Op-Ed
Daum: Chick flick TV
Sure, the shows glamorize jobs that sexually exploited women in the early 1960s. But for many women, they may be entertaining as well.
It's feminist backlash, right? How else to explain why, in an era where real-life women are running for president and running men off the road of life by any number of measures, women in serious dramatic television roles are still wearing girdles and gloves? Why else would producers set two much-hyped shows with female-driven ensemble casts in places where mile-high ass grabs are company-sanctioned and bunny tails are company policy?
Whatever the reason, don't blame men. For starters, men make up only 40% of TV viewers, according to recent figures. And lest you think that story lines rife with antiquated gender roles are a network ploy to appeal to that 40%, think again. According to Nielsen data, the No. 1 television show watched by men is "American Idol."
In other words, unlike the movie business, where the conventional wisdom is that male audiences call the shots (hence our current period of film history, which, thanks to auteurs like Judd Apatow, we might call la cinema de fart joke), television programmers have long paid close attention to female viewing habits.
Depending on your tastes, that could be a damning accusation because it suggests that women are responsible for, well, most of what's on TV. But it also raises some interesting questions about how women — perhaps especially those who've come of age since the women's movement — view their place in the world.
Can any situation depicting some kind of all-women institution automatically have feminist undertones, no matter how retrograde? Is it possible to glamorize oppressive, exploitative work while also offering a critique of it?
What are we to make of "Pan Am" star Christina Ricci's comment that the show will "send a message of how these women were free and in charge of their lives"? Moreover, how reliable a narrator is Hugh Hefner (yes, the one and only) supposed to be when, in a voice-over at the end of the first episode of "The Playboy Club," he declares that "the bunnies were some of the only women in the world who could be anyone they wanted to be"?
Plenty of evidence has accrued to suggest that Ricci and Hefner's views may be more than a little revisionist. Sociologist Arlie Hochschild famously studied the workplace of flight attendants and noted the demands of "emotional labor" as well as physical labor. Even more famously, Gloria Steinem went undercover as a Playboy bunny and revealed in a 1963 magazine article that the pay was lousy, the work physically grueling and the opportunities for advancement negligible. Last month Steinem called for a boycott of the NBC show, claiming that "it's just not telling the truth about the era."
That's undoubtedly true. But in fairness, these programs aren't claiming to tell the truth. They're telling stories — fairy tales, even. And just because they're set in a particular historical period doesn't mean they should be held to any higher standard of accuracy than any other ridiculous thing on television. After all, who complained that "Little House on the Prairie" minimized the hardships of 19th century pioneers?
Pioneers, of course, aren't a big market segment these days. On the other hand, women and their many roles, their sexual agency, their dollars and their votes matter. Or at least we're asked to evaluate TV shows in that light. But, let's face it, not every show is capable of being a cultural touchstone. Some are just entertainment — the sort that women, for better or worse, can be counted on to watch.
Sisterhood is powerful, sure. But sometimes only in terms of ratings.
mdaum@latimescolumnists.com
Comments (16)
Add / View comments | Discussion FAQThe latest TV 1960s Chick Flick TV Series Pan Am,is so far removed from the truth about that era when being an Airline Stewardess was considered to be a dream job for many young single women of that era that would have the viewer misleading thinking all they had to do back then wss to put on a nicely tailored "Stew Uniform" and jet off to neverending romantic places around the world total myth... As it made now mention of the several weeks of intense training that those days Stewardess as we called them back then,went through at the various major air lines own Stewardess Schools such the one that was then based in Cheyenne Wyoming and most of the Stews spent much of their evenings hanging around the Wig Wam Lounge Piano Bar of the Plains Hotel and had to be back at their dorm even before the local bars closed, as an example of the so-called "Glamorus Life" available to them during training along with dealing with numberous local "Stew Chaser Males" that tried to pery on them.
I agree that television shows such as Pan Am, while attempting to show the freedom that women may or may not have had, merely portray women as the sex objects they have always been. Thank you for proving that with your comment, Throckmorton P. Gildersleeve, in saying that all you care to comment on is how the third female from the left was most physically appealing (and your belief that a comment like that was worth writing). Shows like these displace their undeniable perpetuation of traditional gender roles by hyping up the entertainment value with sexual content. This sexual content seen by the female characters just instills in women the stigma placed upon them by society as sex objects, even as they advance from generation to generation in the workforce.
I don't have a problem with fictional tv works like Pan Am and Playboy Club, as long as there is a countervailing public discussion like the one which erupted around THE HELP. That book/movie produced a robust, rollicking public response, including the brilliant Huffington Post essay by Gary Stager: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-stager/the-help-teachers-guide_b_972576.html
We all understand by now that THE HELP is an ahistorical figment of somebody's imagination, not the truth. Will there be a similar response to those other feel-good depictions of the '60s on tv?




Letters »