This is the side I haven't seen much of tbh, so I'm really grateful you took the time to comment.
I honestly think that if we let the mass media pass un-analysed then yes, we get into that learned behaviour argument. If the show wants to show strippers and prostitutes, I have no issue with that. If they show these characters as merely pawns to be manipulated by male characters, I have a problem with that. The thing about House for me was that it did a 'whole spectrum' view. So you would have Cameron's idealism vs House's cynicism, the prostitutes who House paid versus Stacy or Cuddy who he entered into relationships with. The balance of House and Wilson's friendship against relationships either of them were in.
I admit I have said bitchy things about RSL's acting prowess (because his performances on House in the last three years have borne no relation to his reputation -- a reputation he has no problem advertising when he deigns to promote the show that hundreds of peoples' jobs depend on). Outside of that, in terms of which actor has done more for the show, be it promotional work, actual heavy lifting in terms of acting and screentime, or just general commitment to the show, there's no contest in a Lisa vs RSL showdown. That he should be 'rewarded' and she be 'punished' (to simplify) is baffling to me.
Part of my militancy on this topic I think is because this is how I was raised. A newspaper lies about a group you consider yourself part of and refuses to apologise? Don't buy that paper. A shampoo company tests cruelly on animals? Don't buy that shampoo.
So by extension, a TV show turning their heroes into people who dismiss or degrade women (which for all House/Chase/whoever's faults, they didn't do in earlier seasons) is not something I will continue to support or promote. It might make virtually no difference, but I think writing off this kind of thing as 'harmless' or 'not my problem' is dangerous. It makes me feel icky, and differently about the people involved on the show and thus my enjoyment is ruined.
I think it's important for me to see that not everyone is affected in this way, though. I suppose I'm interested as to where the subjective and objective overlap here, and if there are absolutes that would turn people off.
Perhaps more than anything, House is a victim of its initial quality. It didn't used to be stupid, it didn't used to have every other episode be poorly written. It actually used the anti-hero and the biting sarcasm to deflate a lot of stupidity. Now it seems to be feeding it. And given that most of the staff is the same, it smacks of people not working as hard anymore -- there's no denying the talent involved. Personally, if they can't be arsed then neither can I.
Thank you though, genuinely. I don't mean to sound preachy or accusatory, and I hope I haven't offended you x
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ninetydegrees
no subject
on 2011-05-20 12:26 am (UTC)I honestly think that if we let the mass media pass un-analysed then yes, we get into that learned behaviour argument. If the show wants to show strippers and prostitutes, I have no issue with that. If they show these characters as merely pawns to be manipulated by male characters, I have a problem with that. The thing about House for me was that it did a 'whole spectrum' view. So you would have Cameron's idealism vs House's cynicism, the prostitutes who House paid versus Stacy or Cuddy who he entered into relationships with. The balance of House and Wilson's friendship against relationships either of them were in.
I admit I have said bitchy things about RSL's acting prowess (because his performances on House in the last three years have borne no relation to his reputation -- a reputation he has no problem advertising when he deigns to promote the show that hundreds of peoples' jobs depend on). Outside of that, in terms of which actor has done more for the show, be it promotional work, actual heavy lifting in terms of acting and screentime, or just general commitment to the show, there's no contest in a Lisa vs RSL showdown. That he should be 'rewarded' and she be 'punished' (to simplify) is baffling to me.
Part of my militancy on this topic I think is because this is how I was raised. A newspaper lies about a group you consider yourself part of and refuses to apologise? Don't buy that paper. A shampoo company tests cruelly on animals? Don't buy that shampoo.
So by extension, a TV show turning their heroes into people who dismiss or degrade women (which for all House/Chase/whoever's faults, they didn't do in earlier seasons) is not something I will continue to support or promote. It might make virtually no difference, but I think writing off this kind of thing as 'harmless' or 'not my problem' is dangerous. It makes me feel icky, and differently about the people involved on the show and thus my enjoyment is ruined.
I think it's important for me to see that not everyone is affected in this way, though. I suppose I'm interested as to where the subjective and objective overlap here, and if there are absolutes that would turn people off.
Perhaps more than anything, House is a victim of its initial quality. It didn't used to be stupid, it didn't used to have every other episode be poorly written. It actually used the anti-hero and the biting sarcasm to deflate a lot of stupidity. Now it seems to be feeding it. And given that most of the staff is the same, it smacks of people not working as hard anymore -- there's no denying the talent involved. Personally, if they can't be arsed then neither can I.
Thank you though, genuinely. I don't mean to sound preachy or accusatory, and I hope I haven't offended you x