Writer Biography

Samantha Hendricks is a Law & Constitutional Studies major from Nampa, Idaho. A member of the USU Speech & Debate team, Hendricks loves persuasion and argument, especially about public lands and the existence of Sasquatch. She’s also been a member of Teens Against Tobacco Use and Aggies for Liberty. Like any good Idahoan, Hendricks can make a great batch of mashed potatoes and knows all the good camping spots. Her goal after graduation is to be a lobbyist for an interest she’s passionate about.

This essay was first published in the 2018 edition of Voices and uses MLA documentation.

ONE WOULD THINK THAT AFTER THREE waves of American feminism that the issues taken up by these advocates would be resolved already. However, not only does the U.S. fall short in business, with women holding only 4.6% of top CEO positions in S&P 500 companies, and in politics, where women hold 20% of Congressional seats, but in television as well (“Women CEOs;” “Women in Government”). According to The Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film, women make up only 43% of speaking roles on the small screen (Center for the Study). While appearance in television far outstrips representation in business and government, this does not necessarily mean that women are fairly or accurately represented. In popular American programming, women are consistently put into three categories: kiss, marry, or kill. Either sexualized, domesticated, or intensely hated, women’s roles are inhibiting both to actors and to the millions of women watching and are sadly reflective of real life. Discussing each stereotype, their implications, and possible solutions for this issue is imperative in not only changing the way media portrays women but in how American society views and treats all genders.

Kiss: The Hypersexualization of Characters

Think of your favorite TV show. Got it? Now think of the leading role portrayed by a woman. More often than not, she’s beautiful and thin with perfect skin and shiny hair. She’s probably romantically pursued by several characters or at least discussed or presented this way. Think Jennifer Aniston’s character Rachel Green from Friends. However, anyone outside of a TV could tell you real people rarely look like that. These perfect portrayals of perfect women are, in fact, very imperfect. A 2010 report by the American Psychological Association found that women characters are more likely than men to be portrayed in a sexual manner, “dressed in revealing clothing, and set in bodily postures or facial expressions that imply sexual readiness” (American Psychological Association). While sexuality is not necessarily a bad thing, it can and should be a source of empowerment, the effects of hypersexualization often do have a negative impact.

Hypersexualization in media most often allows women to be seen as one-dimensional, regardless of power, status, or assertiveness, typical American measurements of success. In the primetime show Supergirl, superhero Kara Zor-El is just that, a superhero. However, the character struggles as just a “girl in a short skirt.” Even though Kara possesses the same powers as her cousin, Superman, she is often belittled and mocked in the show’s writing for not measuring up. In the hit comedy The Office, the character Pam Beesley is satirically referred to as the “hottie of the office,” but more often than not, this irony ends up reinforcing stereotypes of the professionally powerless receptionist, only useful as decoration. This depiction is especially meaningful when we realize that when shows like The Office are more realistic, the more their presentations permeate the status quo. Even Friends’ beloved Rachel is often reduced to nothing more than a passive character and a pretty face.

In addition to being defined by their sexuality, characters portrayed by women are often more likely to be punished for it. In their article, “Girl Power or Powerless Girl? Television, Sexual Scripts, and Sexual Agency in Sexually Active Young Women,” Rita Seabrook and her colleagues report sexual content appears in 82% of U.S. television programs (Seabrook et al.). While again this is not the problem, two issues stem from the application. First, sexual themes most often portray women as objects. Second, these characters are often met with more consequences (like sexually transmitted diseases and social isolation) than men after violating gendered expectations by initiating sexual activity. This forces viewers from all genders to see women as submissive and weak and allows the assumption from younger, inexperienced viewers that these are normal experiences. These assumptions not only hurt the present but cement this perceived reality in our future.

UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund) released a statement on 9 May 2016 that these views of women are nothing less than unacceptable: “With these hypersexualized models of femininity constantly being perpetuated in the media, the negative implications affecting the mental, emotional and physical wellness of girls are many” (End Trafficking Campaign). They explain that when women and girls watch televised programs, they are more likely to develop mental and physical disorders, low self-esteem, and negative self-images than their men counterparts. They continue by reporting that these idealized women on screen contribute to 81 % of American girls fearing being fat (End Trafficking Campaign). These normalized expectations thrust upon women also normalize what happens to them, namely labeling, belittling, lowering expectations of success, isolation, sexual harassment, and even assault. It is obvious that this search for the ideal woman to display on the small screen is massively harmful, but unfortunately, it isn’t the only damaging stereotype.

Marry: Basing Worth in Relationship Status

As women inhabit and flourish in increasingly diverse roles in society, televised portrayals of women are slower to respond. In American programming, women are still most likely to be defined by their relationships with other characters, often as a lover or a mother. These stereotypes of “mom,” “ex-girlfriend,” or “love interest” limit roles available for actors to portray and limit writers’ capabilities to portray women as autonomous individuals. According to the same study conducted by The Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film, “female characters were younger than their male counterparts, more likely than men to be identified by their marital status, and less likely than men to be seen at work and actually working” (The Center for the Study). Across the board, women characters are more likely to play familial and life-oriented roles, giving up independence and sacrificing their own wants to maintain these relationships.

Like hypersexualization, boxing women into primarily familial roles decreases their individual agency and the importance of their own desires and plots. For example, in the sitcom The Big Bang Theory, the character Penny is hypersexualized while also fitting more fully into this second category because she is only important to the plot because of her relationship with the main characters in the show, nerdy neighbors Leonard and Sheldon. She begins as just a pretty neighbor but later on in the show enters into a romantic relationship with Leonard and becomes a quasi-mother to Sheldon. Her influence on these men is empowering and important for viewers. However, her influence is undercut by scant plots that revolve around her personal life, with only bits and quips mentioned about her acting career amidst discussions of the men’s latest scientific discoveries. Her unimportance to actual plot lines is exemplified most fully by her character’s lack of a last name. Her character only acquires one when she marries, again decreasing her worth as an individual and linking her importance directly to a relationship.

The relational limitations placed on actresses don’t lessen with experience or respect in their field either. In her article “Older Women on TV Are either Absent or Demeaned,” writer Marilyn Gardner states this unfortunate labeling gets worse the older actresses become. 75% of roles for actresses 65 and older are family-based but often portray these characters as mean-spirited and biased. Racist grandmothers and mean mothers-in-law are the most common options available. (Gardner)

Family is a positive thing, and sacrifice points towards the strength of a relationship, but too much of a good thing can be too much of a good thing. Like hypersexualization, the constant restriction of women to these relationship-oriented roles can and does correlate to real-life opinions on how women should act and be seen in society. Social cognitive theorists posit that viewers are not the same as the passive characters they watch on television. Instead, viewers (unconsciously or otherwise) use the messages presented to formulate real opinions. These opinions created from fictionalized plots are called “perceived realism” (Seabrook et al.). When viewers perceive plots and relationships in TV as realistic, this changes how they view the people and messages around them. When men make up the majority of people to be seen at work and recognized for achievement on screen, they will be more likely than women to do so in real life. This harms real-life women by forcing expectations of lower achievement. This also harms men by linking them only to dominance and achievement, leaving those less assertive isolated from U.S. reality (perceived and actual).

Kill: Leaving “Unlikeable” Characters Behind

Fictionalized television is there for just that, to portray fiction. These stories require plots, goals, characters, issues, settings, and just the right amount of relatable content. However, U.S. media has needlessly villainized many women. For the most part, women do not receive the same broad spectrum as men do in regard to a character’s personality or role, and it is most prevalent in likeability. Characters portrayed by women are usually in two categories: love ‘em or hate ‘em. This last perception often requires women on screen to be beautifully successful examples of everything good or else be hated for the remainder of a show’s run. This hatred is based on three factors: perfection, character development, and adhesion to gender roles.

Firstly, as illustrated by the first two stereotypes, lover or mother, women are expected to be the ideal example of their assigned role. Their attractiveness and role success are directly related to how viewers perceive their worth to the show. This expectation of extreme perfection is most often thrust upon minority women. The model minority myth illustrates how minority members, especially women, can escape discrimination by being better than everyone else. Thus, with TV’s minimal minority population, this myth is perpetuated. In her article, “Post-Racial Relations on Primetime Television: How Scandal Represents Olivia Pope,” author Cheryl Lambert speaks on the superwoman, a stereotype most often associated with Black women. She states Black women are not perceived as well as their white counterparts without doing more, and only by doing the best at the most can they ever measure up (Lambert). These characters are not granted the leeway men are to make mistakes, and minority women are the most restricted. Their mistakes often risk a bigger backlash from viewers.

Second, because women characters are most often labeled by the roles of lover or mother, they are often not as developed as men. This contrast between genders can lead viewers to believe women characters do not contribute as much. They are labeled “annoying,” “useless,” and “boring.” Even Dana Scully of The X-Files, one half of TV’s arguably most iconic duos and a model of feminine empowerment in media, was widely criticized for how little she contributed to the plot. This may have been due to the lack of development of Scully’s backstory in the first few seasons, which mainly focused on her masculine FBI partner. When viewers do not connect with a character, any contributions they may bring are perceived as second-rate, forcing many unfairly undeveloped women characters to be seen as such.

The last cause of dislike toward women characters may be the most important. When characters step outside of gendered societal norms, they are often punished, ostracized, and ignored. In The Office, Karen Filippelli is widely considered one of the worst characters. She initiated and strengthened her romantic relationship and made professional choices to advance her career. However, because these are traditionally more aggressive, masculine traits, she was seen as selfish and rude. In comparison, when her boyfriend, Jim Halpert, convinces Karen to move in with him, knowing he didn’t intend the relationship to advance, his later abandonment of their relationship is seen as romantic and chivalrous. In addition to unfair expectations to conform to gendered roles, queer characters who don’t conform to societal expectations of “straightness” are also punished. Slate reports of the 383 lesbian or bisexual characters appearing on U.S. television programs between 1976 and 2016, only 30 have received happy endings, and 95 have died (Thomas).

Frequent viewing of shows that exhibit these gendered scripts makes the translation of this hatred to real-life more frequent. This viewpoint further exacerbates the restrictions placed on women on both sides of the fourth wall, contributing to fewer opportunities for feminine expression and choices to benefit the individual. It also allows the continuation of objectification and the misunderstanding of sexuality, contributing further to the victimization of women. When characters are continually viewed as imperfect, useless, and unlawful, it increases similar perceptions of real-life women, contributing to the problems three waves of feminism have not yet resolved.

The Correct Answer

Thankfully, several solutions to the problems television illustrates and exacerbates exist but complete regulation of television programs and a demand for the same amount of screen time for all genders would not be efficient in the U.S.’s intensely independent culture. However, including more women in the creative process, enabling discourse, and encouraging support of women’s autonomy in media can and will create meaningful change.

It is up to each individual to recognize what is and what is not a fair portrayal of gender on television. However, if perceived reality is the real phenomenon, this isn’t entirely useful. This is why institutions like the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media exist. A research-based organization, this institute along with many others like it works within the media industry to educate producers to change how women are portrayed on screen (Geena Davis Institute). One cause of the vast misrepresentation of women in television is the low rate of women employees behind the scenes. Currently, women make up only 27% of all creative workers on broadcast television (“TV Statistics”). The encouragement of media producers to hire more women in creative capacities and to listen to their input is imperative in convincing the television industry internally of its need to change.

In addition, once this change is initiated, sparking discourse about misrepresentation will be the most influential solution. We must challenge perceived reality and myths about success in order to make any change. Allowing women more creative power, more screen time, and more representation will help dispel these myths and create conversation about abilities and power and define exactly why our current norms and expectations are not right. This education, talking and reading about gender, is the best defense against the continuation of these issues. One organization helping to encourage these discussions is SPARK (Sexualization Protest Action Resistance Knowledge). This activist organization helps create solutions for hypersexualization, objectification, and violence against women in the media and in real life (SHIRR Movement).

Lastly, during these discussions, it is imperative to encourage and support women. Only by recognizing each woman’s worth as a professional, friend, leader, and person with individual wants, needs, abilities, and talents, can the American people move forward as a whole. Several television programs currently portray women realistically which we can support now. Shows that place women in multiple roles, like Stranger Things, or that show women developing personally and professionally, like The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, or as leaders in Madam Secretary and Veep, or as heroes in Jessica Jones, will send waves of change throughout the industry.

In his 1983 work, “The Ideological Turn in Modern Criticism,” Philip Wander stated, “People have a moral obligation to confront their societal conditions” (Wander). We can no longer allow television the option to kiss, marry, or kill characters portrayed by women. The consequences of this limited creation are many and hurt more than just women. Members of all genders are multifaceted, complicated individuals who deserve a fair portrayal, and it is time to start reflecting that.

Works Cited

American Psychological Association, Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls. Report on the API Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls. American Psychological Association, 2007. http://www.apa.org/ pi/women/programs/girls/report, aspx.

The Big Bang Theory. CBS, 2007.

The Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film. Dr. Martha Lauzen, San Diego State University, 2016, http://womenintvfilm.sdsu.edu/.

End Trafficking Campaign. “Not an Object: On Sexualization and Exploitation of Women and Girls.” UNICEF USA, 9 May 2016, www.unicefusa.org/stories/not-object-sexualization-and- exploitation-women-and-girls/30361.

Friends. NBC, 1994.

Gardner, Marilyn. “Older Women on TV Are Either Absent or Sadly Demeaned.” Christian Science Monitor, vol. 88, no. 125, 23 May 1996, p. 13. EBSCO/m/ dist.lib.usu.edu/login?url=http://search. ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=960609255 0&site=ehost-live.

Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media. Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media, 2018, https://seejane.org/.

Jessica Jones. Netflix, 2015.

Lambert, Cheryl A. “Post-Racial Public Relations on Primetime Television: How Scandal Represents Olivia Pope.” Public Relations Review, vol. 43, no. 4, July 2017, pp.750-754. EBSCO/mt, doi: 10.1016/j. pubrev.2017.07.004.

Madam Secretary. CBS, 2014.

The Office, Episode 53. NBC, 2005.

Seabrook, Rita C, et al. “Girl Power or Powerless Girl? Television, Sexual Scripts, and Sexual Agency in Sexually Active Young Women.” Psychology of Women Quarterly, vol. 41, no. 2, June 2017, pp. 240-253. EBSCO/mt, doi: 10.1177/0361684316677028.

SRlRh Movement. Sexualization Protest Action Resistance Knowledge, 2018, http: / / www sparkmovement. org/.

Stranger Things. Netflix, 2016.

Supergirl. CBS, 2014.

Thomas, June. “When Will TV Finally Stop Killing Off Its Lesbian Characters?” Slate Magazine, 21 Dec. 2016, www.slate.com/articles/ arts/tv_club/features/2016/tv_club_2016/when_will_tv_finally_ stop_k illing_off_its_lesbian_characters.html.

“TV Statistics.” Women and Hollywood, 2017, womenandhollywood.com/ resources/statistics/tv-statistics/.

The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt. Netflix, 2015.

Veep. HBO, 2012.

Wander, Philip. “The Ideological Turn in Modern Criticism.” Central States Speech Journal, vol. 34, no. 1, 1983.

“Women CEOs of the S&P 500.” Catalyst: Workplaces That Work for Women, 6 Nov. 2017, www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-ceos-sp-500.

“Women in Government.” Catalyst: Workplaces That Work for Women, 30 May 2017, www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-government.

The X Files. Fox, 1993.