they are, ignores all the other shows that could be relevant."

Hey, I mentioned Battlestar Galactica and Bones too! But the real thing is that I think Joss does it best, and I'm going to highlight that. I'm not above playing to that. After all, I only really examined House in excruciating detail, and just made mention of some other shows that did it like House. There are also plenty of other shows that could be relevant on both sides, but part of writing something like this is, I think, picking which shows highlight those aspects - and of course, which shows one knows the most about! Maybe you could write the counterpost!

MediaMaven said...

Cameron has grown, but even her evolution over House was partially induced by her relationship with Chase - and I find that problematic.

Yes, a lot of Cameron’s early storylines focused on her crush on House, but she has moved beyond it, and I don’t feel that her relationship with Chase defines her at all, nor that that made her “get over” House. While her “dead husband past” is a large part of her character, she is more than that—House psychoanalyzing her all these seasons has shown this, for starters. She’s not a sad sack, a whiner, which is how she’d be treated on many other shows, and she is not solely made up of her past.

As for Cuddy: I barely have any recollection of the episode with the handyman, and as that is not considered a memorable moment for either the character or the show, it’s presumptuous to say scenes like that “are what we remember most about Cuddy’s involvement”. Her involvement, to me, is when she is asked to mediate cases, when she is given tough ethical decisions to make, when she is actively debating a case with House, when she is in her office, working. Even without House, Cuddy has a tough job. Of course her decisions are going to weigh differently, she’s his boss! Even if you factor out her complex history with House, her decisions have to weigh differently than those with his employees.

petpluto said...

"Yes, a lot of Cameron’s early storylines focused on her crush on House, but she has moved beyond it, and I don’t feel that her relationship with Chase defines her at all, nor that that made her “get over” House."

I think we're on two separate pages. My concern isn't that Cameron has evolved but where she started. It is kind of like how the writers and creators of Family Guy (and I know, I'm referencing Family Guy - but stay with me) said that they had problems writing Meg because they didn't know how to write teenage girls. Now, I would contend that they don't know how to write at all, but the fact that they say that and demonstrate that with Meg's storylines is more than a bit of a downer - and more of a downer because that basic attitude seems reflective in television at large.

Cameron has evolved, but that doesn't stop her starting point from being based primarily in the romantic when that has been typically the storyline for women in television. That starting point is somewhat problematic. It doesn't make the show anti-feminist, and it doesn't mean that Cameron has remained as such throughout the seasons, but it does exhibit the prevailing wisdom on television.

" I don’t feel that her relationship with Chase defines her at all, nor that that made her “get over” House."

See, I don't think it defines her, but I definitely think it was used in part to break the bonds with House. Even her reaction upon getting caught and then continuing to analyze the situation as if House cared - and her continued "That's what I love about him" ness last season when she was interviewed by the crew following the boy with the growth on his forehead leads me to that point.

"I barely have any recollection of the episode with the handyman, and as that is not considered a memorable moment for either the character or the show, it’s presumptuous to say scenes like that “are what we remember most about Cuddy’s involvement”."

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant Cuddy's active involvement, in cases where she was actively a doctor instead of being an administrative person. The only parallel I can bridge here is Dr. Goodman on Bones, where Goodman very rarely worked on the anthropological or forensic side of the fence because he was too busy dealing with the day to day workings of the Jeffersonian - but the times that he did work on a find (and only one such time is coming to mind), he may not have succeeded but his nonsuccess was demonstrated through a gravitas and a reasoned response that showed exactly how intelligent and how good in his field of expertise he actually was. I don't feel like Cuddy gets much opportunity to demonstrate that she's actually a great doctor. Sometimes we're told she a great doctor, but I've yet to see verifiable proof of that.

And part of the lack of gravitas on Cuddy's part is a principle aspect of the show, because House can't respect Cuddy's position because he can't respect anyone or anything above the science; but that - for me - generally leaves Cuddy almost powerless. And that's well in good for the show (aside from the fact that Cuddy has become less and less of a strong figure over the years, because year one had her facing off with Vogler). And - again - that works in-show. But from a larger perspective, I do find that problematic due to the cultural belief about women and power.

MediaMaven said...

I know what episode of Bones you're referencing--it's a shame Dr. Goodman left after one season.

I don't feel like Cuddy gets much opportunity to demonstrate that she's actually a great doctor. Sometimes we're told she a great doctor, but I've yet to see verifiable proof of that.


I don't know if we're lead to believe that Cuddy is a great doctor. She's great at being an administrator, of managing House (considering that virtually no one else can, her ratio of success is high when put in this context); she's probably merely a good doctor. And in terms of proof, there have been a couple of recent episodes where we have seen Cuddy in doctoring mode, one where she even figured out the case ("Joy to the World").

There's been some discussion on this point in the Cuddy thread on TWoP; as I haven't watched the past two episodes yet, I haven't ventured back into the forum, but plan to after I catch up tonight. Then I'll probably migrate parts of our back-and-forth onto the site.

I find the overall trend of romantic couples problematic on House, most notably Thirteen and Foreman, because there's no reason for them to hook up. There wasn't much of a reason for Chase and Cameron either, but it did bring about some good lines and scenes (Cameron on X, anyone?) At least with the show's dark outlook on life I know I'm not guaranteed a happy ending--and I would be mightily disappointed if House and Cuddy lived happily ever after with children, as one of my friends wants to see happen.