I read the article. You are right on. TV has so distorted everything we're saying -- turning "progressive women" into the worst kind of stererotypical man. This does a disservice to the entire feminist movement. While cartoonish "role reversals" surely feed our sense of pent-up disgust with the patriarchy, that's not what we're about. If the mainstream media can't get it right, and if that's what they're feeding men -- and women --who haven't got a clue about feminism, you can bet your ass there's going to be a backlash.

From the article: If these are supposed to be girly-men, then the notion of what girly looks like is simply ghastly, an insult not only to the men, but to the women whose habits they are supposedly aping.

Same as it always was, it seems. What Traister describes is basically the reason I don't watch most of what passes for television these days. It's insulting to my intelligence.

I think there are a number of shows that portray strong but nuanced women. The two that come to mind immediately are:

Battlestar Galactica
The 4400

I'm interested to see what happens with Bionic Woman, which premieres in two weeks.

"Among the degradations about to be heaped on television's men? ..., who date women with penises ..."

I could have done without the comment about dating a woman with a penis is a form of degradation.

And yet lots of love for Ciara. Hmm.

Dude, check out the letters!! I had a feeling the MRA/"Nice Guy" types would come out of the woodwork for this article, yet it still shocked me to read stuff like this:

"women never had it as bad as men are going to have it. In the past, even a non working, non voting woman had some value to men and to society. These men have NOTHING-- no vagina to make value, no unique male traits to barter with, no more esteem."

They can't just be normal nice guys who are no longer entirely in control, who do childcare or play a subordinate role at work but who do so in a way that is still sexy, still powerful, instead of in a way that is marked as submissive, beaten down or pansy-assed.

I've been increasingly aware of (and irritated, angry, and sad about) this trend to portray men in popular culture as clueless and useless. It pisses me off that this is the narrative that the men in my life have to see repeated over and over about guys . . . and that I have to see repeated over and over about guys. I find it offensive and a big waste of my time.

Despite whatever shortcomings the article might have, I found it an interesting round-up of those themes.

I'm not sure that I'm seeing the same things you apparently are. The problem with most of those shows didn't seem to be the women in the shows- most of them sounded like pretty normal characters, to me. The problem seemed to be that most of the men on the shows are portrayed as shallow, sexist assholes who are intimidated by successful, powerful women. The only women that Traister talked about who sounded remotely "evil" was Applegate's character, pre-amesia, and a few of the supporting characters in the more male-dominated shows ("Carpoolers" stands out, for example). But, of the shows where the main cast are or include women? Most of them actually sounded pretty reasonable to me. Or, at least, they didn't strike me as being particularly money-hungry, unusually selfish, or remotely evil.

Which women are you thinking of when you describe them as "money-grubbing, selfish and more-or-less evil" and "emasculating the male characters"? Because, honestly, Traister's descriptions left me feeling like the shows are about a bunch of intelligent and/or successful women who deal with a lot of stupid, insecure, pig-headed men in their lives. The writing of the men seems particularly odious, but I didn't really see the problem with most of the women.

"I've been increasingly aware of (and irritated, angry, and sad about) this trend to portray men in popular culture as clueless and useless." I think this is a manifesttion of some clueless Hollywood/Madison Avenue types thinking such portrayals will make women feel empowered. They do not, and they don't fool men into believing women are "on their level," either. These portrayals are often so buffoonish, all they do is piss off people. If this is the mainstream media's idea of promoting feminism, it shows what a terrible ally it really is and how far we are from accomplishing our mission.

This conversation reminds me of something I've been mentally wrestling with - the gender reversal episode of Flight of the Conchords.

Bret, one of the male main characters, dates a woman who acts exactly like a stereotypical bad boyfriend character - pressuring him into sex with guilt, lies, and physical intimidation. Bret plays a typical victimized girlfriend character - sexually conservative, shy, and emotionally manipulable.

I can't decide whether this is a feminist message, reframing acquaintance rape by denying the audience the opportunity to stereotype the victim, or whether it's just funny because its so ludicrous. (I mean, it's not like a woman could ever have that kind of coercive power over a man; how silly!)

Blitzgal, Brightstar65 (and three or four others) is a well-known misogynist troll on Salon. Whenever there's a column on gender issues (including every single Broadsheet piece) he's there, spouting the same old shit. I don't even bother reading the letters anymore because of that.

RoymacIII, her description of the car pool sitcom seemed to be emblematic of the theme she's discussing. Every single one of the male characters on that show has some sort of "freak" wife, whether she's a traditional stay at home who sucks up all his money, an over-ambitious emasculating career woman, or a cheating whore who left him and took all his money in the divorce settlement. Neither men or women are looking too good in this crop of new shows.

This is why The Office is the only "sitcom" I watch anymore. Even the "freak" characters on that show have more depth.

It's discomfiting for women, too, to see television's idea of what a feminized man is, since it is a reflection of what television considers feminine to begin with. If these men are "the new women," then what does that say about what they take women for? Do they think we have hissy fits when we discover how much our husbands have in their bank accounts? That we flip out when a man comes on to us? That when we get passed over for promotions we walk out of relationships in defeat? If these are supposed to be girly-men, then the notion of what girly looks like is simply ghastly, an insult not only to the men, but to the women whose habits they are supposedly aping.

Frakking A.

I can't even begin to describe how much I HATE the previews for Big Shots every time they come on. "men, we're the new women" makes me want to punch the writer. It's pretty much an acknowledgment how how shitty society thinks of women and that indeed, the worst thing one could ever possibly be is female. I'm happy I'm not the only one who was insulted and I won't be watching what will probably be a crappy show.

As for the others, they'll probably be off the air fairly quickly, especially the comedies, if those descriptions are to be believed.

Is it wrong that one of the things that bothered me most about the article is the fact that Chris Titus sank low enough to become involved in one of those sitcoms? Oh Fox, why did you have to rip his show from me?

Misogyny is sooooo cool. I have never watched a full episode of Nip/Tuck without wanting to vomit, and it looks like these new shows aren't any better. TV and movies seem to have one common theme, lately: aren't men cool? aren't women crazy and selfish? (or as seems to be the case in a lot of these shows, "poor, buffoonish mens being kept down by teh womens!")
But, I've got to watch something, so may I give some props here? Temperance Brennan from Bones and Olivia Benson from Law and Order: SVU.

Isn't television just a reflection of a dominator value system that permeates everything in our global culture? It won't change until we wake up and shift the value system--but most people--especially the one's creating these shows, don't even know they're under the influence. The 'gender' war reflects the dominator or dominated positions... The fight is a lose/lose. It doesn't matter if sometimes the women are portrayed as dominating bitches to emasculated/weak men, or flip it and the men are dominating and women submissive....Both reflect the belief/value system of dominator/dominated and that's what we need to changing... Until you change the value system--any changes you make with "characters on television" is just bandaiding.

I've been increasingly aware of (and irritated, angry, and sad about) this trend to portray men in popular culture as clueless and useless. It pisses me off that this is the narrative that the men in my life have to see repeated over and over about guys . . . and that I have to see repeated over and over about guys.

Yet, I wonder what part of this is the culture shifting to the idea that women have to be able to do and be all in order to acheive equality, rather than the idea that we are all created equal and that gender is a social construct not a limiter of what one is able to do/accomplish. I think perpetuation of this stereotype is just enabling the patriarchy to maintain itself.

I've been seeing articles such as this since the early eighties, grumbling that all the men on TV are weak or stupid or both, while the women are presented as their superiors. The only difference is, this article sees it as anti-woman (they're emasculating bitches) whereas other writers see it as emasculating men.
So let me make the obvious point that my cursory scan of TV Guide's fall preview issue shows plenty of strong, tough capable men. Doctors. Lawyers. Cops.
And that it's not as if TV hasn't always had stupid, inept men around: Ralph Kramden, Fred Flinstone, Archie Bunker, Sam Malone, Les Nessman, etc.
So my hunch is it's not the huge paradigm shift this article thinks. It never is.
That's a completely separate question from whether any specific show is sexist crap, of course. I'm sure there'll be plenty.