Little Women

So, I was watching Ellen this morning, which is something I never get to do except when I’m on vacation and it's raining cats and dogs.  She had three female softball players on the show.  I missed the beginning of the segment, but I gather that this one girl hit a home-run during a game, but injured her knee before she could reach home-plate.  The injured player lay on the ground in pain and immobile for several moments until two players (from the other team) picked her up, and carried their injured opponent around the bases so she could complete her home-run.  The good Samaritans ended up losing the game for their efforts, but have no regrets because it was the sportsman-like thing to do.

*

So, I’m on the couch thinking “that’s a nice story, but why is it newsworthy?” Then, I remember “Oh yeah, because people are mean and the world sucks”.  This, of course, segues perfectly into General Hospital (both with the sucking aspect and the un-likeable characters).

*

Which brings me to my latest irritation - - the portrayal of women on General Hospital.

* 

Is it absolutely necessary to be degrading to the female gender at every turn?

*

I’m not looking for realistic women mind you; I’m not watching Soap Operas for realism, after all.  However, is it too much to ask that some of the female characters be likeable? Or at least not pathetic and helpless? Why must they all be weak or selfish or stupid or slutty?

*

Does anyone at ABC Daytime understand who their audience is?

*

Do they know the meaning of the phrase "target demographic"?

*

Do they understand that their's is women?

*

We’re wives, we’re mothers, we’re college students, we’re direction-less nutcases (okay, that one could be just me). The point is, we’re mostly women.

*

HINT for ABC execs: This is why Charmin pays you all that money to take up advertising space with those big red bears tinkling in the woods - - because women still buy the toilet paper for the most part.

*

I’ve already covered my desire for a little more love in the afternoon, but clearly that is a lost cause.  How about a less ambitious goal?  I’d be willing to settle for a little less blatant sexism.

*

Do the show-runners think that as women, we don’t want to see empowering female characters?

*

Did TPTB sleep through a tiny little incident called the women’s’ movement?  Someone clearly remembers the bra-burning, but that’s only whomever is dressing Carly, otherwise, I think they missed the entire point.

*

The crown jewel in the misogyny-parade that is General Hospital has got to be the recent addition of Claudia Zacchara.  She has wrestled the crown temporarily away from life-long title-holder Carly Corinthos Alcazar Corinthos Jacks.

* 

I had high hopes for Claudia initially.  In spite of the fact that it meant more mafia-centric storylines, back in January I was gleefully anticipating the return of Sarah Brown.  I love the idea of someone taking Sonny down a few pegs, and if it was going to be a woman – all the better! Unfortunately, the subsequent portrayal of her character has been abysmal.  And even more disheartening, has been the writing for the other characters in reaction to her character.

*

Claudia has technically only bedded one guy since blowing into town back in February, and it was Sonny. That makes her unbelievably mis-guided, maybe even stupid, but it doesn’t make her a slut. It especially doesn’t make it okay for everyone (including her own father) to refer to her as "the slut" ten times a week for the next four months.

*

Yes, the wonder-bra looked painful, yes the outfits were tacky and her attitude was appalling. None of that makes it acceptable for all the other characters to repeatedly demean her.

*

This was Guza’s idea of a powerful, take no prisoners kind of gal? Heaven help us, I think Susan B. Anthony is rolling in her grave.

*

Now thankfully, the sound of viewers everywhere shrieking in terror (since when has that ever made a difference?) seems to have reached Guza's ears. Maybe Sarah Brown herself said something? Whomever did whatever, good job, and not a moment too soon. I was fixing to hit the roof over the fact that this was someone's idea of a powerful woman.  Fortunately, the character's wardrobe and countenance has been toned way down in recent weeks (although it may be too little too late).

*

So the writers have toned down the whole nympho-aspect of the character, which is great, one problem solved.  However, Sonny still runs around dropping "the S-bomb" at ever opportunity. Hypocrisy much? Criminey, Sonny has no room to talk on the "slut" accusation. The word itself perpetuates a sexist double standard anyway, and in this particular case, it’s inaccurate as well.

* 

*

Then there’s Kate, whom I really want to like because in addition to the fabulous-ness of her cancer-curing hair , she is also quite the successful business woman. So why do they insist on writing any scene that involves her professional side as if she is a fire-breathing dragon? I’m not just talking detail-oriented here, that’s one thing, that’s a good thing. Having high expectations is perfectly fine, I have no problem with that either. It’s the insane bitchery that bothers me. What are they trying to say? No woman who is successful in the fashion industry could possibly be likeable?  In order to achieve your goals, you must constantly belittle and bully your underlings?  Snotty and successful are synonymous?

*

Kate is supposed to be the epitome of class and elegance, and yet they portray her as completely class-less when dealing with her professional associates.  I’m thinking someone watched The Devil Wears Prada and missed the entire point of the movie.  Meryl Streep’s character wasn’t the heroine – she was the foil for crying out loud!

*

Why does a woman who is strong or successful have to be portrayed as a bitch (Kate)? Or a slut (Claudia)?

*

I'm not suggesting that all characters should be paragons of virtue. Lila Quartermaine was wonderful and she served a purpose, but she would have been boring in larger doses.  A show does need one or two bitchy or un-likeable characters to stir the pot and cause trouble for the heroines.  But, in a show full of the un-rootable, who does the audience cheer for? Who do they identify with?

*

Speaking of that idiotic Crimson storyline (which I really shouldn’t complain about because it’s one of the only non-mob things happening right now), I just can’t stand the way either Maxie or Lulu are being written there. Maxie is an insecure, back-stabbing, high-pitched whiny shrew and Lulu only took the job in the first place to pee in Maxie’s Cheerios. They both look petty and vindictive.

*

I should probably be grateful that they’ve found something beside boys to fight about, but the truth is, the fact that they can’t get along at all, regardless of the situation is the real problem here. What’s the message - girls are all catty and spiteful?  Young women can’t get along with each other because of all the hair-pulling? I swear it’s like Guza watches The Hills for inspiration on how young ladies behave in "reality".

*

What about Epiphany? She can’t be firm and no-nonsense without coming off as Nurse Nasty? Apparently not. Apparently, she can’t take five minutes to pull an offending staff member aside and quietly reprimand them. Apparently it is completely necessary to publicly dress them down in front of other staff and patients using personal attacks on their character and/or moral fiber. 

*

This is how Guza thinks an effective manager behaves? Wow, I feel even worse for the cast and crew of GH than I already did for being stuck on this crap-fest.  This philosophy reminds me of my favorite work-place sign “Flogging will continue until morale improves”. I wonder how much longer it will be until the cast and crew start fleeing like rats from a sinking ship the way viewers already have?

*

* 

Diane was fast becoming one of my favorite female characters on the show (obvious flaw that she’s represents Sonny aside). Never knock novelty, but in addition to that, she seems to get some of the better (it’s a sliding scale) dialogue on the show. I was really starting to warm to her relationship with Alexis recently.  At first it struck me as too Lulu/Maxie (sniping and belittling each other) but as the animosity waned, I was drawn in.

*

Two capable, professional women in the same career field having an adult interaction? Impossible! But there it was - I repeat was, because now apparently they have been reduced to arguing over free samples of shoes and handbags.

*

It’s not that I didn’t enjoy those scenes - I would buy ocean-front property in Arizona if Nancy Lee Grahn was the one selling it. I just don’t understand why the writers needed to go there - to the stereotypical fashion-crazed woman place. Surely there are lots of other, equally entertaining conversations they could have?

*

And now, arguing about Jerry and Max respectively, it's gotten worse.  The writers are implying that women of any age, no matter how intelligent or successful, have nothing better to do than argue about boys or clothes - - it’s insulting and ridiculous.

*

One of my favorite all-time female character is Robin Scorpio, I am a fan from the Stone-days.  Now I’m a little fuzzy on the details because I don’t get SoapNet, so I missed Night Shift, but I’m pretty sure the writers essentially destroyed the character of Robin Scorpio when they decided she wanted to get pregnant several months ago.  All I know is somehow she wound up running around the hospital asking random men to donate sperm.  Let’s skip past that travesty and fast-forward to right now.  Robin is pregnant – she’s not suddenly mentally handicapped!

*

Are they trying to alienate their audience? Is this ABC’s clever attempt at curbing pregnancy and stopping the population explosion? Warning - if you are a smart, courageous, beautiful doctor who purposely becomes pregnant at a point in your life where you are prepared physically and financially for it - DON'T! Because you will suddenly turn into a moody, bloated, gassy train-wreck who would lose her head if it wasn’t attached to her body. Could they get any more stereotypical if they tried? Oh, and you will also become a judgmental, condescending, hypocrite so watch out!

*

Aww geez, and talk about mentally-handicapped - - Anna Devane, wonder-woman of Port Charles and practically the hottest woman on the planet is reduced to a blubbering mess by the thought of impending grandmother-hood?

*

Bull-shit!!

*

I love Finola, and seeing her back on the show, for whatever reason, is totally groovy. However, mind-warping the character is NOT cool. Seriously? Anna, a woman who faces her own mortality on a daily basis, is afraid of getting old? Give me a break! She may have initially felt her stomach flip-flop at the notion, but NEVER in a million years, would she have started hyper-ventilating, OR would she have let Robin know what she was thinking.

*

Really, Guza?

*

Anna would have sucked all the joy out of this miraculous occasion for her daughter by selfishly focusing on how it was going to affect her?

*

Really?  You think so?

*

How about the way Elizabeth is floundering now that she doesn’t have a man to take care of her? WTF is up with that? Single moms all over the world have been juggling kids, jobs, school and a myriad of other things for years now. Is Guza still watching Leave it to Beaver as his frame of reference? Does Guza know that barefoot and pregnant is no longer in?

*

What about Sam? Independent, strong, capable Sam? What is up with the sudden back-story that she married rich men for money? Because, clearly, that’s the only way a woman could make her way alone, by sleeping with a rich man.

*

If anyone claims that Everyday Heroes was empowering to women, I’m going to spit nails - - - that entire storyline did nothing but destroy the character of Sam.  Even if you hated mob-apologist Sam, at least she wasn’t a weak, insecure mess who would allow a baby to be kidnapped just to hang on to her man. Now, she’s going to shill for Luke at the casino to make money? She couldn’t just pour drinks? She has to be dishonest?

*

I don’t want to unfairly give the impression that there are NO likeable female characters, there’s Georgie and Emily, oh wait – they were brutally strangled to death, nevermind.

*

I’m not going to even bring up Carly because she fits into every category/stereotype that I’ve mentioned. Plus, with the whole Michael’s shooting thing, I was hearing the words "Carly’s a great mother" so often, that I actually had to turn off the part of my brain that catalogues absurdity for fear of losing consciousness from the overload.

*

It suffices to say that Carly is the epitome of my outrage, the epitome of the destruction of female characters.  In ten years, she has never done anything the least bit worthwhile, and yet, she is the undisputed heroine of the show.  This selfish shrew, is who viewers are meant to identify with!  We’re supposed to be rooting for her to triumph! I’m rooting for her to get hit by a bus, frankly.

*

I want to be entertained when I watch television, and call me crazy, I just don't find misogyny entertaining.  I just don't think I'm the only viewer who feels this way either.

*

What exactly is Guza's problem? A failure to grasp his audience? An inaccurate view on women? Too much wacky-weed?

*

I’ve got it - Bob Guza is a major Cher fan and he's never recovered from her latest retirement.  As a tribute, he wants all women on GH to fit into one of three categories: Gypsies, Tramps and Thieves.

*

Crap, wait, that doesn’t work - I didn’t include sluts or bitches. Maybe he’s an Eninem fan too?

*

All I know for sure, is that he isn’t a Gloria Steinem fan.

Comments

[Lindsey]

Bravo, bravo! Very well said...... I HATE when people use the words slut or bitch...... oppressive language is so not cool. Man to women or women to women....... both are awful and UNACCEPTABLE! Shame on you, GUZA!

[Kat]

Guza writes the show like his target audience is teenage boys. Not just teenage boys, but stupid teenage boys.