The Women of Television?

 Dear Vanity Fair & Lee Aronsohn:

I Want More Vagina with My TV, Please

I truly respect and admire the women who appeared in Vanity Fair's “Special TV Issue”. Or rather, the issue that everyone online is calling the "women of television" issue. They have definitely all contributed to the success of their shows. I'm not going to bash any of them for appearing in the magazine. What I’m questioning is why certain women aren't there.

For a special that claims it is focused on women having a great year in television, the magazine focuses on actresses. Are actresses important? Of course they are. Without strong actresses we wouldn't have successful TV shows. But there are a lot of other people who contribute to a television show’s success, and this year a lot of them happened to be women. There are many women who should have been pictured, but aren't: Liz Meriwether, Whitney Cummings, Shonda Rhimes, Molly Solomon, Lena Dunham, Liz Feldman, Nahnatchka Khan, Ellen Degeneres, Emily Spivey, Jane Espenson, Tina Fey, Emily Kapnek, and so many more that naming them all would be ridiculous.

This particular Vanity Fair article is coming out right after Lee Aronsohn (the guy who co-created 'Two and a Half Men') ranted that current television comedies are too focused on women. During this rant he decided to use female genitalia as a euphemism for his disgust. I don't think this is the place to repeat what was said, but Goggle it. He took things way too far.

Despite my disgust at Aronsohn's rants, I'm frustrated that his idea of a big insult is linking female comedy to our reproductive parts. We have a man proclaiming, "enough ladies, I get it, you have periods" while completely ignoring the fact that women (who yes, probably do have periods) are managing to produce and write incredibly successful shows this year. Maybe someone needs to show Aronsohn the number of viewers that 'New Girl' and 'Two Broke Girls' have, compared to his own, male-oriented show.

This takes me back to the Vanity Fair issue. The magazine has created a lot of controversy because it pictures the "women of television" either naked in bed, or clothed only in lingerie. And yes, maybe this will help them sell magazines. Unfortunately, it also sells the idea that women's success lies solely in their sex appeal. I'm sure lots of people are going to only skim this article, immediately argue with me, and say that the magazine has the right to dress women however they want, and that women have the right to agree. Of course that's true. I'm not even sure I'm opposed to the fact that they are dressed in lingerie. What I'm really worried about is the fact that this particular issue of Vanity Fair is placing the "women of television" (who are actually "the actresses of television") into one pretty package. A few of the pictured actresses have producing credits on their shows, but none of them are executive producers or showrunners.

Shouldn't we be asking for more than this? We need successful women in television to be celebrated more, not less, whatever Aronsohn says. Don't believe me? Just look at the numbers: in the last year we saw a massive drop in the number of women behind the scenes of television shows. Only 15% of television writers and 18% of show creators are women. If you ask me, we need exactly the opposite of what Aronsohn wants. I want more vagina with my television, please.

Response to "What a Woman Really Wants From a TV Show"

I recently read “What a Woman Really Wants From a TV Show” on Jezebel. I agreed with almost everything Dodai Stewart wrote.

1. I also miss having both physically and emotionally strong female leads or, as Stewart puts it, “kick ass female lead(s)”.
2. Unlike Stewart, I love a good procedural/medical drama (perhaps more than most), but I don’t think I can stand adding many more to the mix. I already have Law and Order: SVU, Bones, Grey’s Anatomy, Rizzoli and Isles, and Body of Proof. Please, no more.
3.  Two Broke Girls is somehow watchable, but parts of it are definitely racist. Really, really racist.
4. New Girl also has a few funny moments, but Jess as a character is not fleshed out.

What Stewart didn’t discuss, although she did mention it, is ABC’s newest show, Revenge. I’d argue that Revenge, perhaps more than any other show on the air right now, has a strong female lead.

Revenge is centered around Emily (Emily VanCamp), a young woman who moves back to the Hamptons to seek revenge on those who destroyed her father’s reputation. I won’t go into the complex plot right now, but I will tell you that there is one. At the same time, after watching an episode of Revenge it could easily be dismissed as a mindless sexy drama.

But Revenge has a one thing that other shows are missing: a strong female lead.

Emily’s character is intense, intelligent, and manipulative. She’s not necessarily likeable, but she’s a strong woman who successfully achieves her goals. She’s also beautiful, but for once beauty doesn’t make her an airhead, nor does it make her someone who only uses her sexuality to get what she wants. Her character is multi-faceted enough that she is able to use her beauty alongside her intellect, and she is also psychologically complex. That’s a refreshing thing to see on television. 

'Revenge' is pretty sweet

If you're looking for the perfect Wednesday late-night show I have a recommendation: 'Revenge'. It marks Emily VanCamp ('Brothers & Sisters') return to TV. In fact, unlike the supporting role she had on 'Brothers & Sisters' she is now playing the lead who, consequently, is also called Emily.

'Revenge' is an intelligent show. Built around short flashbacks to Emily's childhood, it's like a frothier and younger version of 'Damages'.

spoilers

During the first episode we learned a great deal. Emily (VanCamp) used to be called Amanda, back when she was a young child staying at the Hamptons with her father. Her father was involved in a scandal that somehow involved helping to fund the terrorists attacks during 9/11. Disturbed by the fact that her father was not who she thought he was, and legally separated from him due to his legal battles, she spent her teenage years alone. Although we don't yet know why, she eventually ended up serving a prison term. When she was released from prison a strange man, Nolan, greeted her. Nolan claimed to be a friend of her father's, informed her that he had died six months before, and gave her a box that he had left for her. Apparently what was in the box proved that her father was not guilty of any of the crimes that he was accused of, and was betrayed by those he was closest to. Oh, and we also find out that Amanda's father gave Nolan the money to start up his company, and Amanda now has a 49% share.

Amanda, pretending to be a different person named Emily, moves back to the Hamptons.  We quickly learn that the 49% share has made her incredibly wealthy. She asks her friend, Ashley, to describe all of the wealthy people staying at the Hamptons (despite the fact that she knows more about them than Amanda does!). Amanda points out Nolan and explains that his company has done so well that he is wealthier than everyone else. This explains why Amanda has the money to rent a house next to one of the family's who betrayed her father. She then proceeds to cause mayhem in their lives. In this episode alone she poisoned a man, exposed an affair, and effectively got one woman permanently excluded from the Hamptons. She also begins to seduce the son of one of the women who betrayed her father. As she states at the end of the episode she wants one thing: 'Revenge'.

'Revenge': Wednesday, ABC, 10 pm