Rating: 
Summary: Like eating ice cream from the container...
Review: This book chronicles the images of females in baby-boom popculture and how they reflected and shaped politics. Because women have been historically consigned to the private sphere of home and hearth, the idea that our tv and mass media images can alter society is a riveting idea. Douglas then backs up this thesis with an admirable amount of intensive research and personal recollection that travels from Gracie Allen to Northern Exposure. Although the book was primarily intended for babyboom women's culture, I am old enough to remember the rise of the superwoman as personified in Wonder Woman and Charlie's Angels and how this new genere was designed for both male tittilation and female admiration. Meanwhile, myself and other first graders loved the show because people who looked like us (hopefully when we were older) were the center stars of the show. While I am now eagerly awaiting a revised and expanded edition with chapters on Buffy, Xena and Charmed, the book still provides an excellent example of the un-ending struggle between feminist and anti-feminist influences in the American mass media. No self-respecting feminist of any age ought to be without this awesome and well-researched tome.
Rating:
Summary: A very thought-provoking take on feminism
Review: This book does more than introduce feminist theory...it explains *why* feminism came about and why it still exists by showing how women have been unfairly portrayed by the single most powerful shaper of society...the media. The descriptions of the treatment of women on TV in the 1950s and 1960s will make you angry, so that, even if you are not a radical, you will understand a little bit of why the radical (and not-so-radical) feminists at the beginning of the women's movement were so angry at the media. It presents the common media-myths of feminism and elegantly dispels them. It is also not a one-sided book...it describes the more positive ways women have been portrayed in the media as well, and how a woman could draw empowerment from something as "silly" (to us moderns) as Bewitched or Charlie's Angels. Feminists should read this book to gain a greater appreciation for their roots as feminists, for where their movement has come from, and for the gains women have made since then and the inequalities that remain in the media. Non- or anti-feminists should read this book to gain a little more understanding of why women did and still do identify as feminists, especially if they make the mistake of thinking that the modern media "fairly" portrays women.
Rating:
Summary: A book that's both fun and smart.
Review: This book formed the cornerstone of my undergraduate thesis project. I was originally assigned to read it for a class - just chapter one. Within the next few days I had read the book cover to cover. Among other feminist media critics, Douglas is a breath of fresh air. While she notes and discusses the flawed representation of women in a particular sitcom (movie, book, etc.) she admits that at the same time she *liked* that sitcom. She readily admits that one can be of two minds on a subject - few things are either all good or all bad. It seems like a simple point to make, but it's one that I encountered all too infrequently in my research. Highly, highly recommended book...
Rating: 
Summary: easy to read, but...
Review: this book is very readable, but I found if you do not know much about the tv shows she talks about, it really isn't that interesting or imforative. I do know a bit about I Dream of Jeanie and Bewitched, so I found the particular chapter on these two tv shows very informative. However, some of the other chapters seemed a bit dull if I had no other knowledge of the shows, movies, etc that were being talked about. Don't get me wrong, it is very readable, but for me it was harder to stay with it if I had no prior to fall back on. Also, maybe it was me, but I don't know if it went deep enough into the issue of mass media and how it reflects on women.
Rating: 
Summary: A pop culture romp for every generation
Review: This study of feminist issues in the mass media and popular culture is one of the most refreshing non-fiction reads I`ve found in a while. The author`s combination of careful research and witty, engaging style is unique in this age of earnest political correctness. Douglas also impressesd me with the sheer scope of her book- chapters on everything from 1950`s movie treatments of sexuality to how TV journalism initially treated the women`s movement. Along the way, she never loses her wry sense of humor, which strikes me as a cross between John Waters and Jean Kerr! Sample: While discussing a 1950`s article which states that women are more interested in reading about sewing than mechanics, she wisely asks, "Who`d want to READ about either"? Offhand, I can`t think of another feminist writer who would entitle a chapter "The ERA As Catfight." All kidding aside, Douglas has some serious points to make about the media and how it alters perceptions of women. She brings up many important instances of how situation comedies and early coverage of the feminist movement both reflected and influenced the progressive trends of the sixties. And contrary to popular belief, TV did have some strong female characters before 1970: Lucille Ball as Lucy, Connie Stevens as Cricket, Elizabeth Montgomery as Samantha{ Douglas describes her as playing humble for husband Darrin, but still wielding the magic which is symbolic of her female power}. Douglas includes some wonderful stuff on pop music as well, including her theories on how the Beatles helped to empower young women. And her girl group chapter is excellent- I just keep hoping she`ll someday add an appendix on the Breeders, TLC, and the Go-Go`s! Plus, you don`t have to be a member of the boomer generation to understand or enjoy this book, since Nik at Nite and your friendly DVD player can enable you to follow most of the visual works Douglas discusses, and the interested music lover can tune in to an oldies show for the music. Extra points for the author not assuming that everyone is the same type of feminist that she is- she keeps an open mind throughout. A fun and informative read!
Rating:
Summary: Unfair review by uniformed republican from Alabama
Review: To begin with, feminism is about finding a suitable subject position for "female", "feminine", "woman." Douglas explores the subject position of the feminine in pop culture -- and does it rather well. Some attacks listed here are uninformed about the purposes of feminism, or assume that feminism is designed to do something anti-male. For instance, "Harpe" you claim that "Government-funded child care, taxpayer-supported abortions, national health insurance, Social Security for homemakers, and many other socialist policies" are socialistic rather than feministic. But maybe that's because your idea of what feminism is remains limited to the outmoded belief that feminism is about equal rights with men (well, white men). What Susan Douglas does here IS feminism and the only way your Civil War nostalgic mind can get past it is to disregard it as socialist (and since when did social responsibility become a BAD thing?). The things Douglas addresses in this book support equality not special privileges -- for instance funding for homemakers provides security should the heteronormic imperative (also known as marriage) fail or be, gasp, undesirable. Why do some readers fail to see that it is men who have special rights by having independence from domesticity in a way that women do not have (particularly in Alabama -- I know, I live here too). For those of you who might have picked this book up to find out "Where the Girls are" for your own misogynistic reasons, put it down now; go read something like Susan Bordo's _The Male Body_; find out what feminism REALLY is and what it hopes to achieve; then come back and read Douglas's book. Until then, vote for Bush and Riley, admire Thomas Jefferson, attend a Civil War re-enactment and stay out of the new millennium.
Rating:
Summary: great book
Review: to the reader who stated "men suck." you've got feminism all wrong. there is nothing wrong with loving men;it certainly doesn't make you a weak woman. Feminism isn't man-hating unshaven bitter females, but equality of the sexes. A real woman is not afraid of her femininity.
Rating:
Summary: Proceed with caution.
Review: While I found this book to be breezily written and often entertaining, I also found it to be very one-sided in its knowledge of and presentation of primetime entertainment television history. To read Ms. Douglas's book, one could easily come away with the belief that not a single "positive" image of American womanhood has ever been broadcast in the history of the small screen. The world set forth in "Where the Girls Are" is one where women were constantly demeaned by the media; and the real-life women of the time (one assumes) willingly, ignorantly accepted these images and these programs which (one also gathers) were created and broadcast by a group of 100% male, women-hating producers, writers and network execs. To make the above myopic point, Douglas ignores entire genres and entire series. In her book, she makes no mention of Barbara Stanwyck on "The Big Valley" or Anne Francis on "Honey West" or of the series "The Nurses"; or of the popular anthology programs of the era often hosted by the likes of Stanwyck, Jane Wyman and Loretta Young; or of the variety shows of the time also often helmed by women; or of the constant presence of individuals like Kitty Carlisle, Faye Emerson or Arlene Francis and their witty, wise contributions to the primetime panel programs also of the time. She also makes no mention of Yvonne Craig or Julie Newmar on "Batman" or of Pat Crowley's avant-garde mom on "Please Don't Eat the Daisies" and she unfairly dismisses "Our Miss Brooks" as just a "husband-hunter," failing to recognize her as the competent professional she was. Instead, Douglas prefers to take easy shots at the usual TV targets-"Charlie's Angels," "I Dream of Jeannie" and the poor, much-maligned Donna Reed, among others. By focusing only on the popular targets, Douglas fails to put her subject (TV programs) in a proper context. If Lucy or Donna Reed were unfair images to beam into the homes of the young women of the 1950s and '60s, was Gomer Pyle, Gilligan or Ralph Kramden an inspiring image for young males? And if young men were able to watch shows like "Gilligan's Island," et.al. and suffer no ill-affects then why doesn't Douglas have faith in young women that they too could and did do the same thing? Furthermore, in order to build her case of all-bad-female-images-all-the-time, she carefully prunes away episodes of many series which do not support her thesis. For example, she chastises the "Bionic Woman" for often sending its lead, Lindsey Wagner, undercover in traditionally female occupations as a nun or a roller derby queen. She ignores the times the series sent Jamie Sommers undercover as a scientist, a race car driver or a police woman. (She further dislikes that the "Bionic Woman's" day job was as school teacher; a diss that seems to degrade the hundreds of women all over the country who, proudly teach America's next generation.) In regard to undercover roles, Douglas has the same criticism of "Angels," again not mentioning the times that the trio went undercover as female football players, truck drivers, stuntwomen or even joined the military for a particular case. Concerning "The Flying Nun," Douglas focuses only on the Sister's clumsy, slapstick landings in the few two or three episodes of the series, choosing to ignore the rest of season one and all of seasons two and three where's Sally Field's ability to fly often saved the convent, saved the day, and even saved lives. And sometimes she misreads programs entirely. She upbraids "Wonder Woman" stating that Wonder Woman's alter ego, Diana Prince, always showed up at the office in "low-cut dresses." Actually, the first season of this series was set during WWII, when Ms. Prince wasn't Wonder Woman, she was in an official Army uniform. Later, when the series was moved ups to present day, Prince's daytime wear was always appropriate to the workplace. Did Douglas even watch an episode? "Where the Girls Are" is a thought-provoking work but I believe it must be read with a critical eye. To accept all its arguments without questioning does an enormous disservice to the women, in front of the camera and behind it (and, yes, there were many) who created these long-lasting, enduring programs and images. I also can't help but think that it also does a disservice to the women, young and mature, then and now, who watch/watched these programs and felt not only entertained by them but also often empowered by them.
|
