« new buffy review | Main | so much for technology going smaller »
January 08, 2003
Reality Blogging
So as goes the recent trend in my articles, I’m inspired by Moxie, this time by her dissection of �Joe Millionaire� and the subsequent comments that have been posted, both by myself and others. The basic notion, to me, of a man trying to pick a future wife with the falsehood of $50 million is, well, ludicrous and no one is supposed to think otherwise. The guy’s a schmuck for going along with the ruse (that is, assuming he actually wants to get a wife out of this as opposed to simple publicity) and the women are equally schmuck-ish to be whisked away and, ON TELEVISION, subject themselves to both humiliation and charges of mere gold-digging. People are rooting against any happy ending, which is the point now of reality television: you root against the people on it for being spotlight seekers looking for a cheap path towards celebrity while watching in droves to create said level of faux celebrity.
My initial reactions to all of this were hyperbolic at best, especially when Moxie came down and all but defended the guy for not being the AntiChrist. Look, I’m a pretty fundamentally nice guy, but I’ve done some stuff than would make the Almighty blush a few shades of crimson in my day. Just because I’m not that bad of a guy doesn’t exonerate those things I’ve done. As for the defendants of the women, who’s argument range from ‘women are genetically engineered to seek providers’ (what the’) to ‘women should not be berated for wanting a guy with financial stability and the ambition to garner such money’.
Well, to the first people, I have a nice book on why Lamarckian theories of evolution were debunked. To the second group, I would agree, in theory---dating someone with ambition and some coinage is not an inherently bad thing. The ambition especially often involved in the pursuit of material goods also bespeaks a general go-getter attitude, high self-esteem, the works. Or it could mean he’s a lazy ass kid who’s inherited Mommy and Daddy’s riches. Or it also could mean you’re parents got divorced and you’re assuming the identity of an airline pilot in the early 1960’s while Tom Hanks and his bad accent chase you throughout the world. Point is, I’ll draw the line between ‘wanting a guy for his ambition’ and ‘entering a television contest to win a guy you’ve never met based on the fact that he’s worth $50 million’.
I kept going in my vitriol against the show, and for some reason, I took a step back this morning and thought about the whole situation another way. Here’s a guy who by most accounts is a fundamentally decent guy. Everything he says is true except for the money. But everything he says which is true is ultimately filtered through the lens of the one lie. I can’t see how you can separate the two, when the ground rules are set around this first principle of his economic status. It’s not like you meet a guy/girl, date for a while, and dispite their attempts to play it off, they are multimillionaires. On the show, the ground rules affect how these women see this man.
Well, isn’t a lot of blogging exactly the same, in principle? For those of you who don’t know me, you can only know of me what I write on this site. You most likely don’t know the anecdotes of my childhood, my income, my parent’s first names, the name of the girl whom I lost my virginity to. You also don’t know what’s behind this fa’ade of merriment that I strive to project on this site. But I do want you to come to this site, to like it, to tell more people about it, and that striving is in and of itself a sort of grass-roots attempt at a form of celebrity. Certain bloggers already have such fame---not in terms of millions of viewers but hundreds or thousands of readers. It all amounts to the same thing, when viewed from afar.
This site is not about me, it’s about what I see in culture, music, movies, dating, whatever is going around AROUND me, but not usually TO me. So, I am consciously and subconsciously creating filters through which you ‘see’ me. Usually they are flattering, sometimes they are not, but all in all you’re not getting the flesh and blood guy on the keyboards typing this out. But I am still selling you an image, an icon, something to grab onto, something that will draw you in time and time again. And this is different from a member of "The Real World"...how?
It’s often easy to forget that fact, I think. I know I do when I read certain sites. It’s by and large an act---it’s not terribly different, quite often, from who we are in real life, but it’s a character created by the words we choose and topics we discuss. But it’s not us; it’ CAN’T be, really. Which is fine, so long as you know the rules of the game.
So for now, I’m gonna cut Joe Millionaire and his bevy of beauties a little slack for the time being. I don’t think they’ll mind if I don’t add my voice to the fray, but they might appreciate one less voice in the crowd.
Posted by Ryan McGee at January 8, 2003 10:16 AM
Comments
OK, most of the time, I don't even know where my femenist high horse is- but Joe Millionaire's completely unabashed egregious sexism and stereotyping has bothered me so much that I actually had a nightmare that I was on the show. I kept telling the guy that I soooo wasn't interested, and that just made him hit on me more.
(my subconscious doesn't even try for subtlety anymore)
Posted by: Kristen at January 8, 2003 12:33 PM
Having for the most part dropped out of the "have to see the latest thing" crowd, it is a pleasure once in a while to stumble upon the very reasons I dropped out. Reading this article in 45 seconds seems to have been much more entertaing and informative than actually spending the time to watch the blather it was written about. thank you
Posted by: Steve at January 8, 2003 06:28 PM
I watched for 5 minutes and then turned the channel. If this is the new trend in TV, I'll stick to ESPN.
Posted by: Michael at January 8, 2003 07:18 PM
Cause nothing quite says unabashed egregious sexism and stereotyping like finding out what an NBA player did in a strip club the night before?
Posted by: Commander Foley at January 9, 2003 12:09 AM
First, I would like to say I have not, will not watch this drecckk! I watched 5 minutes of 'The bachelor' and felt so embarrassed for both sides I had to change channels and watch re-runs of 'Gilligan's Island' to remove the bad taste from my mouth...So my question is, since when has TV EVER been about honesty and deep moral or societal values? Networks are like sheep. One hits upon an idea that gets people to watch and the rest follow ad nauseum, till no one watches anymore. Our north American reality programming has nothing on Japanese TV. People are seriously injured and humiliate themselves on all sorts of programs there. Does Joe Millionare portray the worst side of man/woman relationships? Absolutely! But who would watch a show called "Average guy meets average woman"? look at every reality TV show going. They pick people they hope WILL rub each other the wrong way. I think this is the saddest example though, and I feel sorry for not only these people, but for anyone who wants to be on a reality TV show. There are active lawsuits ongoing by groups of ex-reality TV participants claiming Psychological and emotional damage from the humiliation. Imagine that! Why of why, with all of the horrible things happening in the world, do we want shows that portray and glorify the worst of human nature instead of programs that celebrate the best? What if we ALL stopped watching these shows that humiliate people? Is there a hope that the networks will stop producing them? Feel sadness for the depths the man and women of Joe Millionare have sunk for their 5 minutes of fame. Our society is better served with positive images of men and women rising to meet the challenges that life throws at them and overcoming them!
Posted by: SOSociety at January 9, 2003 03:11 AM
I think it's rather intriguing that these "reality" shows do such a good job of polarizing the audience. Perhaps this is because parts of these shows are in fact "real" and step on tender nerves that our egoes and insecurities tend to hide.
I'm 37 years old and and I speak from experience when I say that have encountered many gold digging women and on occasion, I've failed to let the truth get in the way of a good story when I thought it might make for a more direct path into a girl's pants. The point here is that WE ARE ALL GUILTY. Men and women alike and it is a dark side of being human. It just stings a little when it's made so public.
Some men and women will hate this show because it mocks them and some will love it because the gold diggers are having the tables turned on them. Any man snubbed by a woman because he didn't have the "right" car or bank account (this would include me) will be giddy watching these women get flamed.
Maybe the blunt nature of these "reality" shows will result in some careful thought about who we are, how we act and how our behavior may be hurtful to ourselves or others. "Joe Millionaire" is centered around a man that is propagating a lie about his financial position while being courted by women putting on some charade about how they like/love him for everything but the money. I still frequent bars and clubs and Joe Millionaire is played out all across America every Friday and Saturday night. The vast majority of television shows are mindless, sophmoric and simply "unreal" so if Joe Millionaire get's us thinking by forcing us take a critical look at our own behavior then I say it's a winner in spite of its corny premise. Lighten up people......the truth hurts doesn't it?
Posted by: Kevin at January 9, 2003 10:03 AM
Reality TV is definitely not that. I believe that one day the network folks will look back and be ashamed of themselves for glamourizing such obscene and degrading behavior. They are seriously living in a dream world. Someone burst their bubble, please!!!
Posted by: sherry at January 9, 2003 10:05 AM
For me, the point is not that we have ALL told lies at some point or another. The point is not whether women are greedy golddiggers or men are lying pigs. The point I see is that these women (and to a lesser extent, this man) have been set up for public humiliation by a corporate entity bent solely on its own enrichment. These participants are simply seen as 'commodity' to be packaged and sold. Unlike actors or other performers, though, they have offered up their own identities to this auction block. They dont even seem to get the 'handsome rewards' that other reality shows offer. Shame on anyone who participates in this degradation in any function: as enabler, participant or spectator.
Posted by: clem at January 9, 2003 11:47 AM
I refuse to watch reality based TV shows. Even the name "reality based" makes me cringe. The McDonaldization and dumbing down of American culture and media continues unabated, and most people seem to want nothing more out of the media than cheap titillation and the thrill of seeing someone "voted off the island".
If only people realized that they could watch interesting, reality based TV and still learn something useful at the same time. It's called THE NEWS.
Posted by: Valerie at January 9, 2003 12:50 PM
This show is showing the 'Reality' of how men and women are. I for one an greatly dissapointed in most of the fellow women I meet. Money seems to be the only factor for most of them. Especially easy money they can have access to. Fellow Women,
get off your high horse and see how women like these give us everyday girls a bad rap. Every one of those women were beautiful. So they have to go to a reality based TV show to find "True Love" ? Come on! They are getting exactly what they deserve.
Posted by: Ittyb at January 9, 2003 01:05 PM
When I saw the advertising of "Joe Millionare", I couldn't wait. Unfortunately, I had to finish some things at the office and missed it's first airing.
I don't care what any feminist or critic has to say about this show, I want to see it with my popcorn and beer.
Most Reality TV is corny and staged, but I'm really going to enjoy a bunch of beautiful gold diggers get what they deserve. And if you don't believe they deserve it, YOU should have talked them out of doing the show.
Posted by: Darren at January 9, 2003 01:32 PM
I think this show is hilarious. This show stopped being unfair to the women the second they signed on to do it. The very premise of the show will bring out the worst in all of them. If anyone deserves to get humiliated on national tv, it's these idiots. Give me some popcorn, an ice cold coke and don't touch that channel...we got us a hangin'.
Posted by: Dave at January 9, 2003 02:00 PM
"Reality based?" Is that how the show is described? I have never watched it, myself, and more than likely won't ever. Not because I care one way or the other about it, but because I'm too busy living my own "Reality" to worry about what other's seem to think it is. Reality? It sounds like a paid vacation to me. So what, if a few women get "humiliated" on national television? So what, if yet another man tells a whopping big lie? Reality is struggling for years to raise children on your own, trying to instill in them a sense of hope for the future, while you face fears of not being able to provide their basic necessities from payday to payday. Reality is putting yourself through college during your middle age, WHILE raising those children, and still keeping a roof over all of you and food on the table. Reality is, after finally succeeding in earning a degree - with the hightest honors, I might add - to find out that that hard earned degree will not earn one more $1 per hour in wages than you are already making. Reality is having finished raising your children to what you believe are intelligent adults, to watch them make mistakes that will haunt them for the remainder of their lives. And if that isn't enough, "Reality" is being forced to face the loss of one of those children through an incurable disease. No, what that man and those women are experiencing is NOT reality in any true form of the word. I would consider myself a very fortunate individual, living a fantasy life, if I had the opportunity to spend "many" weeks in a "fairy tale" location, with no daily struggle to worry about. A little humiliation would seem like very little to pay for the privilege. But then, I would never find myself in a position to even consider it an option. Like I said in the beginning, I'm too busy living my "reality" to think about someone else's fantasy. I do have my own little fantasy. One that only takes a couple of minutes every day, while I'm at work. I enter the Publisher's Clearing House Sweepstakes every day. I do not, however, make plans to be waiting for the Prize Patrol on the day the winners are announced. On that day, like every other, I will be earning a living in the "Real" world. In conclusion, I have this to say about the people who have been taking one side or the other of what they consider to be an actual "issue": GET A LIFE!!!!
Posted by: SheDragon at January 9, 2003 02:05 PM
Take it easy killer... You need a beer and hug.
Posted by: Darren at January 9, 2003 02:22 PM
14 million people watched the premiere of Joe Millionaire. That's more than will watch any sporting event this year, except the Super Bowl. Moral of the story: no matter how many people complain or how degrading it is, these crap reality TV shows will continue to be made so long as they continue to be profitable.
However, the day that more people watch an episode of The Bachelor than vote in the national elections is the day I officially start destroying TVs in my local Best Buy.
Foley, who actually has never seen a full episode of any reality TV, including the Real World and Survivor. I just find them wicked boring, where "wicked boring" translates to "no one with super-powers or snappy Sorkin dialogue."
Posted by: Commander Foley at January 9, 2003 04:04 PM
You have got to love it......I can't wait till he ask them this question.....Would you still love me if I had no money?
Posted by: calvin at January 9, 2003 04:27 PM
OK - here's the dish. I have never watched any reality based shows - honestly - not ever. Why you ask? Besides the horrible storylines, which I can encounter everyday just talking to friends dating through the internet, does anyone remember an Arnold movie a while back called "Running Man"? While a truly horrible flick, it still had a point... Anyone else out there think we've achieved the first rung on the ladder to the "ultimate" reality show...?
Posted by: Trish at January 9, 2003 04:56 PM
Trish, you should read the story, written by Richard Bachman AKA Stephen King called The Running man, which the movie was based on. It is interesting that a book written ( I believe) in the mid 70's would be so applicable now.
Posted by: SOSociety at January 9, 2003 06:52 PM
Is "The Running Man" the one where Chico's head explodes? And Arnold gets to say lines like, "Hey, light bulb! Hey, Christmas tree!"
Posted by: Commander Foley at January 10, 2003 01:31 PM
"He had to split."
And Richard Freakin' Dawson.
Hoo Ah.
Posted by: ryan at January 12, 2003 09:23 PM
The polarization of feedback is great. But there's a lot being missed.
- The ad for show that to which woman responsed, it mentioned romance & France but not money. That was added later.
- Editing. All the departure interviews with the booted Survivor participants affirm the same thing, the editors heavily slant the "goodness" or "badness" of the characters. With multiple cameras and hours to tape, they condense a lot to get it all down to an hour.
- You're seeing Joe (Evan) after he signed a contract. What ad did he respond to? What is in escrow, that he loses if he breaks a show rule? What are the show rules?
In conclusion, don't crucify the participants too harshly, you don't know how much the participants were mislead prior to signing their contract. (Catch any of the post-How to Marry a Millionaire interviews with Darva Conger?)
Posted by: Tall Fella at January 12, 2003 09:27 PM
You have to be kidding me that you would believe anything Darva Conger had to say.
They are not misled because 97% of the world population are naive sheeple anyway.
They have a saying for this, it's called "Survival of the Fittest".
Posted by: McPhee at January 15, 2003 02:04 PM
"Do we not therefore perceive that by the action of the laws of organization . . . nature has in favorable times, places, and climates multiplied her first germs of animality, given place to developments of their organizations, . . . and increased and diversified their organs? Then. . . aided by much time and by a slow but constant diversity of circumstances, she has gradually brought about in this respect the state of things which we now observe. How grand is this consideration, and especially how remote is it from all that is generally thought on this subject!" -Lamarck
sorry just had to post it :)
Posted by: anna at January 28, 2003 09:43 AM