The Women's Freedom Network Newsletter May/June & July/August 2001, Vol. 8, Nos. 3-4. MEDIA WATCH In Media Watch we will review and critique coverage of gender issues. Our purpose is not only to debunk but to single out fair and well-informed media coverage. "NOW Revisited" By Bruce Kanter

Observers of current television can observe, for example, that the great majority of those killed in television programs (1), and almost all those made fun of in TV commercials are men. (2) When all one hears about is the negative portrayal of women, shouldn't there be some balance? What better way than The National Organization for Women's first study of women in television. With the one year anniversary of the study upon us, perhaps it is time to take an outside critical look. (3)

To everyone's surprise NOW found problems with ways women are depicted on American television. The program "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" got special condemnation because it had too many male contestants. Apparently NOW was upset with the way contestants were chosen. Another show sharply criticized by NOW was "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire", a show watched by a largely female audience with almost all female participants. Perhaps NOW was upset at the gender discrimination of only one sex having the possibility of sharing a rich person's wealth?

The fact that so many women watched the show raises some unasked questions. Why does NOW presume to speak for women in general? Why does the media presume that what NOW says is important? Why does a larger organization, like Concerned Women of America, get so little attention? Why is getting paid to compete to marry a rich man anti-women? If the show is anti-women, does that mean men marrying women for their money is anti-man? What does it say about women who compete in such contests and most important of all, why wouldn't they let me compete just because I am a man?

The NOW study had four criteria: violence, gender composition, sexual exploitation and social responsibility. They made a special point of criticizing the preponderance of thin, white women on television. This is interesting when one considers the two programs cited by the press as praiseworthy on the otherwise "Network of Shame"-- the Fox Network.

The two programs cited were Ally McBeal and The Simpsons. The former is notable in that it has the thinnest women on television. The Simpsons, on the other hand, may be unique today in TV in that it has elements in the show that feminists have been criticizing for years. There are few female characters, the married ones are all housewives, and professional women are pretty much non-existent. The few female main characters are largely without female friends. Moreover, the single female characters have an unusually strong desire to get married.

The rest of this article is devoted to a discussion of The Simpsons. I admire the show for its often brilliant humor and its plethora of amusing characters. What does NOW like about The Simpsons?

Certainly NOW likes the brilliant and town moral leader Lisa Simpson. She also stands out in contrast to her troublemaking, academic-failure brother, Bart. Also, the show is not populated by sexy women. It is after all a cartoon show. It also does try to adhere to feminist political correctness. However, certainly this is the norm on television. But in fact, The Simpsons violates feminist sensibilities so often that NOW's approval of the show must be for other reasons.

NOW apparently has no problem with the fact that the employees of the town's nuclear plant is almost entirely male. The obvious reason is the quality of the job. After all, what is unfair about the most dangerous nuclear plant in the country with the meanest possible boss, employing only men?

Not only are there few female characters, the most significant ones are housewives and the kids' elementary school teachers. Professional women are largely absent and unlike in Leave it to Beaver, even the school principal is male. Also, unlike the male members of the family, Marge and Lisa are pretty much friendless.

What about violent content? The cartoon (within the cartoon) watched by the Simpson children is probably the most violent in the history of television. Another common feature of the show is the father's, Homer's, frequent choking of his son Bart. Bart and other male children are often beaten-up quite aggressively by neighborhood boys. Homer, himself, is a victim of numerous acts of violence. He is kicked over a goal post, hit over the head with objects, beaten repeatedly with a whip and raped by a panda to name a few examples. All of this is designed to be funny.4 Homer also suffers a lot because of his own ineptness, such as his humorous fall off a mountain. Incidentally, despite Homer's violence toward his son and numerous other examples of bad fathering, a father's advocate rated him as an average television father. (5)

Ironically, the show's awareness, or more likely its fear, of feminism is a reason for its lack of female characters. As one of the shows writers pointed out "the problem with writing for Marge is that you can't have her do stupid or kooky things, because people think that's women bashing." (6) This is interesting because in a medium with a history of male buffoons, her husband Homer is probably the ultimate buffoon.

In contrast to Marge, the show is populated with some of the most dishonest and stupid people on television. Of course, they are almost all men. Men are the most evil and the stupidest. One can only conclude that NOW likes the show not because of the favorable depiction of women, but because of the disparaging treatment of men.

Certainly no one should be surprised about NOW's endorsement of the portrayal of the sexes on The Simpsons. However, many members of the left and mainstream media are also inspired by the show. Time magazine endorsed the show as the best of the 20th century and said that the show surpassed great television shows in "topicality, and yes, humanity." (7)

Would Time magazine consider a show that had an episode where the female lead was misidentified as sub-human because of her appearance and behavior, or another episode where we learn she is incapable of dressing herself, as Homer was depicted and say the show exemplified humanity?

The Simpsons has frequently been praised for its willingness to satirize everyone. I disagree. Like almost all mainstream media it rarely challenges political correctness. For example, an entire episode involved the issue of whether or not Homer intentionally touched a young woman's behind. While the show was supposed to be funny, a clear message was that it would be unacceptable to portray Homer as someone capable of such evil. After all, it is not something innocuous as a father choking his son.

Compare this treatment with two other episodes. In one episode, Bart is hung by his underpants from a basketball rim for trying to defend his sister. In another episode, film critic Jay Sherman is hung by his underpants from a bedroom window by Marge's two sisters. One can only imagine the reaction to a series where a woman or female child being stripped to her underpants and hung from a window was praised for its humanity.

Endnotes

---

1. In his 1993 book The Myth of Male Power (p. 223), Warren Farrell's own study found that about 97% of those killed in entertainment television shows were men.

2. Fred Hayward of Mens Rights Inc. found in a two year study of commercials that if one sex was portrayed negatively it was always men.

3. The information about the NOW study was taken from its press releases and information on its web site.

4. The show where Homer was given a series of electrical shocks and raped by a panda took place after the NOW study. However, it is one of many examples of cruelty to Homer. As far as I know that episode has not been criticized by the media.

5. This was on the show, One on One, hosted by John McLaughlin.

6. From The New Yorker, March 13, 2001, p. 73.

7. This was in Time magazine's "Best of the Century" issue at the end of 1999.