Question

[damelola]

For those of you who will continue to watch House next season:

WHY?

This is not intended as an attack, I swear.  You know I don't pick fights with my friends (random trolls and evil people on the other hand...).  But how are you justifying it to yourselves?  Is it just a case of 'I've started so I have to finish'?  I mean, I know some of y'all would watch snuff for to Hugh Laurie if you had to, and I can't claim I'm any different when it comes to my women.

But I'm genuinely interested to hear what the defence is to the blatant misogyny (and/or casual racism), sharp decline in writing and all-round character assassination (including, most importantly, that of House himself)?  What is it that makes you say that's not how it is or it doesn't matter because.  Like I say, not picking a fight but I feel like I've only seen one side of this so far and I really don't know how the people not speaking up about this are rationalising the showrunners' decisions.

I'm putting this public and enabling anon so you don't have to feel awkward about it all.  Look forward to hearing any and all sides of the arguments outside of the general comm hysteria.

Comments

[damelola.livejournal.com]

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

[flippet.livejournal.com]

I honestly think that if we let the mass media pass un-analysed then yes, we get into that learned behaviour argument.

Hm...trying to gather my thoughts on this one.

I would never argue that what one sees (on television, in their personal environment) doesn't affect them, especially children. But how is going to be fairly individual and personal - and personal environment makes the lion's share of that.

Anyone who's using House as substitute parenting/morals development and a 'guide for life' isn't thinking straight to begin with.

And I'm trying to think - this may sound odd, but - the environment I grew up in (and continue to work in) was so 'clean' (being religious and all), that I don't know anybody (any guy) who's a right shithead. I really don't. I can't think of a single personal acquaintance who would fit that category. Because everyone had relatively decent families. Not perfect, but good. And because of that - what we all watched on TV didn't dictate our behavior. We had plenty of other models to look up to. I mean, my father loved Archie Bunker on All In the Family. I find him kind of nasty. My dad loved Benny Hill - I've always gotten an 'ick' factor from that. But my father was the kindest, gentlest man you could know, and most certainly nothing like the characters he liked to watch on tv.

Just because something may include triggers for one person doesn't mean that it should then be 'cleansed' of that trigger for everyone else for whom it's not a trigger to begin with.

I hate horror movies. I don't think they're good for the psyche of those who watch them. Should my local cinema refuse to show them until they bring down the level of gore and violence? Should I picket the theaters that do show them?

It starts getting into dicey territory, when you begin to want to censor what kinds of things 'should' be shown or not in any given program.

Which isn't to say that you shouldn't talk about it. That's how we all learn and grow.

[remydoodle.livejournal.com]

OOPS, I think I replied to you instead of Damelola!

[remydoodle.livejournal.com]

I just read your comment, I agree 100%.
Unfortunately, I think tv has become our children's babysitter more and more!

[flippet.livejournal.com]

I think tv has become our children's babysitter more and more!

It has, but then we come to *expect* it to be the babysitter, and decide that it needs to be the babysitter according to *our* terms. We try to micromanage it, and bitch it out for failing at what we perceive to be its 'job'....when perhaps, we ought to be supervising our own damn kids. ;-)

[remydoodle.livejournal.com]

Don't worry, you have not offended me at all. You have a right to your opinion and I will fight for your right to express it. You reminded me of something else I had wanted to mention when you brought up the icky comment.

I don't know if you were familiar with this but years ago I always watched the Rosie O'Donnell show. One day she had on Tom Selleck, I think he had recently been made president or spokesperson for the NRA. They got on the discussion of guns and stuff. I forget exactly what was said, it was so long ago, but I felt he was attacking her. She was asking questions and stuff and he was ... he just wasn't nice. He had been on, I believe it was the Today show and Matt Lauer had interviewed him. Rosie was asking him pretty much the same questions but because she expressed a different opinion and tried to have a conversation about it, he got rather nasty. It was a very uncomfortable interview. She apologized to him at the end for making him uncomfortable because by then he had started to just ignore her. I went online to the forum after and was SHOCKED that some people were taking his side saying that Rosie was the nasty person! I wondered, did they watch the same show! It was on all the entertainment news shows later and he said Rosie was wrong and shouldn't have asked him the questions and then he said he was still waiting for an apology. She was on and apologized again and couldn't believe it was all being blown up the way it was.
But this was a perfect example of everyone seeing the same thing but coming away with a different perspective.
I personally never watched another Tom Selleck show or movie again!
And it's a shame TS is in Blue Bloods because I like Donnie Wahlberg and would definitely be watching if not for him!
That was just the example I forgot to mention.