desperate idiots
Fair warning: I'm about to rant. For the last week or so, my favorite radio morning show, "The Bert Show" on Q100, has been chatting with people regarding the new hit show, "Desperate Housewives". Seems some people are having a hard time understanding the decidedly dark humor of the series that is sooo clearly tongue-in-cheek you'd have to be a freakin' idiot not to see it. But, that doesn't stop some of those same idiots from calling into the radio show to bitch. First, it was the newly-published, former corporate exec decrying the show's depiction of women, stating that it sets us as a gender back in the race with men to the top. Then, even worse, another pseudo-feminist sets forth her objection that the show should not be aired because it depicts unrealistic stereotypes of housewives, and she's battling enough of that already.Oh my God, where to start? First, I am so sick of the intelligence of the American public being insulted in this way. In his argument for pornography, Peter Byrne astutely argues that most men are smart enough not to let erotic films define women as a species. Adding to his argument, I would propose that the public in general has enough sense to know that what we see on television is NOT reality. Since when do we ban TV shows because they portray stereotypes? In that scenario, many of our best-loved shows would never have been. Think "All in the Family," "Married with Children," "The Dukes of Hazzard," and, more recently, "Will and Grace" (please understand I am not personally recommending any--or most--of the aforementioned shows--I'm just making a point) These shows thrive on stereotype, and much of the humor is derived from it. I daresay none of us is looking to prime-time TV to define our morals and our prejudices.
Quite frankly, I love "Desperate Housewives," first of all, because it is NOT reality television. I get to follow a plot, watch characters evolve, and enjoy the deliciousness of immersing myself in something that ISN'T real, that is absolutely nothing like my life. And having followed the series from the beginning, I have to say, I don't see what the big objection is. These are so clearly NOT typical housewives that the show really can't be accused of exploiting stereotypes. I haven't heard of too many "stereotypical" moms addicted to Adderall. I'm also not aware of any whose husbands routinely hand out $15,000 diamond necklaces. I do appreciate, however, the fact that the series dares to suggest that being a stay-at-home mom can be far more challenging than (and, the show hints, not ALWAYS as rewarding as) succeeding as a corporate executive. How exactly does such a depiction hurt the image of women?
But the other aspect of this that has always confused me is that people take themselves so seriously and don't see the positive implications such a series suggests. For example, I used to truly enjoy the David E. Kelly series, "Boston Public." Amazingly, I am a teacher. And with regard to the daily goings on in a public school, I have to say the series was often laughable. From the hip, unprofessional (and often COMPLETELY inappropriate) attire of the teachers AND students, to the outlandish plot twists, the show did not paint an accurate picture of how a school works. Believe it or not, it is highly unlikely that a history teacher would be ripped mid-semester, MID-DAY, from her classes and reassigned to teach delinquents say, math. Or that the choral director would also serve as the orchestra director in addition to teaching AP English in her spare time. Or that a teacher could shoot a gun in the middle of his class, "just to get their attention," and not be summarily fired. You get my point (I hope). Bottom line, the show was not realistic. But still, I (and many of my colleagues) liked it. Why?
Because the show hinted at a deeper truth that goes beyond the details. In spite of the outlandish goings on, in the end the show relayed an important message that actually belied some of the stereotypes: most teachers really care. School can be a crazy, even scary place, but it's the best chance teenagers have of connecting with that special someone, a teacher, who can guide them to their dreams. The show put a spotlight on a profession that is so often ignored, insulted and devalued and it dared to suggest that teachers, however human, however flawed, can still be heroes.
It's that same kind of light that I think is possible with "Desperate Housewives," though to a lesser degree. First and foremost, the show is meant to be funny, and it is. It spoofs the very concept of housewife, playing with its exaggerations and the titular "desperation" the main characters display. But it also dares to suggest that housewives, in and of themselves, are worthy of notice. That their plight is difficult, complicated and important. And guess what? We're all suddenly paying attention.
posted by lit lover at
5:43 PM
|