Why the “Golden Age for Women in TV” is actually a rerun - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

TMC · 09-15-2015, 12:43 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/op...y-a-rerun.html

Two of seven Outstanding Comedy Series this year Emmy nominees were created by women (Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt and Transparent). Yet as Nell Scovell points out, 25 years ago, in 1990, three out of the five comedy nominees were created by women (The Golden Girls, Murphy Brown and Designing Women).

Zoneboy · 09-15-2015, 12:56 AM

Link

Los Angeles — NOT long ago, I recommended a young woman for a job in late-night TV and when we met face to face to celebrate her getting hired, we made a charming discovery: She was born in 1987, the same year that I got my first job on a late night show.

Our talk turned to next Sunday’s Emmy Awards, and we shared our excitement that Amy Schumer received multiple nominations and that two of the seven shows nominated for Outstanding Comedy Series were created by women: Tina Fey’s “Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt” (created with Robert Carlock) and Jill Soloway’s “Transparent.”

“We’re living in a golden age of women in comedy,” my friend gushed.

I nodded and asked whether she thought female creators would ever make up half of the comedy series nominations. Her smile froze.

“Well, I don’t know about that …”

I do. Because it happened a quarter of a century ago. In 1990, Susan Harris’s “The Golden Girls,” Linda Bloodworth-Thomason’s “Designing Women” and Diane English’s “Murphy Brown” squared off for Outstanding Comedy Series. “Cheers” and “The Wonder Years” rounded out the field, and when the envelope was opened, I was sitting in the audience cheering as they announced “Murphy Brown.”

As a newly hired writer on “Late Night With David Letterman,” I was kindly invited to tag along to the Emmys even though I wasn’t a nominee. I felt a little nervous because no one told me if I was supposed to go onstage if the show won, but it turned out to be moot. The “Late Night” writing staff lost to a tie between a Billy Crystal special and “The Tracey Ullman Show,” whose staff of 11 writers included four women. (In comparison, “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert” debuted last week with 19 credited writers, only two of whom are female.)

Women were on a roll that night in 1990, but it didn’t seem like I was witnessing a golden age. It just seemed obvious that women could compete at the highest levels of comedy and win. Only decades later did I realize it was a spike, not a trend.

Like leggings, comedies created by women came into vogue in the late 1980s, exploded in the early ’90s, went mainstream in the mid-90s and were shoved into the back of the closet around 1997. It took another decade before the next show solely created by a woman — Tina Fey’s “30 Rock” — made it back into the elite Emmy inner circle. Perhaps not coincidentally, leggings made a comeback around the same time.

Still, the rebound has been wobbly. A recent Variety article trumpeted an “unprecedented” number of female showrunners, while also reporting that in 2013-14, only 15.1 percent of executive producer credits went to women, “down noticeably from 18.6 percent in the 2011-12 season.” That sounds less like a march to equality and more like a moonwalk, giving the illusion of forward motion when, in fact, the dancer is sliding backward. Progress for female directors has been even more elusive, which has prompted the American Civil Liberties Union to seek an industrywide investigation.

Still, whenever I mention that continuing gender imbalance in the entertainment industry, I’m met with two responses: One: Tina Fey. And two: It’s getting better, right?

To answer the first: Yes, Ms. Fey’s monumental career has matched her monumental talents. But one individual’s success does not translate to an entire class. (See Obama, Barack; re: racism.) The narrative of “woman as phenomenon” has persisted since TV started. Long before Ms. Fey’s birth, Gertrude Berg created, wrote, produced and starred in the long-running hit “The Goldbergs.” She even nabbed the first Emmy for Best Actress in 1951. Thirty years ago, Susan Harris owned NBC’s Saturday night just as Shonda Rhimes now owns Thursday on ABC. There have always been women who were successful against the odds. Now we need to change the odds so more women can be successful.

As for the claim that things are getting better, the numbers fall short. This year’s Writers Guild of America West TV Staffing Brief showed that women’s share of employment has basically flatlined since 2001 and now hovers around 29 percent. The staffing share for minorities dropped to 13.7 percent after a peak of 15.6 percent during the 2011-12 season. The writing staffs for other types of programming, like late night, were even less welcoming to women, who held 18 percent of the staff positions, while minorities had only 3.5 percent.

Wishful thinking does nothing to solve the problem. In fact, it may make it worse. If you believe things are getting better, you won’t feel the need to do anything. And you certainly won’t feel the need to do anything now. If necessity is the mother of invention, urgency is the uncle of change. Without it, progress slows and then stops and then reverses.

In this sense, gender inequality resembles a bacterial infection two days into a 10-day course of antibiotics. The patient’s temperature may be down, but the Mayo Clinic’s website warns: “It is tempting to stop taking an antibiotic as soon as you feel better. But the full treatment is necessary to kill the disease-causing bacteria. Failure to do so can result in the need to resume treatment later.”

Gender inequality is still in our bloodstream, and when we stop fighting it, the bacteria multiply. We need aggressive treatment that leads to more than incremental progress.

I fantasize about the networks’ making a rule that each show’s writing staff needs to reflect the gender and racial makeup of its audience. So if the target viewership of “The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon” measures around 56 percent female, the show’s current mix of three women and 16 or so men would require a major rebalance.

In every field and every industry, let’s agree that the goal is not just “getting better” but “getting equal.” And we might as well keep wearing leggings, just in case it turns out that they are the key.

TMC · 09-20-2015, 11:49 PM

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...-golden-823206

Gavin Polone, producer of Curb Your Enthusiasm and Gilmore Girls and Conan O’Brien's manager, says as the number of shows have grown, the talent pool has remained the same. That’s why you’ll see many sophomore slumps. Shows with talented writing staffs will lose some of that talent in Year 2. PLUS: Peak TV has led to Glut TV, and Peak TV has meant overstuffed and underdeveloped shows.

09-15-2015, 12:43 AM	#1
TMC Member Forum Idol Join Date: Jan 09, 2001 Posts: 127,225	Why the “Golden Age for Women in TV” is actually a rerun http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/op...y-a-rerun.html Two of seven Outstanding Comedy Series this year Emmy nominees were created by women (Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt and Transparent). Yet as Nell Scovell points out, 25 years ago, in 1990, three out of the five comedy nominees were created by women (The Golden Girls, Murphy Brown and Designing Women).

09-15-2015, 12:56 AM	#2
Zoneboy RIP, I'LL NEVER FORGET YOU :( Moderator Forum Superstar Join Date: Jul 13, 2003 Location: AT HOME WISHING ALL THIS WAS JUST A DREAM AND THAT I'LL WAKE UP FROM THIS NIGHTMARE. Posts: 34,472	Full article Link Los Angeles — NOT long ago, I recommended a young woman for a job in late-night TV and when we met face to face to celebrate her getting hired, we made a charming discovery: She was born in 1987, the same year that I got my first job on a late night show. Our talk turned to next Sunday’s Emmy Awards, and we shared our excitement that Amy Schumer received multiple nominations and that two of the seven shows nominated for Outstanding Comedy Series were created by women: Tina Fey’s “Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt” (created with Robert Carlock) and Jill Soloway’s “Transparent.” “We’re living in a golden age of women in comedy,” my friend gushed. I nodded and asked whether she thought female creators would ever make up half of the comedy series nominations. Her smile froze. “Well, I don’t know about that …” I do. Because it happened a quarter of a century ago. In 1990, Susan Harris’s “The Golden Girls,” Linda Bloodworth-Thomason’s “Designing Women” and Diane English’s “Murphy Brown” squared off for Outstanding Comedy Series. “Cheers” and “The Wonder Years” rounded out the field, and when the envelope was opened, I was sitting in the audience cheering as they announced “Murphy Brown.” As a newly hired writer on “Late Night With David Letterman,” I was kindly invited to tag along to the Emmys even though I wasn’t a nominee. I felt a little nervous because no one told me if I was supposed to go onstage if the show won, but it turned out to be moot. The “Late Night” writing staff lost to a tie between a Billy Crystal special and “The Tracey Ullman Show,” whose staff of 11 writers included four women. (In comparison, “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert” debuted last week with 19 credited writers, only two of whom are female.) Women were on a roll that night in 1990, but it didn’t seem like I was witnessing a golden age. It just seemed obvious that women could compete at the highest levels of comedy and win. Only decades later did I realize it was a spike, not a trend. Like leggings, comedies created by women came into vogue in the late 1980s, exploded in the early ’90s, went mainstream in the mid-90s and were shoved into the back of the closet around 1997. It took another decade before the next show solely created by a woman — Tina Fey’s “30 Rock” — made it back into the elite Emmy inner circle. Perhaps not coincidentally, leggings made a comeback around the same time. Still, the rebound has been wobbly. A recent Variety article trumpeted an “unprecedented” number of female showrunners, while also reporting that in 2013-14, only 15.1 percent of executive producer credits went to women, “down noticeably from 18.6 percent in the 2011-12 season.” That sounds less like a march to equality and more like a moonwalk, giving the illusion of forward motion when, in fact, the dancer is sliding backward. Progress for female directors has been even more elusive, which has prompted the American Civil Liberties Union to seek an industrywide investigation. Still, whenever I mention that continuing gender imbalance in the entertainment industry, I’m met with two responses: One: Tina Fey. And two: It’s getting better, right? To answer the first: Yes, Ms. Fey’s monumental career has matched her monumental talents. But one individual’s success does not translate to an entire class. (See Obama, Barack; re: racism.) The narrative of “woman as phenomenon” has persisted since TV started. Long before Ms. Fey’s birth, Gertrude Berg created, wrote, produced and starred in the long-running hit “The Goldbergs.” She even nabbed the first Emmy for Best Actress in 1951. Thirty years ago, Susan Harris owned NBC’s Saturday night just as Shonda Rhimes now owns Thursday on ABC. There have always been women who were successful against the odds. Now we need to change the odds so more women can be successful. As for the claim that things are getting better, the numbers fall short. This year’s Writers Guild of America West TV Staffing Brief showed that women’s share of employment has basically flatlined since 2001 and now hovers around 29 percent. The staffing share for minorities dropped to 13.7 percent after a peak of 15.6 percent during the 2011-12 season. The writing staffs for other types of programming, like late night, were even less welcoming to women, who held 18 percent of the staff positions, while minorities had only 3.5 percent. Wishful thinking does nothing to solve the problem. In fact, it may make it worse. If you believe things are getting better, you won’t feel the need to do anything. And you certainly won’t feel the need to do anything now. If necessity is the mother of invention, urgency is the uncle of change. Without it, progress slows and then stops and then reverses. In this sense, gender inequality resembles a bacterial infection two days into a 10-day course of antibiotics. The patient’s temperature may be down, but the Mayo Clinic’s website warns: “It is tempting to stop taking an antibiotic as soon as you feel better. But the full treatment is necessary to kill the disease-causing bacteria. Failure to do so can result in the need to resume treatment later.” Gender inequality is still in our bloodstream, and when we stop fighting it, the bacteria multiply. We need aggressive treatment that leads to more than incremental progress. I fantasize about the networks’ making a rule that each show’s writing staff needs to reflect the gender and racial makeup of its audience. So if the target viewership of “The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon” measures around 56 percent female, the show’s current mix of three women and 16 or so men would require a major rebalance. In every field and every industry, let’s agree that the goal is not just “getting better” but “getting equal.” And we might as well keep wearing leggings, just in case it turns out that they are the key.
	__________________ 'Twas The Night Before Christmas And All Through The Full House Not A Creature Was Stirring, Not Even Mighty Mouse. All My Children We're Nestled All Snug In Their Beds While Visions Of Sugarbakers Danced In Their Heads.

09-20-2015, 11:49 PM	#3
TMC Member Forum Idol Join Date: Jan 09, 2001 Posts: 127,225	The golden age of TV is a sham! http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...-golden-823206 Gavin Polone, producer of Curb Your Enthusiasm and Gilmore Girls and Conan O’Brien's manager, says as the number of shows have grown, the talent pool has remained the same. That’s why you’ll see many sophomore slumps. Shows with talented writing staffs will lose some of that talent in Year 2. PLUS: Peak TV has led to Glut TV, and Peak TV has meant overstuffed and underdeveloped shows.