(no subject)

[moonwise]

Our cable went out last night. I don't know whether the two events are related, but when it came back up, we had a new channel.

Was it a cool station like SpeedVision? No.

Was it a fun station like Cartoon Network? No.

It was yet another of these dumb for-women-only stations like Lifetime or that ridiculous Oprah channel. "We," I think it was called.

What is it with these fool channels? Granted, I do not watch a lot of television, but why do we need yet another channel devoted to touchy-feely melodramas wherein everything is solved with Love and Understanding? Furthermore, why do the Powers that Be assume that just because I have two X chromosomes and the equipment that goes with it, that I'm going to like that crap?

How about a novel concept: fun and/or thought-provoking shows that aren't targeted at a particular sex. Just because one is female does not mean that she doesn't like football and shoot-'em-ups; and just because one is male doesn't mean he doesn't like to watch ER. (My husband used to watch it with me before it jumped the shark.)

So I'm female. That won't ever change - I could go out, get a sex change, and call myself Bob for the rest of my life, and they'd still dig my moldering bones up in a hundred years and find that XX signature. (don't get me wrong; I enjoy being a girl.) But until we as a culture and as a world can get over the gender assignments and concentrate on the human rather than the division of sexes, I'm doomed to get channels like "We" on the television. (note: that's a metaphor.)

Concentrate on the real problems, like that sickening story that fireceremony posted.

Comments

[hidetomatsumoto.livejournal.com]

Well, I know there are things I like that are definitely *stereotypical* male, and then other things that are not.

I would think with the evolving culture we have, that we wouldn't have such finite lines of what is *expected* of each gender...

Hollywood, manufacturers, and advertisers, must all be sticking to what they know, rather than take *real* risks or something. I dunno...

[arafel.livejournal.com]

I guess my question is, why do we have to keep applying "stereotypical male and female" to likes and pursuits? Can't they just be "things we like to do?" True, men probably have more interest in monster truck rallies than women, but you really never know!

Hollywood, manufacturers, and advertisers, must all be sticking to what they know, rather than take *real* risks or something. I dunno...

I think that's the crux of the problem right there...

[lordraziel.livejournal.com]

Like most real people I like some things that are *guy things* and some things that aren't. And yes, I've cried at a movie. (But don't tell anyone!!) I think that most guys think it's cool when a woman likes football and other *guy stuff*. I like figure skating. I think your plan is the best one, just make good shows and don't worry about who will watch it. If it's good it'll have viewers. But then Hollywood isn't too bright. Movies with G and PG ratings continually make more money (usually lots more money) than R rated movies. Yet they continue to dump crap full of blood, sex and violence into the theatres. Go figure.

[arafel.livejournal.com]

And yes, I've cried at a movie. (But don't tell anyone!!)

*grins* I won't!

But then Hollywood isn't too bright.

True enough. They appeal to the lowest common denominator, and anyone who's ever watched Jerry Springer knows what I'm talking about. Some of those people are actors, sure... but a lot of them aren't. O_o

[fireceremony.livejournal.com]

TV just comes across as constantly underestimating their viewers' intelligence.

[arafel.livejournal.com]

Most of the time. That's what the History Channel is for, IMO.

[fullofsecrets.livejournal.com]

I heartily agree. I think most tv programming experts wouldn't know the Myers-Briggs if it came up and bit them on the butt. Stereotypes aren't entirely based on the male-female biological differences, to be precise, but rather on the T/F difference. Both men and women can be Ts or Fs, but women are statistically more likely to be Fs and men are statististically more likely to be Ts. I am a T female, and typical "F" women, some types in particular, can smell that something's "different" about me a mile away.

The higher the F, the more likely to dig the touchy-feeling saccharine melodrama, and since more women are Fs, these channels get marketed as "For Women." Sigh.

I hate majority rule sometimes.

[arafel.livejournal.com]

I had to go check the Sorter to remember that T = "Thinking" and F = "Feeling."

typical "F" women, some types in particular, can smell that something's "different" about me a mile away.

I've noticed that myself from time to time, and it seems to set a wall between me and a lot of other women...don't know why, guess I'm less interested in talking about domestic issues and personal problems than some.

I hate the majority rule too... guess it's just easier to play to the crowd. :/

Ssssshhh...

[wickedorin.livejournal.com]

*whispers* We watch so much PBS that we actually gave money to them. *grin*

I've got so many ideas for movies of which I sometimes have to sit back and think, "No one in Hollywood is going to help me with this. It's too weird." So somehow I need to make goodie-goodie with a millionaire and knock 'em off or something...

Anyway, yeah. I know what you mean. When we're over at the in-laws, we always check out the women's channels because you know there's gonna be an abusive husband. We like to rate the "smack scenes" in terms of reality. "No, that's a 3.5, definitely." "I don't know, she didn't pull her head back that early... I give it a 4."

Re: Ssssshhh...

[arafel.livejournal.com]

LOL! I gave money to PBS because they started showing Monty Python. :) That was worth it to me.

LMAO, I like the smack scene thing, I'll have to keep an eye out for that.