Last week, we (Ava and C.I.) defended ABC's Work It in "TV: The misguided Water Cooler Set." It's a funny show, with one breakout performance, and not to be taken seriously at all (as we explained in great detail).
Last week NOW released an 'alert' on the show.
Well . . .
NOW tried to release an alert.
We were in London, but we were ready to immediately reply at The Common Ills. (As Ruth noted.)
However, NOW didn't know how to publish online. (As Ruth noted.) So you'd click their 'alert' and be taking to a page with tags and no alert. This happened over and over, day after day, until finally we stopped checking after Thursday.
NOW finally learned how to operate the computer, congrats.
The same NOW which, in 2008, sold out women.
There's no denying that. It's not open to debate. It's why then-NOW president Kim Gandy's hand-picked successor was defeated in a vote. It's why Kim Gandy had no traction with the White House and the administration made clear that her "baggage" meant they didn't have any appointment for her.
It's why she ran to the Feminist Majority Foundation and a position that is a significant demotion from her past work.
NOW has a new president. And we've noted her, we've noted NOW.
But our days of being nice when NOW plays the idiot ended in 2008.
So we'd, first of all, advise NOW to get a damn sense of humor.
Oh, did that hurt?
Too damn bad.
Second, we'd advise you to STOP LYING.
Work It is a minor sitcom. Even should it become a major ratings hit (doubtful at this point), it will always be a minor sitcom. Why you would risk your organization reputation with a dishonest critique is beyond us. Why you would resort to lying is beyond us.
NOW could hate Work It. As we noted last week, most critics did.
That's fine.
But what's not fine is LYING.
And that's what NOW does in their 'alert' that you can finally read online.
Let's reply to NOW's nonsense.
NOW:
The first episode included lines such as: "Women are taking over the workforce. Soon they'll start getting rid of men. They'll just keep a few of us around as sex slaves . . . Not the kind of sex you like . . . Just kissing and cuddling and listening," and "When women take over, they'll make pride illegal."
That would be the character we identified last week as repulsive. He's physically repulsive, he's emotionally repulsive. He's also a minor character. What did he have? Two tiny scenes. And how much of a loser is he? Not because he's unemployed (it's a recession) but because, he informs, he lives with his ex-wife . . . and her new husband. In the second episode, he says, "[. . .] I wish I had something they [women] wanted." The whole point of the character is that he's supposed to be repulsive.
Is NOW arguing that good television is television where everyone speaks nicely and says nothing objectionable, that conflict is no longer key to drama? Or that, if Taxi were made today, they'd need to ditch Danny DeVito's Louie de Palma?
At times they lie, at other times Lisa and company just come off stupid.
If you don't understand drama and the need for conflict, you probably shouldn't attempt to "analyze" a TV show.
NOW argues, "The script is obsessed with ticking off every supposed difference between the sexes." We disagree but, then, so does NOW: "And, of course: Men just don't get women, even their long-suffering wives. They need to literally walk in women's shoes to empathize with the other half of the population."
So, Lisa, which is it: Differences or commonalities. Because the show we're watching had the two male leads learning about commonalities but you're insistent that it's a show about differences. You can't argue both ways.
And, again, Lisa, if you're too clueless to analyze entertainment, then just find another task. We'll help your lazy ass at the end with that. But right now, let's just note that the journey is at the heart of most American drama. The self-discovery. And that the popularity of Joseph Cambell has only increased that. So when the characters on Work It discover commonalities and you object, you're objecting to the path of the protagonist in drama and, in doing so, explain to the world that you either lack or failed to absorb a liberal arts education.
Lisa and NOW also upset by this: "For instance, women eat itty-bitty lunches, while men crave giant subs." Who is generalizing women here? We'd argue it's NOW.
We see the wife and the daughter eat throughout the show's first episodes. They didn't eat itty-bitty.
At the job, we saw two women, hired for their looks (as their boss makes clear in the pilot), eat tiny meals. (A third ate a salad, about the size she'd get at a fast food place on the dollar menu.) That's a shocker? (The real shocker is that all three of the women -- not new hires -- were in the office eating lunch when they should have been out selling drugs since that's their job. NOW missed that.)
So, in the real world, women hired for their looks and expected to maintain those looks must never address the costs of that? Because to do so would upset NOW?
So now NOW's insisting that TV programs not only must deny that sexism exists but also that it costs women?
You go, Lisa, you go back to whatever self-taught drama class you attended.
It's obviously not one that helped you understand characters:
The stereotypical female characters in the office include the blonde princess, the driven bitch, and a slight variation on the Manic Pixie Dream Girl (this version's on hand to help the lead male character, Lee, become a better man and woman).
First off, the standard of quality sitcoms remains The Mary Tyler Moore Show. Have you ever watched the pilot? The thing about a pilot (and why we don't review a show based just on a pilot) is that it takes time for characters to flesh out in a sitcom. If CBS' The Class had been as strong at the beginning as it was as the midway point, it would still be on the air.
Second off, that's not how we saw the three. "Blonde princess"? We could be wrong. We saw the blond as an airhead. We figured that, a la Jessica Lange's character in Tootsie, she would find her own strength over time watching the leads express their strength. "The driven bitch"? Wow. We've seen that character with a penis in a number of shows -- including The Office -- but never heard him called a bitch. A jerk or an ass, at most, but never such hostility as to hiss "bitch." Who's sexual stereotyping here and deciding that competition at work, that wanting to be the best equates with "bitch"? Who's really afraid of strong and powerful women? Right now it looks like Lisa Bennett and NOW are afraid of strong and powerful women. And please note that elsewhere Lisa will lament that the women at the office aren't seen as capable or smart but she'll attack the lead salesperson, the one focused on her job, as a "bitch"? Wow, Lisa, you really are a piece of work. As for "Manic Pixie Dream Girl," we'll assume Lisa identified with that character, hence the praise.
The woman, like Lisa, is a drip, a dope and a coward. She's easily intimidated and desperate for approval. Don't see how that qualifies as "Pixie" or "Dream Girl." But then, we have full lives, unlike Lisa.
Lisa and NOW declare:
Other clichés are trotted out, too, like straight men's fascination with lesbians and this classic: "I'm Puerto Rican, I'd be great at selling drugs." Even book clubs where women read about coming of age (and dying) in Rwanda are played for laughs. Aren't women and their interests just silly?
Let's take that one at a time, okay?
Other clichés are trotted out, too, like straight men's fascination with lesbians
A large number of straight men are fascinated with the thought of two women (or more) together. And Work It isn't the only show offering that. We've yet to see NOW take on other shows. They could go with The League on FX, in fact, they could go after most of the FX programming. But they didn't. They waited for a show that the critics savaged and then, a week after it was savaged, they showed up to attack it.
There's a word for that. It's not "brave." It's bully.
Is the fascination with two women overplayed? Possibly. But we're not seeing how a fantasy of two women together qualifies as sexist or something NOW needs to call out.
Could Lisa please explain to us what's offensive about two women having sex with each other? And then could NOW please issue an apology to the lesbian community for Lisa's 'explanation' of how two women having sex is offensive?
and this classic: "[But] I'm Puerto Rican, I'd be great at selling drugs."
We dealt with that throwaway line last week. What happened since?
Desperate Housewives.
NOW, where's your alert?
And Gabby knows a lot of people hooked on drugs?
Hmm. Again, where's the alert?
Oh, and who went to rehab? Carlos. The most prominent Latino male on ABC prime time.
Where's the alert, NOW?
Even book clubs where women read about coming of age (and dying) in Rwanda are played for laughs. Aren't women and their interests just silly?
Book clubs played for laughs? Oh, goodness, that is a shocker. We've seen one sitcom after another in the last years portray reading clubs as a joke. That includes, last season, 30 Rock where Liz Lemmon ditched the book to watch the video and that includes, this season, Last Man Standing where Tim Allen's character delivered riffs on it. Is NOW unaware of all the book clubs jokes that have been going on for the last ten years?
The line the "pixie" delivers about the book is, "It's about a girl who comes of age during a spelling bee in Rwanda. Spoiler alert: She dies!" And she screams, "She dies!" The book is made fun of -- and sounds like a blend of several titles -- but it's not a joke about Rwanda and maybe NOW and Lisa need to pay attention and be honest. It's the yelling of "She dies" that gets the laugh (as is evident when the husband passes the book along to his wife).
NOW:
"Work It" might be easy to write off, if it weren't so offensive. [. . .] And Lee's wife has to remind him to "stop comparing prostate exams to the pinball scene in 'The Accused'" -- no matter how old the reference, is gang rape ever good fodder for a joke?
The wife calls him out for comparing it to rape. September 10, 2006 the most famous TV portrayal of a prostate exam aired. It lives on eternally in syndication.
If you're not smart enough, if you're not well-versed in TV, you don't need to be analyzing a damn thing. You need to find something you're good at -- surely, Lisa, there is something -- and focus on that.
But in the world of TV, there's "Stewie Loves Lois." That's an infamous episode of Family Guy where Peter has a prostate exam. We're not shown in at is happens. We 'see' it in Peter's flashback as he explains what happened. And it's The Accused.
If Lisa doesn't know that, we're not surprised. But, as with the law, in TV criticism, ignorance is no excuse. Since that episode has aired, it has entered the cultural lexicon. We thought it was wonderful that the wife on Work It called out that nonsense.
We could go on and on refuting the nonsense.
But the point is that NOW was useless and a bully.
Lisa, pay attention, this is where we set your sorry ass straight.
NOW chose to pick on a sitcom a week after it had been repeatedly trashed and after it debuted to lousy ratings. That was 'brave' to them.
Remember what we said here last week, "There were many things for media watchers to call out last week, serious issues. How sad but telling that they were more comfortable attacking a sitcom and looking the other way while NPR served up a broadcast far more offensive than the sitcom ever could offer."
Yeah. Women were rendered invisible on NPR's live Iowa coverage (only three women is invisible). You might think that the National Organization for Women would be interested in calling that out. But instead of addressing a real issue, they gorged on a trifle. Work It could be the number one show on TV and would do no serious damage to anyone. NPR's refusal to book women in equal numbers to men is not new and is not helpful to women. But Lisa Bennett's too stupid or too cowardly to call that out.
Here's a hint for Lisa and NOW: What everyone's writing about at Entertainment Weekly or E!? It's covered. Address some actual issues, address things that actually matter. In 2010, Terry Gross booked how many women? (Only 18% of her guests were women.) Where was NOW? When NPR repeatedly ignores women, where's NOW? When last week's live NPR New Hampshire coverage featured 21 voices, how many were women?
When NOW and Lisa are ready to tackle those issues, they might have something to say about the media worth listening to. Until then? As Maria McKee sang (and co-wrote) in"Why Wasn't I More Grateful (When Life Was Sweet)," "Some people like to complain about every little thing, Some folks just never stop bitchin'." And that's neither entertaining nor enjoyable.
--------
Title is tongue-in-cheek and references Abby (Cristin Milioti) shouting, "Liz Lemmon is a Judas to all womankind!" at the end of 30 Rock's "TGS Hates Women." 1-16-12: The characterization paragraph has been tightened up since this published. "'Blonde princess?'" was previously a much longer, run-on sentence, for example. Thank you to Ty for typing this from our longhand draft on legal pad (we had to leave for the Golden Globes), if we'd done it ourselves (as we should have) we would have caught the problems with that paragraph which are now fixed.
