sexism in Life on Mars and Ashes to Ashes

[rusty_halo]

These macros make me very happy. Maybe for DragonCon I'll dress up as a "Vote Saxon" campaign worker? I could have a sign. And pins. And pro-Saxon literature. Don't laugh; it'd be an easy costume. :P

***

I rewatched the first season of Life on Mars this weekend. I was worried that the crappiness of Ashes to Ashes would negatively effect my opinion of it, but nope; I love it more than ever. If anything, the failures of Ashes to Ashes just make the awesomeness of Life on Mars stand out even more.

I already bitched about what I disliked in Ashes to Ashes; basically I think it epitomizes the idea of the male gaze. It treats the female lead as an object to be ogled, not as a true protagonist for the audience to identify with (that honor is reserved for an over-the-top version of Gene Hunt).

There's a great scene in the premiere of Life on Mars that shows such a nuanced understanding of sexism that it just blows my mind that the same people could screw up so badly on Ashes to Ashes. It's the scene where Sam asks Annie to help him create a psychological profile of the killer they're seeking. He's already talked to her in private and discovered that she's got a BA in psychology and is the most well-spoken person he's met in 1973.

So Sam calls her forward in front of the team of men, and the scene is painfully uncomfortable. Here's Annie, with this stupid nervous grin plastered on her face, trying to look harmless, while the men yell out rude and objectifying comments, and we in the audience know that she's smarter than all of them. She plays along with Sam and shows how smart she is, but the rest of the team just dismiss her with more nasty sexism than ever.

As well meaning as Sam is, it's obvious that he just doesn't get what life is like for a woman in her position. He expects her to behave as an equal, and to thank him for treating her as such. He doesn't understand the systematic oppression that she lives under, and that she's had to learn to get as far as she can while seeming harmless and nonthreatening to the men around her. Sam treating her like an equal is just going to cause the idiots around her to give her more trouble and make her life more difficult.

I like Annie a lot better on rewatch. The first time around it just drove me crazy that she didn't stand up more to the treatment she received, but looking at it again, it's pretty clear that she's doing the best she can while carefully treading a very thin line. It's such a realistic portrayal of how a strong woman would have to act in that environment. She's smarter than anyone, but she has to keep her head down and not scare the men; Gene nearly fires her the one time she dares talk back to him. But the show clearly portrays how smart she is and what a difficult position she's in.

So how did they go from that to Ashes to Ashes? Alex showing up in 1981 dressed as a prostitute, running around in a miniskirt for the whole episode, letting Gene grope her and not slapping him in response?

I think you can already see the seeds of it in Life on Mars season two; they'd started to get so caught up in the Gene Hunt hype that they forgot that "refreshingly non-PC" has a real (sexist, racist, homophobic) dark side. Unfortunately Ashes to Ashes takes that to a whole new (ugly) level; at least Life on Mars always had Sam there to counter Gene's excesses. I'm sure they didn't want to make Alex a Sam clone, but they've erred in not having someone to stand up to that side of Gene. And obviously they're trying to do a big fun over-the-top pastiche, but sexism isn't fun.

***

I really love Life on Mars, but there are a couple of things about it that kind of bother me. (But in the good way, really; I love that it makes me think so much.) One is the creators saying they toned down Gene's racism, but left in the sexism and homophobia, because the racism made him too unlikeable. It says something really depressing about our culture that sexism and homophobia are still so acceptable.

(And it's really depressing to see articles by women going "I know it's un-PC, but I just want to be ravished by a big sexist brute like Gene Hunt!" It's fine if you're just getting off on the fantasy, but some of it has the undertone that they'd really like to see the world controlled by men like this again. You know, a world where the most intelligent person in the room will never get promoted because she hasn't got a penis.)

The other thing that bothers me is that part of the reason Sam opted to remain in 1973 is because it was a place where white men had a lot more power. Sure, Sam's a well-meaning guy and he tries to counter the racism and sexism he encounters, but ultimately he likes that he has so much more social power there. It's a place where he can act without having to worry about the rules and social constraints of the future. I highly doubt that a woman or person of color would've so easily been able to choose 1973 over 2006.

[Cross-posted to InsaneJournal]

Comments

[10zlaine.livejournal.com]

i do haz buttinz... ;-)

[rusty_halo.livejournal.com]

Yay! Dress up with me?

I got jaydk a Vote Saxon t-shirt for Christmas. We'll have to rope her into it too. ;)

[10zlaine.livejournal.com]

Dress up with me?

We could totally do that, and it would be easy. We'll have to figure out some good election stuff like sandwich boards or something since November will totally be around the corner!

[rusty_halo.livejournal.com]

Hee, I want to! We'll have to figure out what we can fit in our luggage...

[missmurchison.livejournal.com]

I've been reading your posts on this, and I've decided not to watch Ashes so as to keep the good feelings LoM left me with.

I graduated from high school in 1973. So much of my socialization was geared to being a "lady," not making waves, that I still have to fight against it, even though I started marching for women's rights when I was in college. I completely understood what was happening to Annie, and I wanted to grab her and tell her to keep pushing, a little at a time, because things were going to get better.

Another way to look at Sam's decision is that he realized he could accomplish more in 1973 because of his knowledge and ability to see the period in perspective. Just working to reform Gene might accomplish more than he ever would in those present-era meetings. *always likes to think nice things of characters she likes*

Homophobia and sexism were so prevalent then, I'm not sure I could have suspended belief if they'd played either down. Women were only included in the Civil Rights Act because a lawmaker thought that would ensure it wouldn't pass. In the late 70s, my mother was still being paid less for equal work than the men at her business, and I was told by two employers that certain positions were not open to women. 1973 was the year that they removed homosexuality from the DSM as a mental disorder. That was all in the US, which was ahead of the UK at that time.

Um, sorry to get so serious. This political campaign is destroying my sense of humor. I wish Mitt Romney were still around for the chuckles.

[missmurchison.livejournal.com]

Um, suspended disbelief, obviously.

::headdesk::

[rusty_halo.livejournal.com]

I've been reading your posts on this, and I've decided not to watch Ashes so as to keep the good feelings LoM left me with.

I understand; that's why I almost didn't watch Ashes to Ashes at all. But they're such different animals that it turned out there was no risk; Ashes to Ashes is like a bad parody of Life on Mars rather than a sequel. (Erm, not that I'm suggesting that you should waste your time watching it. Just that Life on Mars is completely beyond it.)

That's so sad about how you were socialized. I can definitely see that in Annie. Thank you for sharing your insight about that era.

Another way to look at Sam's decision is that he realized he could accomplish more in 1973 because of his knowledge and ability to see the period in perspective. Just working to reform Gene might accomplish more than he ever would in those present-era meetings. *always likes to think nice things of characters she likes*

LOL, well, I like to think nice things about Sam, but I think that at that point he (and the audience) knew that the 1973 he was returning to wasn't the real world. So... I can't see there being much value in him working for social change in his, uh, imagination.

I do think a large part of why he returned was that he enjoyed sparring with Gene, but I have mixed feelings about that. It's hard to separate how much is genuine moral conviction versus how much is Sam sort of reveling in a narcissistic belief in his own cultural superiority. (Um, I do love Sam, really. He could've so easily turned into a preachy goody-goody, so I'm glad they made him flawed and three-dimensional.)

Homophobia and sexism were so prevalent then, I'm not sure I could have suspended belief if they'd played either down.

Oh, I'm really glad that they tried to portray that time period honestly. The reason politicians get away with that "everything was so much better in the past" nonsense is that people forget, and only see the past through idealized fairy tales. It's important to be reminded of how flawed the past was, and how the social changes we've made since then were for a good reason. (Which is why it boggles my mind how people come away from Life on Mars going "Wow, life was so much better in 1973, when men could be men!")

The only time I ever liked Martha in Doctor Who was in the "Human Nature"/"Family of Blood" episodes, because I think the writer did a great job portraying the racism of the time, and showing how difficult it would be for Martha to deal with (and how strong she was for doing so). And the fan reaction to that boggles my mind, too, because people complain that it proves the show is racist. No, it proves that the writer understands racism and that it would be cheap whitewashing of the past to pretend it didn't exist. Much better to show how awful it is and how strong the character is for dealing with it with dignity.

[rusty_halo.livejournal.com]

I realized I forgot to conclude that last thought. Basically I think there's a difference between a show that portrays sexism and a show that has sexist attitudes.

Life on Mars portrays sexism constantly, but I don't think it's written from a sexist perspective. We see the guys catcalling Annie, but the camera itself never zooms in on her tits or anything. And the ridicule she faces is obviously wrong, as we're shown pretty clearly that she's smarter than most of the men in the station.

Whereas Ashes to Ashes actually seems to be actually made from an exploitative POV. Why else would Alex show up in 1981 dressed as a prostitute? Why do we get that shot of Gene from between Alex's legs? Why does Alex show no reaction when Gene gropes her and makes sexist comments? Why is Alex shown as less competent, and in need of Gene as a savior?

[missmurchison.livejournal.com]

Yes, I got that from your last post, and there absolutely is a difference. It often runs the other way, actually, with camera angles and costumes negating the supposed "liberated woman" status of the script. I'd rather see sexism handled for what it is.

*avoids jokes about handling things*

[rusty_halo.livejournal.com]

It often runs the other way, actually, with camera angles and costumes negating the supposed "liberated woman" status of the script.

Which is one of the things I really miss about Buffy. I have plenty of complaints about the casting and the way the story portrayed sexuality, but at least I never felt like the women were physically on display. Buffy had more of a "female gaze" than a male gaze, actually, what with all the half-naked Angel/Xander/Spike.

[frelling-tralk.livejournal.com]

I really liked that moment when you see how upset Annie is for being grouped. The camera doesn't even show the attack itself and linger on it, which it could have done, it's just what Sam hears about when Annie comes in upset with the others teasing her. And Annie gets angry with Sam later on for offering to walk her home, and says why don't you offer to walk Ray or Chris home, why am I being singled out.

And then there's Alex swooning at her first sign of Gene, and the hero shot of him carrying her in like the damsel in distress. Alex can obviously be more light-hearted about it all because she does come from modern times where it doesn't rule her life in the way that it did Annie. But it's interesting that the writers show Alex in her head as wanting Gene to be that kind of figure to her (presuming it is all meant to be in her head). And if she does make the decision to stay or not, that will raise the question of whether the show is inadvertently saying that women at heart prefer those unequal times where the men carry you around and want to stamp your bum. Although I have no idea where it's going, and she probably won't choose to stay I suppose. But Gene the chauvinistic does seem to be presented as more appealing to Alex than he ever was on LOM when we were seeing him through Sam's eyes

[rusty_halo.livejournal.com]

And Annie gets angry with Sam later on for offering to walk her home, and says why don't you offer to walk Ray or Chris home, why am I being singled out.

I like that. It shows that, as well-meaning as Sam is, he's not perfect and he does have underlying prejudices of his own. (And it's that same condescending thing that guys do, where they congratulate themselves on how kind and enlightened they are for going out of their way to protect a woman, not realizing that they're being demeaning by assuming that a woman can't handle herself.)

And then there's Alex swooning at her first sign of Gene, and the hero shot of him carrying her in like the damsel in distress.

Man, that show just grosses me out. What the hell were they thinking?