It’s time to bury Bones

Because plastic women are the best women!
(image by Dave at morgueFile)

Not real bones, mind you.  But the TV show Bones.  It began broadcasting back in 2005, and, as per the write-up on IMDB, is about “a forensic anthropologist and a cocky FBI agent build a team to investigate death causes.”  It’s in season 9 already.  I’ve seen almost all the episodes.  I say almost all because I have no idea if there were any episodes after episode 14 in season 9: The Master in the Slop.  The end of that show convinced me that I should never ever watch it again.

Why?  Well, if you saw it, you might know why.

The plot was interesting, someone being set up for a murder they didn’t commit, chess, pigs.  What more do you want in an episode?  Well, perhaps you might want a lack of rampant sexism.

In this lovely episode, Dr. Brennan (Bones) is upset that Dr. Camille Saroyan is receiving an award.  The award is for “Outstanding Women of Science,” and it’s from “Science Monthly.”  But Dr. Saroyan is concerned because she knows that Dr. Brennan expects the award.  To try to mitigate the situation, Dr. Saroyan contacts the institution offering the award and asks if it can be shared between herself, Brennan, and their artist/computer whiz Angela Montenegro.

The women hear back.  The publication has chosen to “honor” all three of the women…actually, they’ve chosen to “honor” 12 women!  You see, they’ve decided to have the “12 Outstanding Women of Science.”

So far, this doesn’t sound so bad, right?  And then they produce the “humorous” twist...the “honor” being bestowed upon 12 brilliant women is that they get to wear bikinis (with pictures of male scientists on the breasts!) and have a photo shoot “showing a lot of skin.” 

Well, who the hell would agree to that?  According to Brennan, all the “brilliant” women.

When Saroyan points out that, “We’ll be hanging in labs all across the country,” Brennan argues that it will simply show that at the Smithsonian, “….pulchritude is as abundant as brilliance…I never thought I would be honored in this way.”  

Wait.  What the fuck?

It’s an honor to pose in a bikini for men to look at you?  Really?  Being ogled and turned into a sex object shows pulchritude?  And this is an important thing to show?  Because Brennan, Saroyan, and Montenegro all think that this is a huge honor that they’re being allowed to help the publication stay solvent by turning into Playboy Bunnies?

I mean, they’re only a lap dance away from really earning some money for the magazine…and think about how much extra the Smithsonian could pull in if they went full monty!

What makes this even worse, I think, is that when I looked up the episode and read user reviews on tv.com, most of them make no mention of the sexism.  They focus on lack of realism, stereotypes, and failed gags.  No one thought it was horrific that being a scientist and a woman meant that the woman would need to prostitute herself for the sake of a publication.  No one seemed to find it painful that three intelligent women would throw themselves into bikinis so that men across the country could ogle them.  No one mentioned that it was sending a horrible, horrible message – that being smart isn’t enough.  You also have to be willing to show some skin to get anywhere.  Brennan even mentions that if they don’t do it, the “honor” will go to three other women, and she can’t possibly let that happen.

I say again: what the fuck?

I am willing to put up with a lot of stupid shit in TV shows.  It’s TV after all.  Most of the time, I’m not watching it for high quality, but for amusement and perhaps some mystery.  But when it’s personally offensive, the amusement is gone. 

So what time is it?  It’s time to bury Bones.  Let the ratings go to hell.  It’s going to get put to rest after season 10 anyway, but maybe we can encourage them to end it a bit sooner than that…

Et tu, NPR?

Take this pie and shove it!
(Image by ayndroid via morgueFiles)

 

Why would NPR fall back in time with their headline “GM Gives A Woman The KeysTo Drive Its Future.”  Gives?  Gives? 

Okay, I have to bring this around to an argument about teaching now.  Years ago, I talked to another English professor.  He used to laugh when students talked about their grades.  If they failed, they often said that their instructor “gave” them an F.  If they passed, they said they “earned” an A.  He would laugh at them and point out that they earned the F the same way they earned the A.

Which brings us back to the article’s headline.  Did they “give” it to her?  It is just tokenism and a way to pad their numbers?  Or did she legitimately earn it?  I don’t hazard a guess; I’m not big on tracking what GM is doing and what their execs are like.  But I do know that if she honestly earned the position, as we would expect any male candidate to do, then we shouldn’t belittle her accomplishment by putting out headlines that imply that women only achieve things through being “given” them.

One of their points in the article is that “Even now in Saudi Arabia, women risk violence or arrest for just sitting behind the wheel of a car.”  How is that even relevant?  What does that have to do with any of this?  We’re not living in Saudi.  We’re not following their laws.  Is the author trying to show that we’re more advanced? That we actually “let” and “give” our women these things?

I suppose this wouldn’t be that bad, but it was a woman who wrote the article!  Marilyn Geewax.  Golly gee, Geewax, maybe next time you can go ahead and write a wonderful article about a man who gets an executive position, and you can go ahead and put the same information in about him.  Talk about how he was “given” the position, and point out something about circumcision, maybe.  Make sure to mention that he has kids (“a mother of two” is so cleverly slipped into the article…)

When are we going to stop looking at boobs and start looking at resumes?  When are we going to go ahead and report things fairly and equally instead of picking terminology that denigrates? 

Sorry, NPR, but you really fouled this one up.