Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    This week's Newsweek has a very good article on women in the
    televison field. This was both in terms of women who are the
    executives, writers, producers, etc. and the roles for women
    in  the current program. Two shows particularly singled out
    were Murphy Brown  and Roseanne.  I would recommend this issue
    for anyone interested in the subject.
    
    Bonni

    	Although I haven't seen the series mentioned in this topic
    	so far (except for one episode of Roseanne,) I spent 5 years
    	in Broadcast television (from my Junior year of college in
    	1974 until 1979 when I got my first job doing chip-level
    	troubleshooting for a small computer company.)
    
    	If anyone has seen "Broadcast News," it brought back a lot of
    	memories for me of remote shoots, the yelling and screaming that 
    	goes on when everyone is under pressure (especially during live
    	shows,) the bonding that takes place when a show goes really
    	well, and the crazy conversations that sometimes occur over the
    	headsets during production.
    
    	Whereas "Switching Channels" (as a movie) struck me as a series
    	of one-liners (with little that reminded me of what it was really 
    	like to be in television production,) "Broadcast News" hit me a lot
    	closer to home (in terms of my own memories.)
    
    	When we did remote shoots, we often had to pack the vans the
    	night before the shoot, and then show up for work at the studio
    	at 5am (because it often took up to 8 or 10 hours to set up for a
    	major remote production before the broadcast or taping even
    	*started*.)  When the shooting was done, we would "strike
    	the set" (which took about 1/10th the amount of time it had
    	taken to set it all up) and then head back to the studio.  At this 
    	point, we might be in to our 15th or 20th hour (depending on the 
    	nature of the production,) but we were usually too hyper to go home
    	at that point.  
    
    	We almost ALWAYS went en masse to some unfortunate eating/drinking 
    	establishment (where we would spend the next few hours unwinding 
    	together and letting off steam.)  The extent of our enthusiasm
    	(and the volume with which we exhibited it) was usually in direct 
    	proportion to the perceived quality of our production.  If things 
    	went well, we celebrated.  We didn't get drunk (because we were 
    	already high from the experience.)  We simply felt the need to
    	share the time together afterward (and from those shared times
    	after the show would spring our peculiar brand of 'war stories'
    	of the day's events.)
    
    	The women on our production crew (and the women producers, etc.)
    	shared in the comradery of the after-production celebrations
    	(having been on the front lines of battle as much as anyone
    	else those days,) so there was a visible change in attitude 
    	towards all the women at the studio in a relatively short period 
    	of time (compared to what it was like when I was first hired.)
    
    	I'm not sure how much things have changed while I've been in
    	the computer biz for the past 10 years or so, so I'll be
    	interested to read the article, Bonnie.  Thanks.

    
        FYI on "Married With Children":
    
    
                There was an article in the paper (TV Guide?)
                last week which stated that due to the writing
                of a mother-of-2 from who-knows-where, advert-
                isers of the show are pulling their commercials
                'coz they're afraid that they're not living up
                to their "family-type network" by sponsoring a
                show that's as crude as this one.
    
                I don't watch it, so I don't know.
                                                       Shawn L.
    

    I PURPOSELY don't watch "Married With Children" because of the
    way relationships are portrayed on the show.  The husband is
    domineering, selfish and not too bright and the wife is less
    than honest and manipulative.  I object to the model this show
    uses for marriage or any relationship between men and women.  In
    my mind it's a cruder, modern version of the Donna Reed show.

    
    I've only seen teh show a couple of times, but I thought it was
    meant to be satirical, not a model for reality.
    
    Roberta

    I've seen the show a few times when it first started but lately I've
    been watching it every Sunday.  (I get sick of Jessica Fletcher)...
    I think the show is funny.  I'm shocked by some of the things that are
    said because I'm not used to hearing it from TV; but I'm not offended. I 
    deal with more shocking behavior from the people here at work. 
    
    I don't take anything I see on TV too seriously anyways.  I have more
    important things to worry about.
    
    Anna
      

    
    I love the show.  I make it a point to watch it (even though I'm
    not too big on tv watching lately) and I always get a kick out of
    it.  I think that though they make all of life's little problems
    larger-than-life, that's what makes it entertaining.
    
    I don't think it's insulting, it's *humor* for God's sake.
    It's a parody of sorts.  They *do* have normal people on the show
    for contrast, they are showing that it's Peggy and Al that are the
    way they are, not everyone.  Marcy and Steve (whose roles are
    as important as Peggy and Al's) are a "working couple" with a
    good, normal marriage and make for good targets for Peggy and Al
    to play off of.
    
    I also get a kick out of the things they come up with, you don't
    expect the wild things that come out of their mouths.
    
    I think it's extremely hilarious.
    
    Stacie

    
        Like Stacie said, the point of the show is to portray
        REAL LIFE people, who don't own Mercedes' and Rolls'
        and have 100 maids in their mansion.
    
        They have bills, they probably drive horrible cars, and
        they fight sometimes.
    
                                                       Shawn L.