I watched the first several seasons of The West Wing when it aired, but haven't seen more than a few clips since then. I've actually been glad that I didn't remember the show very well because I'm seeing it now with fresh eyes. And while the show is deservedly praised by many feminists and progressives, it's not without its flaws.
What struck me as I watched the second season was how a lack of women and minorities in the senior staff meant that their interests were championed by straight white men. This was especially glaring when the plot deliberately set up a member of a disadvantaged group as the conservative foil to the liberal staffers.
CJ Cregg is the only woman on the senior staff, and she is the press secretary. She doesn't have much of a role in shaping policy. In fact, there are no women who are regular characters who significantly influence policy. There are no regularly occurring characters who aren't straight. Charlie is the only person of color who is a regular major character. So, needless to say, straight white men are doing most of the talking about liberal policies on the show.
There are a few times when this goes beyond irritating but all too common, and becomes something more than the typical sexism and racism of casting. Fairly consistently, straight white men (typically the stars of the show) are the Champions of Liberalism and they have rarely brought in women or minorities to represent the progressive or activist segment of those groups. (Abbey Bartlet is one exception). So it stands out even more when they bring in a woman and a gay man to represent the conservative point of view.
In "The Portland Trip," a gay man who is a Republican Congressman, Matt Skinner, is pushing for passage of an anti-gay marriage bill. He debates about it with Josh Lyman, a straight man. Josh asks Skinner how he can be a Republican. Skinner responds that not everything in his life has to be about being gay, and he gets the last word.
Josh: How can you be a member of this party?? . . . This party that says who you are is against the law.The problem, of course, is not that this view is presented, but that there have been no lesbian or gay characters to speak for the views of a vast majority of the community.
Matt: You know, I never understood why you gun control people don't all join the NRA. They've got 2 mil members, you bring 3 mil to the next meeting? Call a vote. All those in favor of tossing guns? Bam! move on.
Josh: That's a heck of a strategy, Matt, I'll bring it up in a meeting.
Matt: I agree with 95% of the Republican platform. I believe in local government. I'm in favor of individual rights rather than group rights. I believe that free markets lead to free people and that the country needs strong national defense. My life? Doesn't have to be about being a homosexual. It doesn't have to be entirely about that.
Similarly, very few women speak to women's issues on the show. In another episode Ainsley Hayes, a Republican woman, argues against the ERA. Again it is Sam Seaborn who argues for the ERA. Because he fails to effectively argue the liberal, feminist view of the ERA (and how can he without looking patronizing?) the conservative opposition to the amendment comes off looking stronger and more pro-woman. Luckily, there is a clip of the crucial part of this exchange on YouTube:
An exception to this pattern is in "Isaac and Ishmael," the episode written in response to the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Leo McGarry is questioning a man who is suspected of.. well, something related to having a suspicious name. The man works in the White House and is an American citizen. Leo is apparently freaked out enough to say some reactionary, racist things while the target of the inquisition helps to show how unjust and racist those views are. (This one exception loses some of its impact by virtue of the fact that a bunch of mostly white people are discussing terrorism and why "they" hate "us" in other scenes.)
2 comments:
It is really frustrating. I'm only a few episodes into the second season, and so far there have been at least a few episodes where CJ says something like "Ok, that's the fourth time I've been called dumb so far today" (and, of course, she doesn't really have a policy job); Mandy is consistently ignored and belittled by everyone; and Ainsley just showed up.
The first Ainsley episode was so bad. I cant believe Toby had to reassure CJ that no one thought CJ was ambitious. Like ambition is a bad thing! Of course, in women, it is. And they kept referring to Ainsley as "leggy."
It's totally a BO-type staff (liberal, except for sexism) and irritates the crap out of me. I especially hate how completely rude Leo/josh/Toby are to the support staff (who are all entirely women). CJ and Sam at least pretend to have respect for their secretaries (sometimes), but the constant belittling and berating of Margaret, Ginger, Donna... it makes me want to puke. Such assholes.
--megankay
I completely agree. It gets even worse as the seasons go on. There are a few more women speaking up, but there is even more dismissal of their concerns. Josh continues to be an arrogant, condescending asshole. In season 5 you get to see his ex-girlfriend, a feminist activist, tell Abbey it makes her want to jump him. Talk about wanting to puke.
I like that in the following seasons CJ really comes into her own and speaks up more and shows an investment in women's issues, but she's constantly dismissed.
Post a Comment