Posts Tagged ‘Television’

Where’s the love for Big Love?

Wednesday, May 17th, 2006

Jill over at Feministe posted a deep article, Patriarchy Gone Wild, about polygamy in the deep Southwest which resounded and validated all those icky feelings I have had when watching HBO’s Big Love (I am looking forward to seeing what John over at Blurbomat thinks, especially considering that he is an ex-Mormon living among Mormons so he’ll have some unique insights–my insights tend to wander). The trouble that I have with the show is that I cannot separate my personal politics from the storyline enough to be able to relate to the characters as individuals but let me back up and provide a little personal context.

My mother is a strong individual and an even stronger woman who values and strives for independence, mobility, and equality for all peoples regardless of gender, sexual orientation, color, or creed. Growing up, her beliefs left an indelible imprint on how I see the world around me and how I treat others. That upbringing has caused conflict, particularly the simple fact that I count myself as a feminist. How can you be a feminist? Don’t you need to be a woman? Are you some sort of leftist metrosexual? Looking back to my mother, her struggles attuned me to the experiences of women in our society but from the vantage point of someone in a position of privilege. While some would argue that I’m in touch with my pink and frillies it doesn’t change the fact that Feminism, at its essence, deals with the social, political, and economic inequality between genders. One thing I can’t even begin to understand is why Feminism gets people so upset. Is gender quality such a bad thing? However, like all things dealing with equality between peoples it is probably rooted in concepts of command and control.

Management has been drawn into Big Love and it has lead to some candid conversations about my revulsion and her fascination. She exhibits a much stronger ability to compartmentalize than I do so she has been able to watch the show for the interplay between the individual characters while I get hung up in the socio-political ramifications of the story’s environment. My problem is that I see my wife, sister, mother, niece, and every woman I know in the role of the female characters and it turns my stomach. Would I want my 13 year old niece married off to a 65 year old man? Would I dare tell my wife when she can leave the house and whether or not she is allowed to drive? These woman and children are chattel. Used and abused for the personal gratification and convenience of a handful of men. Would I wish that upon anyone? No.

I have a serious problem with people willing to impose their will upon others. Now it could be said that my laissez-faire political leanings could be construed as a loose version of what I abhor but my belief is that all people should be treated equally and to be free to pursue life as they see fit provided others do not come to harm from their actions. It is that last bit where the arguments start. Define harm. Going back to Big Love I see the polygamy situation as one that inhibits the rights of woman and children to self-determination. Physical, sexual, and mental abuse does that and moreover it damages the fabric of society by creating tiers of rights. Those who have them and those who do not. It is about control.

Control: to exercise authoritative or dominating influence. The word just doesn’t sit right with me. Some of you might be snickering for the fact that I have a child on the way and the the concepts of authority and domination will come to the forefront of my life but I still have a problem with it. Control to me belies the notion of absoluteness that it is complete, unconditional, and final. That concept, in my mind, is at odds with my predilection for nurturing, guiding, and encouraging. Control is diametrically opposed to self-determination and the notion of equality. Child rearing arguments aside, I do not want my child to grow up believing that they are better or worse than anyone else on this planet that they control or are controlled by others. Self-worth is derived from within not from without.

So there it is, my hang up is with a television show populated by fictional characters and places. Now, I suppose that it could be construed as good TV since it has challenged Management and I to think about the lives and world that it is describing and how that fits into our personal and shared world views. At the end of the day, though, it still makes me uncomfortable in a very icky sort of way.

Texas Ranch House

Friday, April 21st, 2006

Colonial HouseManagement and I have been huge fans of the Houses series on PBS and when we heard about Texas Ranch House premiering May 1st we just about did a little jig of joy. It has been two years since Colonial House, which kept us junked out with its quasi-educational format replete with reality show drama even though it lacked the bat-shit insane individuals and post-show divorce proceedings like Frontier House. Well, actually the professors from Colonial House were certifiable, especially the wife, and gave a sobering look at how people who spend their lives mired in the politics of tenure act in the world at large.

The Houses series are a fascinating look into how far we have come in terms of technology and how those conveniences have changed us socially and culturally. The British show 1940s House really hammered that home when the family, lacking the foresight with regards to what “lean times” could mean gave away all their rabbits which proved to be disastrous as it was to be their only source of fresh meat in the months to come. Understandably, they viewed the rabbits as pets and could not bear with the thought of killing and eating them, a sign of how far we as individuals have removed ourselves from the food chain. Though, I think what complicated it further for the family was that they spent their months straddling the two worlds, one of sacrifice some 60 years in the past and the other of quick fixes and plenty of today.

In contrast to the BBC counterparts, the PBS produced shows find the participants isolated from society at large. Interaction with the nearby communities is discouraged and the producers often try to locate the production in remote areas: wilderness of Montana and the rough coast of Down East Maine. That isolation helps put the participants into the role they are to play by forcing the focus on the immediate tasks at hand be it building a house or trying to coax crops from a thin rocky soil. Additionally, the work and isolation help strip away the artifices that we cover ourselves in and often near the end of the project the real person begins to emerge for good and for bad and it is that which makes it such fascinating television.

Most reality shows are a competition, each individual is striving for a prize be it money or fame it still remains a race. PBS and BBC spin on the reality show are not competitions between individuals, though at times the circumstances and differing values and beliefs can pit one persona against another. The goal is just to survive the project and working together is the best way to achieve that which immediately makes it more interesting than all the elimination challenges in the world.  Now, if only I had the cajones to sign up for one of these projects.