I truly respect and admire the women who appeared in Vanity Fair’s “Special TV Issue”. Or rather, the issue that everyone online is calling the “women of television” issue. They have definitely all contributed to the success of their shows. I’m not going to bash any of them for appearing in the magazine. What I’m questioning is the women who aren’t there. For a special that claims it is focused on women having a great year in television, the magazine focuses on actresses. Are actresses important? Of course they are. Without strong actresses we wouldn’t have successful TV shows. But there are a lot of other people who contribute to a television show’s success, and this year a lot of them happened to be women. There are many women who should have been pictured, but aren’t: Liz Meriwether, Whitney Cummings, Shonda Rhimes, Molly Solomon, Lena Dunham, Liz Feldman, Nahnatchka Khan, Ellen Degeneres, Molly McAleer, Tina Fey, Emily Kapnek, and so many more that naming them all would be ridiculous.
This particular Vanity Fair article is coming out right after Lee Aronsohn (the guy who co-created ‘Two and a Half Men‘) ranted that current television comedies are too focused on women. During this rant he decided to use female genitalia as a euphemism for his disgust. I don’t think this is the place to repeat what was said, but Goggle it. He took things way too far.
Despite my disgust at Aronsohn’s rants, I’m frustrated that his idea of a big insult is linking female comedy to our reproductive parts. We have a man proclaiming, “enough ladies, I get it, you have periods” while completely ignoring the fact that women (who yes, probably do have periods) are managing to produce and write incredibly successful shows this year. Maybe someone needs to show Aronsohn the number of viewers that ‘New Girl‘ and ‘Two Broke Girls‘ have, compared to his own, male-oriented show.
This takes me back to the Vanity Fair issue. The magazine has created a lot of controversy because it pictures the “women of television” either naked in bed, or clothed only in lingerie. And yes, maybe this will help them sell magazines. Unfortunately, it also sells the idea that women’s success lies solely in their sex appeal. I’m sure lots of people are going to only skim this article, immediately argue with me, and say that the magazine has the right to dress women however they want, and that women have the right to agree. Of course that’s true. I’m not even sure I’m opposed to the fact that they are dressed in lingerie. What I’m really worried about is the fact that this particular issue of Vanity Fair is placing the ”women of television” (who are actually “the actresses of television”) into one pretty package. A few of the pictured actresses have producing credits on their shows, but none of them are executive producers or showrunners.
Shouldn’t we be asking for more than this? We need successful women in television to be celebrated more, not less, whatever Aronsohn says. Don’t believe me? Just look at the numbers: in the last year we saw a massive drop in the number of women behind the scenes of television shows. Only 15% of television writers and 18% of show creators are women. If you ask me, we need exactly the opposite of what Aronsohn wants. I want more vagina with my television, please.
You can read more from Emma Thomas on her blog and follow her on Twitter.
Feature image via Vanity Fair.
Great points Emma. I am loving all the strong female characters on TV at the minute, it’s so refreshing to see dramas where there are more worries than shoes and sex. There’s some wonderful things coming out of Scandanavia as well, with The Killing and The Bridge.
I love these actresses and the respective roles they get to play. my question is, why does Vanity Fair need to photograph them naked and in bed together for an issue on television? or, you know, in general.
although i dont think was your intention, i found your distinction between “women of television” and “actresses of television” intriguing. you are referring to the “women of television” as the women behind the scenes – producers, writers, directors, etc, but i sort of took it in a more abstract sense – “women of television” also being the actual characters themselves as a reflection of an entire group of people (actors, writers, directors, producers), both male and female, that develop and discover these female characters week after week, year after year. this isn’t to take away from the work of any individual actress, as she is the physical representation of her written character, but if there’s one thing i’d like to see more of from viewers it’s more recognition for the writers, directors and producers responsible for creating and nurturing the inspiring and funny “women of television” that we make appointments to watch every week. if that can include more vaginas, i’m still in it to win it.
I actually hadn’t seen anything about the VF issues until this, but I completely agree with you. For whatever reason (probably a combination of HG and twitter), I’ve gotten way more interested in and curious about the behind the scenes aspects of shows. I was suddenly taking note of who wrote, directed, produced, etc. each episode of shows I watch, and it is so awesome to see women be wildly successful at aspects of TV other than acting. As you point out, actresses are important, but if men are the ones controlling their acting, it seems like the way women are represented will be at least somewhat inaccurate.
This has been a great year for women in television. It makes me really proud and excited for the future. Shows like Girls, New Girl, 2 Broke Girls (girls girls girls!), and Suburgatory were definitely must watches for me this season. I agree with you. I want more vagina with my TV. And maybe a magazine spread that features women in TV outside of the bedroom setting. Just saying…