The "man's show" versus "woman's show" argument...

[Snarky Oracle!]

It's interesting, the "man show"/"woman show" debate. Katzman sneeringly called DYNASTY and DALLAS (the year he wasn't there, which became the dream season) "a woman's show."

He was right, actually. But what is a woman's show? I would argue that KNOTS LANDING, with the strongest female cast on TV, was not a "woman's show." And why not? Simply because the writing and the characterizations are valid and well-executed -- and that eliminates the derisive "woman's show" label (or should).

What made DALLAS' dream season so much like DYNASTY was not really the hyperbolic fashions but the maudlin, sticky, essentially dishonest emotions and slippery plotlines that basically go nowhere because everything is designed to "present" or even flatter the women in some odd way, and that presentation and flattery supersedes the need for coherent storylines.

KNOTS didn't do that. Most of DYNASTY and dream season DALLAS absolutely did.

Was DALLAS' Season 10 loaded down with "sexism"? I'd argue that the reflection of sexism isn't the same thing... Cliff's misogyny was fully evident that year, but is it sexist to reflect sexism in a character? The irony is that nothing's ever more misogynistic than a de facto "woman's show" where, like the dream season and most of DYNASTY, there's a big pretension, lots of pomp and circumstance, surrounding Women in Power, yet those women actually become far more incompetent.

Such was the case with Season 9 versus Season 10 of DALLAS. The dream season pretended prissily that they were making the women 'stronger,' but those women largely turned out to not know what they were doing; in Season 10, when the show reverted to being "a man's show" the women suddenly became more competent, if only because the writing was more fluid and forward-thrust.

Sure, Pam got a bit whiney at home because her husband was having a baby with another woman, but at the office, she handled things far more efficiently than her window-dressing "bring-me-a-cup-of-herbal-tea" charade at Ewing Oil when Bobby was ostensibly dead.

But a woman's show merely portrays women "being important" where the sexism of men like Cliff and JR are righteously vanquished as those men bow obsequiously -- even though that's not how the real world works at all.

Admittedly, once Paulsen left in 1988, and he seemed to be more about balance than anything, the remaining three years (with Katzman only) DALLAS slipped into something akin to a woman's show: there were plenty of pistol-packin' mamas in cut-offs and perm-frightened blonde hair, but the core female characters were not-so-discretely written out.

"A woman's show" is not only an insult, but it should be. And as KNOTS showed us, a woman-dominant program doesn't have to be that. And thank goddess.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

I used to like the old POLICE WOMAN series from the '70s, but only in its first season -- when it was still a rather macho cop show about a very feminine cop.

It was marvelous. And decidedly not "a woman's show" --- at least, not at first. She could do the tough stuff and the coquettish stuff... But the era's feminists complained that she was overly sexualized (the show seems very tame today) and so efforts were made to constrain her (e.g., her vocal delivery, her swagger, even her hair) such that by the second season, she no longer seemed like the star of her own show anymore; she was on camera just as much, but had become a dithery sidekick with an empty service revolver buried deep in her purse.

The women's group were pleased -- somewhat -- that she was no longer "constantly playing at whoredom" and therefore not "degrading to women," but now only the guys were allowed to do anything, while she just acted as the program's pleasant hostess who barely even needed to be there.

Is that a step forward? It killed the show.

It's hard to say about CHARLIE'S ANGELS -- at least they weren't incessantly rescued by dudes.

When DYNASTY was new, and its plotting was strong (in the first two seasons, and not again until Season 9) one could not fairly call it "a woman's show." But from Season 3 thru Season 8, as the narrative descended into circular bullshyte and the static acting directive kicked-in, it indeed very much became "a woman's show", and proudly so. And yet the women never seemed weaker --- flattered, centered, well-gowned and coifed, perhaps -- but weaker. Dilettantes, really.

Because the show (and the audience can tell this is happening) is no longer telling an actual story. So the ladies just seem like they're being pimped.

 

[Laurie Myrrh]

Even more egregious is the idea that a ‘woman’s show’ was in some way a template drawn from that extraordinary run of ‘woman’s’ films from the 40s. Davis, Crawford , Stanwick et. al. ploughed through a succession of films where the plots and characterisations were not retreads of some rather tired stereotypes.

Douglas Sirk’s films (often derided as ‘soapy’) are much more ambivalent in this respect.

Dynasty tried to style its appeal on recapturing the magic of classic Hollywood cinema. I have never been sure what tradition it was paying tribute to.

 

[Chris2]

Angie Dickinson! Why wasn’t she on Dallas? Wouldn’t she have made a great Leslie Stewart?

I think Dynasty tried to get her at one point.

 

[Jolly Jimmy Tinsel Todd]

Great idea for a post @Snarky Oracle! I just woke up, so my response may ramble a bit.
I loved how KL had strong female (and male) characters who were allowed to be "weak" at times. In other words, they let their women breathe and be human. Lilimae was allowed to have a crush on younger Chip without making her a "cougar," and Valene could be whimpering and deathly afraid of Jill because human beings tend to be that way when someone points a gun in their face and threatens to kill their children. Yet, imho, Valene was still a strong, independent woman in many ways. The show showed that, as opposed to constantly telling the viewers it.
At the height of Sex and the City's popularity, I mentioned to a friend how I didn't get what was so great about that show. I found the four leads very unlikable. She remarked, "Well, it's really a show for women." Similarly, I have heard people say Friends is a "woman's" show and Seinfeld is a "man's" show. I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on those three show's vis-a-vis the "men's" vs. "women's" show dichotomy.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Angie Dickinson! Why wasn’t she on Dallas? Wouldn’t she have made a great Leslie Stewart?

I think Dynasty tried to get her at one point.

Oh, both DYNASTY and FALCON CREST tried to get Angie, but she turned them down repeatedly (or priced herself out of consideration, probably on purpose). Aaron Spelling liked Angie, and he offered her the role of Krystle (she later graciously called it her biggest mistake in her career) but she was also offered the role of Lady Ashley (which she should have taken, before they handed it to poor, lovely schlepp, Ali Mac Graw) and then Dickinson was offered the role of Sable Colby (which Faye Dunaway and Diana Rigg also rejected). Then Angie was offered the role of Angela Channing's long-lost daughter (when she'd be more believable as a relative of Maggie's) but reportedly asked for a then-outrageous salary of $120,000/episode, which likely meant she didn't really want to do it.

She should have accepted the Lady Ashley role, but she told Aaron Spelling that, "You have too many ladies on that show already!" (well, DYNASTY was supposed to be a dynasty).

I wouldn't recast Leslie Stewart with anybody, however. Susan Flannery was reptilian and predatory, but that's how she should have been. And her boudoir skills were limited enough that JR was ultimately disappointed with the inevitable climax of the relationship --- and that somehow made sense.

I always want to see Leslie Stewart, Jeremy Wendell and Lady Jessica team up near the end of DALLAS as a creepy trio of villains (yes, like BATMAN) determined to take down the Ewings once and for all --- perhaps taking orders from Katherine Wentworth, phoned in from Hell, because she's still dead.

But that's just me.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

At the height of Sex and the City's popularity, I mentioned to a friend how I didn't get what was so great about that show. I found the four leads very unlikable. She remarked, "Well, it's really a show for women." Similarly, I have heard people say Friends is a "woman's" show and Seinfeld is a "man's" show. I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on those three show's vis-a-vis the "men's" vs. "women's" show dichotomy.

The old chick flick/dude flick trope has never really worked for me -- it usually means a "relationship" movie (i.e., chick-flick) or an action movie (i.e., dude flick) but usually a film that's derivative and mediocre at best. A blah genre picture.

But when relationship movies or action movies are really good, those labels tend to fall away.

So I don't tend to think much in terms of "a woman's show" versus "a man's show" -- because, if it's a really good series or movie, then that terminology doesn't even seem to make any sense.

Few people would call THE EMPIRE STIKES BACK or RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK "guy movies" or ALL ABOUT EVE "a woman's picture." And they wouldn't call them that simply because they were good, so those categories seem silly and inaccurate.

Even Paulsen used the conversational short-hand of describing DALLAS as a men's show and KNOTS LANDING as a woman's show, but he actually strengthened the women during his tenure on DALLAS, while KNOTS' Peter Dunne did not strengthen the women the one year he produced DALLAS (although everybody claims he did).

But the derisive connotation of "woman's show" means, essentially, a maudlin and transparently manipulative movie or series where the plotline and characterizations are secondary -- which is sadly what ruined DYNASTY (which was originally quite good in its first two seasons, and then again in Season 9 under the auspices of Paulsen) and ruined it so early on... DALLAS absolutely became "a woman's show" during the dream season not because the women were "stronger" (which indeed they were not) or more prominent, but because trite emotionalism and pointless filler reigned over cohesive storytelling. (I'm not sure how to qualify the last three seasons of DALLAS, where the show just had a stroke and could no longer function)... And KNOTS, despite a bevy of prominent women, almost never fell into the "woman's show" category because it was just too good and too consistently creatively viable.

The only time I can recall KNOTS even flirting with being "a woman's show" is when Abby pretended briefly to care about roofers toiling in the broiling sun for minimum wage, and the program seemed to believe her. But then nobody's perfect.

To illustrate this in a slightly different (but possibly more vivid) context, most fan fiction doesn't tend to work because it suffers from that "woman's show" mentality: stuff just happens, people emote, women are flattered for no objective reason, babies are born in droves, and the narrative is, to say the least, unfocused. Unless it's fan fiction from guys, who just blow stuff up; but the narrative is equally unfocused and the politics, if any, is reactionary and questionable.

 

[the-lost-son]

I honestly never got what Katzman etc. actually meant by these terms "man's show" or "women's show ". There are series which are designed more for male audiences (e.g. Breaking Bad, interestingly the only relevant female character there, Skyler was hated enormously) or female ones (Call the midwife).
But in general it's a complete mystery to me. S9/DVD10 was up against MiamiVice. I always assumed that's why the Ewing Brothers were running around with guns to catch B.D. Calhoun. I found that quite irritating why the Ewings should not have some hired hands to do that. But they obviously tried to give the audience sth MiamiVice offered. I can get that. But this men/women show ???

If Katzman had an insight into female psychology - Congratulations, then he's ahead of me. On the one hand women are supposed to be more emotional. On the other hand though I just read that 42% of Game of thrones' audience was female. I don't get that as I couldn't watch that inhuman series. All these sadistic characters who were torturing, maiming and raping each other on a weekly basis.
It must be complicated.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

I honestly never got what Katzman etc. actually meant by these terms "man's show" or "women's show ". There are series which are designed more for male audiences (e.g. Breaking Bad, interestingly the only relevant female character there, Skyler was hated enormously) or female ones (Call the midwife).
But in general it's a complete mystery to me. S9/DVD10 was up against MiamiVice. I always assumed that's why the Ewing Brothers were running around with guns to catch B.D. Calhoun. I found that quite irritating why the Ewings should not have some hired hands to do that. But they obviously tried to give the audience sth MiamiVice offered. I can get that. But this men/women show ???

If Katzman had an insight into female psychology - Congratulations, then he's ahead of me. On the one hand women are supposed to be more emotional. On the other hand though I just read that 42% of Game of thrones' audience was female. I don't get that as I couldn't watch that inhuman series. All these sadistic characters who were torturing, maiming and raping each other on a weekly basis.
It must be complicated.

Well, y'know. Like we said...

 

[southfork88]

@Snarky Oracle I want also to see Leslie Stewart, Jeremy Wendell and Lady Jessica team up near the end of DALLAS

 

[Treeviewer]

Using the term "woman's show" as a sneer is inherently misogynistic, in the same way that "playing like a girl" is used in sports to mean automatically less.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Using the term "woman's show" as a sneer is inherently misogynistic, in the same way that "playing like a girl" is used in sports to mean automatically less.

Perhaps, but it has a legitimate meaning: a show that focuses on emotionalism and repetition of maudlin relationship assertions, yet the narrative is more or less inert.

Which is why most of DYNASTY qualifies and KNOTS LANDING didn't.

It basically comes down to bad writing vs. good writing, really.

 

[Laurie Myrrh]

Perhaps, but it has a legitimate meaning: a show that focuses on emotionalism and repetition of maudlin relationship assertions, yet the narrative is more or less inert.

Which is why most of DYNASTY qualifies and KNOTS LANDING didn't.

It basically comes down to bad writing vs. good writing, really.

Possibly - but it's also worth bearing in mind that the men on Dallas were in the grip of emotionally charged drives perhaps more than the women. JR's emotionalism was not of the weepy kind but he was a slave to his emotions (as was Cliff) in a way that therapy would be unlikely to cure.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Possibly - but it's also worth bearing in mind that the men on Dallas were in the grip of emotionally charged drives perhaps more than the women. JR's emotionalism was not of the weepy kind but he was a slave to his emotions (as was Cliff) in a way that therapy would be unlikely to cure.

That's obviously true. But there are always plenty of emotionalistic -- as opposed to emotional -- men in "a woman's show".

It's not just the female characters carrying on. It's the tone, and emotionalistic posing in the place of legitimate plot or character development.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Another point: one of the things that distinguished the original DALLAS -- and played into its unique success -- was that it was, as observed even by fans that came along long after the show ended, "a soap opera for men."

Now, what exactly does that mean? Soap operas have always had plenty of men -- not all of whom were Harlequin Romance toyboys with open shirts and shaved chests. (And oldDALLAS, on occasion, actually did -- if not tons of them).

In contrast, some people who tuned into TNT's nuDALLAS in 2012 with great hopes found themselves disappointed with the tone they found to be "too gay" -- even though there were no gay storyline. And it wasn't because Josh Henderson was so hunky (and he actually would have fit into oldDALLAS just fine).

But TNT's nuDALLAS had this sensibility far too similar to other soaps -- including daytime soaps -- which rendered it a "gay" soap (i.e., "a woman's show") even without any homosexual plotlines, and with plenty of supposedly-strong straight males.

So what is it?

Why was KNOTS LANDING not a woman's show and DYNASTY mostly was, when both series had large female casts (and arguably, the KNOTS' women were actually stronger)?

It's not about misogynistic labels. It's about the quality of the interpersonal narrative, how it's written and how it's presented.

As stated above, it may be about emotion as opposed to emotionalism.

Possibly - but it's also worth bearing in mind that the men on Dallas were in the grip of emotionally charged drives perhaps more than the women. JR's emotionalism was not of the weepy kind but he was a slave to his emotions (as was Cliff) in a way that therapy would be unlikely to cure.

But you're using the two words, emotion and emotionalism, interchangeably. I'm suggesting they're very different.

 

[Laurie Myrrh]

The distinction that you are making aligns with Jacques Lacan’s return to Freud: the feminine is caught in the repetitive recursive movement of the drive - which belongs to the category of the (non symbolisable) Real. In contrast, the masculine is on the side of desire; that is to say, the propulsive and dynamic category that we call narrative.

 

[Soaplover]

Dallas was a 'man's show' because the POV of the show were the male offspring of Jock/Ellie (JR and Bobby) with Pam, Cliff, Sue Ellen, and Donna playing strong roles in the show based on the POV's both Ewing sons. Men were drawn to the show because it was a show they could relate to.

Knots Landing was a show that couples could watch and find something they could relate to. The early seasons had a a pretty strong equal POV between the male and female characters because the show was about married couples.

Dynasty was primarily a 'female show' because the show started with middle class Krystle marrying into Blake's family.. and her perspective trying to adjust to a new world and you saw how she was treated from her POV. Eventually, Alexis and Claudia's POV's became important in season 1/2 through the end of the series.

So to me, I viewed the label of man's show to be from the perspective of the male characters and female shows to be from the point of view of the female characters.

 

[Jolly Jimmy Tinsel Todd]

Fascinating comment, @Laurie Marr ! I did a little research to get a better understanding of your post. I learned a lot. Would Abby Ewing convey more of the masculine drive as opposed to the feminine desire?

 

[Laurie Myrrh]

Fascinating comment, @Laurie Marr ! I did a little research to get a better understanding of your post. I learned a lot. Would Abby Ewing convey more of the masculine drive as opposed to the feminine desire?

Oh - in this model - Abby would definitely align more with the projecting masculine world of desire rather than the recursive feminine quality of the drive.