June 28, 2004
HEY, NINETEEN:
When Creators of 'Quality Television' Try the Opposite Approach (ALESSANDRA STANLEY, 6/03/04, NY Times)
It is hard to pinpoint exactly when it became safe to be a stupid slut on television.There were always dumb blondes, of course, but even the bubbliest and most buxom of them — Donna Douglas on "The Beverly Hillbillies," Loni Anderson of "WKRP in Cincinnati" or Pamela Anderson of "Baywatch" — were sweet-natured objects of desire, not slatternly, intoxicated swingers.
Since then the devolution has spun ever downward to a world in which Paris Hilton, Jessica Simpson and Lindsey Lohan are teenage role models and the hit movie "Mean Girls" revels in what it professes to mock. (Why exactly does Tina Fey, playing a math teacher, take off her top?) Even Washington is infested with gofers gone wild: a young Senate staffer who was fired last month for posting her sex diaries on the Internet (unacceptable use of Senate computers) assured The Washington Post that she and her girlfriends all accept money for sex — suggesting an ever-thinning line between "hooking up" and hooking. [...]
The dismantling of feminism in popular culture began long ago, but on television, at least, "Real World" on MTV was a bellwether. When it began in 1992, that voyeuristic show took the music video images of wanton women out of the realm of MTV fantasy and into the reality genre, training cameras on the carnal pursuits of ordinary people and teaching teenagers that fame, however fleeting, trumps shame. "Sex and the City" in 1998 also lent casual sex dignity, or at least glamour, but the imitations it inspired — both on television and in real life — kept getting more tawdry.
Network executives at Oxygen and other networks justify their slumming by insisting that such shows are breaking down unhealthy taboos; but there are no taboos left on television, except perhaps, girls behaving decently.
It's not that hard to pinpoint: August 18, 1920. Posted by Orrin Judd at June 28, 2004 10:29 AM
I've always suspected that if the 19th Amendment were repealed, TV programing would improve drastically.
April 5, 1987
Posted by: David Cohen at June 28, 2004 10:50 AMHow do you square repealing the 19th amendment with supporting a female vice presidential candidate? Or is this just sarcasm?
Posted by: djs at June 28, 2004 10:58 AMWe're not going to repeal it, are we? Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good--that way lies libertarianism....
Posted by: oj at June 28, 2004 11:04 AMToday in history:
April 5, 1987: Fox TV network premieres showing Married With Children & Tracey Ullman.
You nailed it, David.
Posted by: Mike Morley at June 28, 2004 11:56 AMHow does Jessica Simpson count as a "slatternly, intoxicated swinger" instead of a "sweet-natured object of desire?" Wasn't she the former Christian singer who stayed a virgin until she was married then starred in a show revolving around how much she loves her husband?
Let me rephrase the first line of Ms. Stanley's column: "It is hard to pinpoint exactly when it became safe to be stupid in newspapers."
Posted by: Brandon at June 28, 2004 12:01 PMBrandon:
Much as Brittany Spears saying for a long while she was a virgin, so it didn't matter what type of person she protrayed nor the age of the targeted audience (for the most part preteens). Or Mr. Judd's assertion that babes posing naked to promote their classical music careers is okay because there is a classical musical instrument involved. I think using your virginity or your musical talent as a cover for your slutty behavior is more than a little hypocritical. Especially when they start bleating that no one takes them seriously.
Posted by: Buttercup at June 28, 2004 2:20 PMwhy the hatred for Married...With Children? that was a good show. the characters were parodies, and so anyone with an iq over 60 could understand the point. besides that, there were some real morals (i.e. all hated peg, but never divorced; all didn't appear to love his family, but constantly put up with ridicule and provided for all of them, hardly resisting a chance to stand up for them)
Posted by: poormedicalstudent at June 28, 2004 2:46 PMThere were always dumb blondes, of course, but even the bubbliest and most buxom of them — ... Loni Anderson of "WKRP in Cincinnati" ...
Wrongo! Anderson('s character) was blonde, buxom, and moderately bubbly, but not at all dumb.
PMS: The specific question is, when did it become safe to move from bubbly buxom blonde to slatternly, intoxicated, swinging, stupid sluts? The answer is Kelly Bundy.
As for your defence, you are describing The Simpsons, which insisted on being a conservative (or, rather, Communitarian) show despite its creators' intentions.
Posted by: David Cohen at June 28, 2004 3:50 PMBill:
And it was only women who thought Loni was the point, men knew it was Bailey.
Posted by: oj at June 28, 2004 4:08 PMTwo words: Susan Dey.
Posted by: David Cohen at June 28, 2004 6:44 PMDavid:
Were you a patient of your wife? Cause that Susan Dey fetish scares the hell out of me.
Posted by: oj at June 28, 2004 6:51 PMThe other day, NPR had some maven talking about young girls' body images and how they are led to aspire to impossibly slender frames by such as Brittney Spears.
Weird.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at June 28, 2004 7:37 PMI'm with PMS, Married with Children is a conservative show (just ask John Derbyshire).
Posted by: Robert Duquette at June 28, 2004 9:58 PMSome people speculated that the slasher movies of the 1980s were really conservative. Those movies appealed primarily to teenagers, and it sent them the message that those who engage in premarital sex and drug use suffer a horrible fate while the virtuous live on.
Posted by: Vince at June 28, 2004 10:41 PM>And it was only women who thought Loni was the
>point, men knew it was Bailey.
I always liked Doctor Johnny Fever, myself...
>Some people speculated that the slasher movies
>of the 1980s were really conservative... the
>message that those who engage in premarital sex
>and drug use suffer a horrible fate...
They say if you're ever caught in a slasher movie, stay away from sex in any form and you'll live. You can tell who's next:
If a couple start screwing away, they're the next to get got.
If someone wanders off alone, they're the next to get got.
Posted by: Ken at June 29, 2004 12:38 PMI don't think that the slasher movies are so much motivated by an anti-sex bias as by the desire of almost every young person to see the most popular types from high school get their comeuppance. I think that most people are rooting for the slasher.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at June 29, 2004 6:23 PM