Why WQ Is the Way He Is in the Way He Watches TV
WQ IV
particularly network TV, is just not man enough for me. Over at
TVbytheNumbers they've got a list of 62 shows which reveals their
gender scores. I don't really like the way they've scored it because
I would've preferred it to have been done in percentages, but they're
always kind of weird with their computations on that site.
Of the 62 shows listed, only 9 are scored as having either an equal
appeal to both men and women or they appealed more to men. Not
surprisingly, because a lot of guys are real morons, 3 of those 9 are
cartoons. The remaining 52 shows all appealed more to women than
men.
Of the 9 that appeal equally to both or more to men, I only watch 1,
"V", with another one that I've been struggling to watch this past
season, "Fringe". So I make that a personal score of 1.5 for me, or
16.6%.
Of the 53 that appeal mostly to women, I only watch 2, "30 Rock" and
"The Middle". So that makes it only 3.7% of that total.
If network programming was much more balanced, so that half appeal to
both genders and the other half had a quarter more appeal to men and
another quarter more to women, my ratio of what I'd be watching would
obviously be higher and consequently not as many shows would suck for
me. It's because so many shows are femme-slanted, making them more
sap-driven than premise-driven, that there's a disconnect for me with
a lot of what's on. And judging by a lot of the guys in this group
who watch what they watch, seems like too many of you have sap-driven
brains. I won't name names but you know who you are.
But I'm a guy's guy, a man's man, and what I look for is He TV, not
She TV. Give me something that moves, not something that clogs. I
want to be entertained by a show, I don't want to have to nurture it.
Nurturing is for sissies, like all those "Lost" nuts. I want meat and
potatoes, not a fruit salad. Give me heroics and smarts, not wimpy
cry babies and incessant babblers. No wonder I had more fun watching
the tube back in the 60s and 70s, we were still in the Age of
Testosterone, none of this hormonal imbalances stuff.
So this is why WQ is the way he is in the way he watches TV. Don't
get me wrong, I love women, I've got one of my own, I wouldn't trade
her in for anything, and luckily she's not as sap-driven as a lot of
women can be so that makes my life a lot saner, but when it comes to
the tube, just give me some good old-fashioned hard knocks stuff, not
cotton balls. At least balance out the programming more. And judging
by what may be in store for the fall, that balance may begin to see a
little shift in the right direction. I can only dream.
You can see the full list here:
Barry Margolin
<09941a2a-4af6-4acc...@x20g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
WQ IV <WQ...@post.com> wrote:
> It's what I've known all along and which has now been confirmed. TV,
> particularly network TV, is just not man enough for me. Over at
> TVbytheNumbers they've got a list of 62 shows which reveals their
> gender scores. I don't really like the way they've scored it because
> I would've preferred it to have been done in percentages, but they're
> always kind of weird with their computations on that site.
>
> Of the 62 shows listed, only 9 are scored as having either an equal
> appeal to both men and women or they appealed more to men. Not
> surprisingly, because a lot of guys are real morons, 3 of those 9 are
> cartoons. The remaining 52 shows all appealed more to women than
> men.
Don't confuse correlation with causation. Maybe they don't put on lots
of male-skewing shows because men don't watch much episodic TV. Men
tend to watch lots of sports.
>
> Of the 9 that appeal equally to both or more to men, I only watch 1,
> "V", with another one that I've been struggling to watch this past
> season, "Fringe". So I make that a personal score of 1.5 for me, or
> 16.6%.
>
> Of the 53 that appeal mostly to women, I only watch 2, "30 Rock" and
> "The Middle". So that makes it only 3.7% of that total.
>
> If network programming was much more balanced, so that half appeal to
> both genders and the other half had a quarter more appeal to men and
> another quarter more to women, my ratio of what I'd be watching would
> obviously be higher and consequently not as many shows would suck for
> me.
Or maybe you just don't like TV fare in general, and it doesn't matter
which way the shows appeal.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
David
heading alone?
Obveeus
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:p29kt5103u24c7pfn...@4ax.com...
> Do I have to actually read the post or may I roll my eyes based on the
> heading alone?
Looking at Barry's reply, it seems that WQ was admitting to not really being
a man or something like that. Yes, it is probably safe to just roll your
eyes and move on quickly.
WQ IV
> In article
> <09941a2a-4af6-4acc-8497-838e536ea...@x20g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
I guess the percentages didn't take for you. 16.6% of shows aimed at
men or to both men and women equally, I watch. Only 3.7% of shows
that mostly women gravitate to, I watch. Sure, that works out to only
2 shows in each case, but the percentages determine the chances of my
watching which more, which clearly is male-skewed shows. If the
numbers were reversed and it was 53 male-skewed shows, instead of 53
female-skewed shows, but the percentage of what I watch now out of 9
male-skewed shows remained the same at 16.6%, then I'd probably be
watching about 9 shows now out of those 53 instead of the 2 out of 9.
And if Burn Notice, Nip/Tuck and Dexter were on any of the broadcast
networks and Human Target was still airing, that would've made the
current male-skewing shows number at 13, assuming they're all male-
skewing or equally male-female skewing, meaning I'd then be watching 6
out of 13 shows, or nearly 50% of what's aimed at me. So no, it's not
that I don't like TV fare in general, it's that I don't like female TV
fare in general.
Unless there's porn in there somewhere.
Barry Margolin
<a6eddbca-cfc8-4594...@i9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
WQ IV <WQ...@post.com> wrote:
> I guess the percentages didn't take for you. 16.6% of shows aimed at
> men or to both men and women equally, I watch. Only 3.7% of shows
> that mostly women gravitate to, I watch. Sure, that works out to only
> 2 shows in each case, but the percentages determine the chances of my
> watching which more, which clearly is male-skewed shows.
You can only talk about "chances" if you're taking a random sample.
I look at it differently. You only watch 4 shows in total. That's such
a small number we can't get any valid statistics from it.
It's like the old commercial for "Life" cereal. Mikey hates everything,
except that cereal. From that, can we conclude that Mikey likes a high
percentage of cereals whose names begin with "L", so food companies
should come out with more of them?
Barry Margolin
William George Ferguson <wmgf...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> There seems to be a false dichotomy going on here, that programs that
> appeal to one gender can't appeal to the other.
No one is saying it's one or the other, just that they skew one way or
the other.
>
> Generally, I would expect more women than men to be watching prime time
> television, because there simply are more women than men (51.5% female to
> 48.5% male in the US). The actual numbers show that the ratio of female tv
> viewers to male tv viewers is actually larger than the population
> distribution.
And WQ's theory is that this is BECAUSE more programs are attractive to
women than men. Or to turn it around, if there were more masculine
programs, more men would watch prime time TV.
But, as I said, you can't assume causation from correlation.
American society, and the roles of women, have changed significantly in
the past few decades. Before the 70's, most women were homemakers, and
men went off to work. Women had daytime TV all to themselves, and when
men came home they took over control of the TV. And most homes only had
one TV, so the husband's choice went.
Now things are more equal, both men and women go to work in many
families, and they both want to relax in front of the TV when they get
home. Luckily, many households have multiple TVs, so they can each
watch what they want. As I mentioned in my earlier post, men often
watch sports, while women mostly watch episodic or reality TV. So the
latter types of shows tend to skew female.
WQ IV
wrote:
> It's strange how WQ recognizes that masculinity issues are central in
> his attitude toward television, yet draws the wrong conclusions from
> this. He still fails to understand how much he overcompensates for his
> lost youth and virility by proclaiming his macho superiority in, uh,
> watching teevee. Hopeless.
Oh, look, it's the feeble-minded ambiguous-gendered Ronnie feigning
intelligence once again. Hey, have you decided what bent you are
yet? Maybe if you just picked your favorite shows to watch, you'd
know for sure. Chances are, with 85% of them leaning towards female
viewers and you likely watch quite a few of them, the probability is
pretty high that you're a female at heart, even if you might be a male
in form. Kind of makes you a ladyboy, then, don't it? Either that or
you're a female pretending to be a male for some ghastly reason. You
sort of lose whichever way.
WQ IV
<OurOwnRonnieBate...@earthlinc.net> wrote:
> throw this poor old man a life preserver. He is drowning.
Awww, whatsdamatter? Jealous that you're not man enough?
Moooon Unit
> Notice how he attacks me based on masculinity issues too. God, someone
> throw this poor old man a life preserver. He is drowning.
Life preserver, schmife preserver. Buy him a night with a $20 hooker and
that'll set him straight.
WQ IV
All this emphasis against masculinity and age. Really sounds like big-
time over-compensation for your own state of mind, being, and the
likely fact that you're not a pretty young thing anymore. It's tough
when the boys stop looking at you, isn't it? Or is it girls? Oh, you
confuse me so, Ronnie. Now, shoo, go along and watch your Desperate
Housewives and Grey's Anatomy - the girl in you is screaming to get
out. Or is it the boy in you screaming to be a girl? Such confusion
you bestow upon others to no end.
William George Ferguson
wrote:
>In article <i4kmt515nv9lnn365...@4ax.com>,
> William George Ferguson <wmgf...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> There seems to be a false dichotomy going on here, that programs that
>> appeal to one gender can't appeal to the other.
>
>No one is saying it's one or the other, just that they skew one way or
>the other.
>
>>
>> Generally, I would expect more women than men to be watching prime time
>> television, because there simply are more women than men (51.5% female to
>> 48.5% male in the US). The actual numbers show that the ratio of female tv
>> viewers to male tv viewers is actually larger than the population
>> distribution.
>
>And WQ's theory is that this is BECAUSE more programs are attractive to
>women than men. Or to turn it around, if there were more masculine
>programs, more men would watch prime time TV.
'If you build it, they will come' almost never works in real life. If you
build it and the demand wasn't already there to begin with, usually you
just have a white elephant on your hands.
>But, as I said, you can't assume causation from correlation.
Prezactly
>American society, and the roles of women, have changed significantly in
>the past few decades. Before the 70's, most women were homemakers, and
>men went off to work. Women had daytime TV all to themselves, and when
>men came home they took over control of the TV. And most homes only had
>one TV, so the husband's choice went.
>
>Now things are more equal, both men and women go to work in many
>families, and they both want to relax in front of the TV when they get
>home. Luckily, many households have multiple TVs, so they can each
>watch what they want. As I mentioned in my earlier post, men often
>watch sports, while women mostly watch episodic or reality TV. So the
>latter types of shows tend to skew female.
I would argue that, even in the 50s, the children probably had more input
into tv program selection than people nowadays wnat to give them credit
for.
In any case, while there were some clear action/adventure shows out there,
even they catered to children as much as to men, and there were a very
large number of shows in the 50s that fit the modern profile of 'appeals to
women'. I Love Lucy, I Married Joan, Private Secretary, My Little Margie,
December Bride, Make Room for Daddy, Bachelor Father, all the variety shows
(Sid Ceaser, Milton Berle, Jimmy Durante, et alia) were arguably all skewed
more towards woman, as were the numerous anthology series.
By the end of the decade, the Warner Brothers westerns hit, but they also,
were more family (and women) friendly than the 'man' type shows that WQ is
thinking of.
--
I have a theory, it could be bunnies
Ian
> 'If you build it, they will come' almost never works in real life. If you
> build it and the demand wasn't already there to begin with, usually you
> just have a white elephant on your hands.
You misspelled "a Segway on your hands". HTH. HAND.
WQ IV
wrote:> >In article <i4kmt515nv9lnn365i9rd7761s6qdve...@4ax.com>,
Well, they were the emerging Baby Boomers and the rapidly growing
population of them definitely did have an impact at the very same time
that the TV medium itself was still expanding.
>
> In any case, while there were some clear action/adventure shows out there,
> even they catered to children as much as to men, and there were a very
> large number of shows in the 50s that fit the modern profile of 'appeals to
> women'. I Love Lucy, I Married Joan, Private Secretary, My Little Margie,
> December Bride, Make Room for Daddy, Bachelor Father, all the variety shows
> (Sid Ceaser, Milton Berle, Jimmy Durante, et alia) were arguably all skewed
> more towards woman, as were the numerous anthology series.
Clearly, the 50s had a steady stream of shows that not only appealed
to kids but which also had crossover or virtually universal appeal
among a broad section of viewers. The 60s also saw a flood of such
shows, and the mid-60s especially, when cartoonish and fantasy
sitcoms, action and sci-fi shows practically took over prime-time, saw
an increased emphasis on reaching out to the still-potent Baby
Boomers.
>
> By the end of the decade, the Warner Brothers westerns hit, but they also,
> were more family (and women) friendly than the 'man' type shows that WQ is
> thinking of.
Actually, a lot of those westerns had more of a male sensibility or
edge about them. Supposedly, Clint Walker in Cheyenne was quite a
heart throb for the female crowd and yet, it was still the kind of
show that must've appealed widely enough to men simply because it
featured a big, brawny, loner-type of guy riding a horse, carrying a
gun, picking fist fights when he had to, and all within the heavily
romanticized era back then of the wild, woolly west, when rugged
individualism ruled the day. Except for family-type westerns like
Bonanza and Big Valley, I can't imagine too many of the others as
having had as much of an appeal to women as Brothers & Sisters does,
unless the lead was a heart throb, which probably explains why a lot
of them were of the hunk variety.
Obveeus
"Ronnie Bateman" <OurOwnRon...@earthlinc.net> wrote in message
news:OurOwnRonnieBateman-...@news.eternal-september.org...
> throw this poor old man a life preserver. He is drowning.
The surprising part is that he attacked you without having to create a fake
screen name just so he could pretend that there was some other human being
that agreed with his rambling diatribes. I don't think that throwing him a
life preserver would help as he appears entirely too clueless to grab onto
it.
WQ IV
> "Ronnie Bateman" <OurOwnRonnieBate...@earthlinc.net> wrote in message
Obveeus is off his meds again. You might want to increase the dosage
to keep your delusions in check. I hear they tend to get worse as you
get older.
Stephen Newport
Stephen Newport
It's one of the very few things your generation does well.
Stephen Newport
December Bride, Make Room for Daddy, Bachelor Father, all the variety
more towards woman, as were the numerous anthology series.
Towards women or towards people with good taste in entertainment?
David Johnston
> It's what I've known all along and which has now been confirmed. TV,
> particularly network TV, is just not man enough for me. Over at
> TVbytheNumbers they've got a list of 62 shows which reveals their
> gender scores. I don't really like the way they've scored it because
> I would've preferred it to have been done in percentages, but they're
> always kind of weird with their computations on that site.
>
> Of the 62 shows listed, only 9 are scored as having either an equal
> appeal to both men and women or they appealed more to men. Not
> surprisingly, because a lot of guys are real morons, 3 of those 9 are
> cartoons.
They neglected to include the shows that really draw a male audience.
Sports. Incidentally, why do you think a cartoon sitcom is any more
stupid than a live action sitcom?
David Johnston
> From: wmgfr...@newsguy.com (William George Ferguson)
Why do you assume that women have better taste in entertainment?
Stephen Newport
Joan, Private Secretary, My Little Margie, December Bride, Make Room for
Daddy, Bachelor Father, all the variety shows (Sid Ceaser, Milton Berle,
skewed more towards woman>>>
--------------------------------------
SN: Towards women or towards people with good taste in entertainment?
----------------------------------------
Why do you assume that women have better taste in entertainment?
SN: I never said that. Some great shows in that list!
David Johnston
> From: rgor...@telus.net (David Johnston) <<<I Love Lucy, I Married
But women liked them better. Therefore they must have better taste.
Stephen Newport
Joan, Private Secretary, My Little Margie, December Bride, Make Room for
Daddy, Bachelor Father, all the variety shows (Sid Ceaser, Milton Berle,
Jimmy Durante) and the numerous anthology series arguably were all
skewed more towards woman>>>
--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
SN: I question that. And I was around then.
David Johnston
> From: rgor...@telus.net (David Johnston) <<<I Love Lucy, I Married
What does your being around then have to do with it?
WQ IV
Their list is comprised of shows currently airing on the broadcast
networks, there are no regular weekly sports programs on now;
otherwise, they probably would've included the Saturday and Sunday
night football games. As for cartoons, they're only stupid when
they're stupid. The Simpsons is about 15 years past its prime, and
the other 3 are virtual clones of The Simpsons. Yes, I know, we've
had this discussion before, but unless a cartoon is fresh or breaks
new ground, for any guy to sit there every Sunday night and watch the
same interchangeable cartoon show for 4 times over for 2 straight
hours is a stark indication of a guy who doesn't have much left to
live for.
WQ IV
> > same interchangeable cartoon show for 4 times over for 2 straight
> > hours is a stark indication of a guy who doesn't have much left to
> > live for.
>
> TV lineups which serve no purpose at all. Why aren't YOU dead by now?
Too many people in the real world depend on me, that's why. What's
your excuse? And maybe it might take you 2 hours to create a fantasy
lineup while arguing strategy with your ambiguous gendered self, but
less than 10 minutes was all I needed.
David Johnston
> On May 1, 2:54 pm, David Johnston <rgor...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 29, 8:14 am, WQ IV <W...@post.com> wrote:
>
> > > It's what I've known all along and which has now been confirmed. TV,
> > > particularly network TV, is just not man enough for me. Over at
> > > TVbytheNumbers they've got a list of 62 shows which reveals their
> > > gender scores. I don't really like the way they've scored it because
> > > I would've preferred it to have been done in percentages, but they're
> > > always kind of weird with their computations on that site.
>
> > > Of the 62 shows listed, only 9 are scored as having either an equal
> > > appeal to both men and women or they appealed more to men. Not
> > > surprisingly, because a lot of guys are real morons, 3 of those 9 are
> > > cartoons.
>
> > They neglected to include the shows that really draw a male audience.
> > Sports. Incidentally, why do you think a cartoon sitcom is any more
> > stupid than a live action sitcom?
>
> Their list is comprised of shows currently airing on the broadcast
> networks, there are no regular weekly sports programs on now;
> otherwise, they probably would've included the Saturday and Sunday
> night football games.
Still, there's no shortage of sports on according to the broadcast
schedule of the part of the United States where I currently am. One
of the reasons why I haven't been watching a lot of regular television
is because the guy I'm staying has been watching NBA basketball pretty
much every night.
As for cartoons, they're only stupid when
> they're stupid. The Simpsons is about 15 years past its prime, and
> the other 3 are virtual clones of The Simpsons. Yes, I know, we've
> had this discussion before,
Not really. I accept that the Simpsons are tired out. The last time
I watched an episode must be almost two years ago now and I've never
been interested in the others. But I bet when they were fresh, they
still skewed male.
WQ IV
To a 2-year-old, everyone's old. And even the 2-year-old is old to a
one-day-old. Your point is? And I'll admit that I'm impotent when
it comes to driving a standard.
Extravagan
> From: diml...@yahoo.com (David)
> may I roll my eyes
> ----------------------------------
Wrong, and extra bonus wrongness points for insulting not only me but
about 552 million other human beings without due process or sufficient
evidence.
Stephen Newport
then have to do with it?
Everything. I actually saw men also enjoying those shows.