*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
No words....just...
*headdesk*

But it's on FOX. I'm sure it will a thoughtful exploration of gender role-reversal?

But it's on FOX. I'm sure it will a thoughtful exploration of gender role-reversal.

Holy straw man. Is Rupert Murdoch himself going to light the match to burn this effigy of "feminism"?

Blarf.

It's Fox. "Oh, dear" isn't just an expression of concern... it's a foregone conclusion.

Also, "reality" shows have been getting progressively dumber since their inception.

Combine the two, and the only reason the show might survive past its first week is because it panders to "lowest common denominator" viewers.

I'm torn between writing postcards expressing disgust and using the "just don't watch it, and convince others to also not watch it" method.

Yeah, looks like shite to me. I'll put it on my schedule right next to all those other reality shows, in fact all FOX shows, I never watch either.

This deserves bolding, too:

"who will be man enough to succeed in the new social order?"

Yeah . . . the problem is that the goal of feminism isn't for men to be subservient to women, but for people of both sexes and all genders to be considered equal to one another.

Too bad the show is on Fox. I'll be surprised if they don't have the women leaving their husbands, killing their children and becoming lesbians!

And I'm sure that team Murdoch will pick out a series of well-adjusted, intelligent women who have merely been stifled by the sexism that all women in our society, and that, given the opportunity to act independently, will act in harmony, rationally discussing things...

yes?

"Too bad the show is on Fox. I'll be surprised if they don't have the women leaving their husbands, killing their children and becoming lesbians!"

Nope, instead they'll find the dumbest, most shallow, catty group of women possible and have them fight constantly. The men will probably do the same thing. It's reality tv on FOX. Most reality shows are designed for people who didn't get enough of middle school behavior the first (two or three, I'm assuming) times they were actually there.
I also have a feeling "strong, independent" means loud, impatient and nasty in this context. Yay!
Too bad, because done right this could be an interesting exploration of gender roles, but the chances of that happening are zero to none.

i think this would be a better show:

"What if it was “a duckbilled platypus's world�? What if duckbilled platypi made ALL the decisions? If people were their obedient subjects?"

redscorpse: Seriously, LOL. I don't even have TV, but I'd watch that show on TVLinks.

How will the men react? How will the women treat the men? Can women effectively rule society? Will the men learn what life is like for some women in today’s world? Will this new society be a Utopia or a hell on earth?

Let's see if I understand this:

They're going to take a probably hypermasculine group of men who are used to being in control and dominating people and put them in a situation where they have to obey the orders of a group of women who have personal axes to grind and are probably going to make ridiculous, demeaning, or insulting demands of the group of men?

Oh, yes. Nothing spells Utopia more than two groups of unreasonable people with an artificially created power differential that is intentionally designed to piss off one of the groups.

Oh, wait, no... that spells Conflict.

roymac: Oh, wait, no... that spells Ratings.

Goddamn reality TV. What I'm worried about is the sheer number of people who are going to take this shit seriously. "OMG! Wimmenz totally CANNOT rule the world! Look at how MEAN they are to those men, who never did anything to them!"

I can see the promo now:

"Thinking about voting for Hillary Clinton? Think again. Find out what happens when women run the show. We'll give you a hint -- it's not pretty!"

I'm really suspicious about just how "unscripted" this is going to be. Since it doesn't appear that the women are competing for anything, I strongly suspect that they'll be given directions that stop just short of scripted lines. I can't imagine that the show's producers are just going to let both groups go at it with out any interference. At this point I'm just hoping that it won't be actively offensive.

Yeah, imagine if the first thing the women want to do is to ditch the rules and cooperate? I am sure that would fly.

Wow, blindcavefish, I hadn't even thought of that. But now that you bring it up, I wonder how coincidental this timing is.

Oh, yeah, I totally thought of the timing vis a vis Hillary Clinton.

Ew, blindcavefish. You're so right.

JustAnOutsider: Keep on hoping. Maybe pigs can fly and Satan is throwing snowballs in Hell.

I agree with all the above comments. Also, does anyone else find it interesting that the wording indicates that they are blatantly acknowledging the fact that men are currently in control over women? Isn't this the same group of people who would, under normal circumstances, fervently deny any remaining vesiges of patriarchy? Then again, maybe not. There was a YouTube clip of a Fox interview where the interviewer explicitly stated something to the effect of, "They're breaking down our white, male, Christian power structure." That's almost verbatim (I can go look up the link if anyone is interested).

Its just sounds like a fem-dom, male-sub porn show.

There was a YouTube clip of a Fox interview where the interviewer explicitly stated something to the effect of, "They're breaking down our white, male, Christian power structure." That's almost verbatim (I can go look up the link if anyone is interested).

The story was covered here not too long ago. The commentator was good ol' BillO. He was talking about immigrants from south of the border.

This is bound to be sexist in so very many ways - where both sexes are concerned.

Nice one, Fux network. I bet they'll make the women dress in Dominatrix gear, while they're at it.

That takes care of that, then. ^_^ Thanks, EvilPotato.

I thought Desperate Housewives was on ABC.

Because everyone knows that the only alternative to a male-dominated world is a female-dominated world. I mean, can you imagine what would happen if people of both sexes could achieve power and respect based on their own individual characteristics? It would be chaos -- chaos!

One thing this show is definitely going to "forget" to show is that the women who are supposedly in charge (as well as the men) are still going to be subordinate to the people making the show. They're the real rulers, regardless of the dynamics between the "contestants."

I don't know for sure that a "hypermasculine" man put into a subordinate position would be especially inclined to rebel - the stereotypical domain of hypermasculinity is the military, in which people are expected to submit to their superior officers and dominate their subordinates. "Basic training" could be conceptualized as indoctrination into a particular hypermasculine setting, and the indoctrination consists of putting new recruits into a position in which they must submit constantly to a designated superior.

This show's format even turns submission into a competition. It's still the same old "males competing against other males themselves for female attention" setup, and the implied rules are that he with the biggest capacity for enduring "hardship" wins.

It's a mildly amusing concept for a game show, but it's still practically guaranteed to be stupid and play into the hands of gender stereotypes.

I'm going to echo what Cara and probably a few others have said: why, for us to be together as a society, does one sex/gender have to be subservient to the other? Have we just gotten so used to gender/race/class issues that the idea of equality is that far gone? It seems to me the only people who want to "rule" over others are men (rich and white most likely) and they just can't function in society with out that discrepancy amongst everyone.

I have a better idea for a reality TV show. How about a show where intellectuals wake up in a world with a racist and sexist power structure where all the important decisions are made by an elite group with an interest only in consolidating and expanding their own power at any cost, and this same elite group in power is given the divine right by hordes of mindless human herd animals.

You could just call this show the evening news.

I have a better idea for a reality TV show. How about a show where intellectuals wake up in a world with a racist and sexist power structure where all the important decisions are made by an elite group with an interest only in consolidating and expanding their own power at any cost, and this same elite group in power is given the divine right by hordes of mindless human herd animals.

Many science fiction novels have used similar premises; perhaps the oldest is "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" by Mark Twain. One wonders what future generations will think of our world...

It's kind of interesting that the description is saying that, as of right now, men rule women. You wouldn't think that Fox would ever admit to something like that. They would probably deny that sexism still exists against women.

Also, it's interesting how these people think that if women aren't going to be subservient to men, then men must be subservient to women.

And you just KNOW that these women are going to act like bitches because, honestly, that's the only way the show will be interesting. It wouldn't really reflect how the world would be if.. uh.. "WOMEN RULED THE WORLD!"

And then you'll probably have stupid conservative assholes watching the show and saying things like "See! This is why women can't be in control. They make us do crazy things, like RESPECT them!"

This whole thing is a ridiculous set-up to discredit feminism, and it's obvious. Sigh.

It's funny. I have friends (very nice couple) who are down in LA, showbiz types. The husband does script-writing. For reality TV shows. Just sayin' is all.

Llencelyn - I also thought it was interesting that the show's description admitted that men dominate women in our society. I felt the tone was pretty demeaning, like the producers are off somewhere rubbing their hands together and salivating at the thought of how the community will fall apart once women are in control. I mean, one menstrual cycle and there goes all the nuclear bombs!

I'm glad I don't have cable.

By reversing the gender roles to make women dominant and men subserviant is simply supporting the notion that women are actually subserviant. This is pretty classic of the media's patriarchal spin. What a concept, women ruling... since this is a television show it must be pretty fantastic and false.

It's kind of interesting that the description is saying that, as of right now, men rule women. You wouldn't think that Fox would ever admit to something like that. They would probably deny that sexism still exists against women.

It's just a testament to the arrogance of the network's top executives. Fox honestly believes they have nothing to lose by admitting that white, Christian men rule the world, which naturally includes women. They're not even evolved to the point where they can make the (however specious) argument made by conservatives who claim to be more socially-conscious: "What are you complaining about, bitches? You're liberated already! Stop whining." They're so out of touch that they honestly think that no one would deny that that's how things are; after all, it's obvious to them.

This show is all kinds of wrong and all kinds of irresponsible.

The executive producer, Jean Michel-Michenaud, is the same guy behind Joe Millionaire, Temptation Island and Trading Spouses: Meet Your New Mommy (the other two EP are basically his staff from Trading Spouses and a few other shows).

I wonder if he actually thinks this is a feminist idea or if he's actually a raging mysoginist considering his other shows?

...if this was any other minority in the world, you know this idea wouldn't have passed by the head honchos, even if it was on Fox. But women? whatever, they're just bitching because they're on the rag.

Nice to know I'm subject to the last acceptable prejudice (at least, considered so by those Fox assholes.)

Remember when Fox was only watched for The Simpsons?

NewsCat: Considering Joe Millionaire alone is enough to convince me that it's raging misogyny that's at the heart of this show.

Also, as I said higher up, I really think that Fox is creating and promoting the show this way because of blind misogyny (much like Joe Millionaire). They don't even know or care how offensive it is to say outright, "Men rule the world. What if we gave it to women for a while? *yukyukyuk*" "Yeah, that's a great idea, Jim! They'd run around yelling and PMSing and fighting with each other while the men rolled their eyes behind their backs!" "You're right, Bob! That's comedy gold! And I bet the women will be really grateful that we let them control us for a while, too. My wife nags me about it all the time."

LOL, damn HTML tags. Sorry for all the shouting.

Just wanted to point out that the Fox news division and the Fox entertainment division operate pretty much independently. It's unlikely that this show is right-wing propaganda in disquise. Instead it's more likely to be good 'ol frat-boy style misogyny. Or in other words, it's going to be tasteless, but there's probably no overt political agenda.

This is a huge flaming piece of shite and I dont think viewers will take it. TV shows have like a 90% failure rate. I dont think we have to worry too much about this being on the air for too long. We can definitely get it off faster by writing in and complaining like crazy.

Even though there is so much shit out there, I trust that it will be so bad, it will be cancelled. The advertisers will not like funding a controversial show. It will just make them look worse.

Now, let's do some wordage switcheroo, yeah?

What if it was “a black’s world�? What if African Americans made ALL the decisions? If Caucasians were their obedient subjects?

These questions and more will be explored when a group of strong, educated, independent African Americans, tired of living in a white world and each with a personal axe to grind, rule over a group of unsuspecting whites used to calling the shots on WHEN BLACKS RULE THE WORLD.

The unscripted series will reveal how blacks and whites react in a world where blacks are in charge and whites are subservient, and each race’s ability to adapt to a new social order will be put to the test.

The participants will be brought to a remote, primitive location where blacks will have the opportunity to “rule� as they build a newly formed society – one where there is no lowered expectations and no dressing to impress. For the whites, their worlds of power and prestige are turned inside-out and upside-down. And for these blacks, turnabout is fair play!

In order to win, the whites must accede to the blacks' every demand, 24/7. Here, blacks command and whites obey. Over the series’ duration, the whites will be eliminated by the blacks until one last white is standing.

How will the whites react? How will the blacks treat the whites? Can blacks effectively rule society? Will the whites learn what life is like for some blacks in today’s world? Will this new society be a Utopia or a hell on earth? And in the end, who will be white enough to succeed in the new social order?

Huh. Somehow I can't see that one being thrown in the primetime lineup anytime soon...

Shyva that was brilliant.

More predictions:

1) The show will involve the group needing to do a lot of male-gender-role things. The women will be carefully picked so that they don't know how to do them. Because women, you know, can't use a hand saw.

2) The show will be deliberately designed to make the workloads unequal. The people in power (women, in this case) will end up doing less than the others. Just like power works in reality. But the show will focus on the "unfairness" towards the men.

3) There will be either one or three lesbians. Not two, not four.

4) There will also be one or three gay men. The gay men will--surprise!--be carefully chosen to be good cooks.

Funny Shyva, but I don't think it's that unbelievable. Last year, Survivor (on CBS) divided contestants into "camps" by race to compete against one another.

Trash.

Just when I thought I couldn't possibly hate "reality" TV more.

Unscripted? Maybe not.
Heavily edited, hell yes.

They already did this. It's called the Stanford prison experiment. Power corrupts, that's the end result.

Power will corrupt these women and then Fox and idiots who watch this show will conclude that women aren't fit for positions of power.

Very good point, Elaine Vigneault.

I just want to know: Whose idea of Utopia is this, exactly? I don't know a single feminist, female or male, whose idea of Utopia resembles this in the slightest. The only people I can think of who think this resembles Utopia are intensely kinky submissive men. redemmie is right -- this sounds like a fem-dom, male-sub porn show. Gor in reverse.

And I bet that when it airs, the pundit zone is going to be full of "analysis" about "what does this say about gender roles/ the war between the sexes?" So let's all save them some time: It says NOTHING. It is fake, manipulated bullshit. A single episode of "The Office" will tell you more about reality in general and gender relations in particular than this supposed slice of "reality."

The United States rank 67th in women in leadership. This leads to two very significant conclusions in regards to this FOX show; 1)we have no idea what life would be like if women were safe to assume leadership and 2) those countries in which women are in the leadership the most significant change is that the countries shift their spending from military to health and social services.

The reality (not reality show) is that we know what happens when women rule; just not here in the US.

how much to we want to bet that the women on the show will still conform to traditional gendered clothing/dress, body shape and make up. no network tv show would have normal looking woman as a star.

I'm going to go jump off of a bridge...

They're so transparent they may as well just come out and say "we hate black people, women, and anyone who isn't a lackey for the current administration."

I mean, everyone knows that. Right?

Right??

"Can women effectively rule society?"

Boring. That question deserves an answer about as much as "Can female toddlers effectively learn to walk?"

Every day I become more and more convinced that FOX's staff consists entirely of cryogenically preserved producers and directors from the 1950s who would classify "Bewitched" as subversive because it doesn't star a dude.

These questions and more will be explored when a group of strong, educated, independent African Americans, tired of living in a white world and each with a personal axe to grind, rule over a group of unsuspecting whites used to calling the shots on WHEN BLACKS RULE THE WORLD.

I love it. Especially if the white guys in question are those Late Night Shots jackoffs.

"Nice to know I'm subject to the last acceptable prejudice (at least, considered so by those Fox assholes.)"

Nah, it is probably more acceptable to be homophobic, especially at Fox.

Oh dear indeed...

"Nah, it is probably more acceptable to be homophobic, especially at Fox."

Anti-atheist prejudice probably beats that out, too. According to some poll or another, more US citizens would refuse to vote for an atheist than refuse to vote for a homosexual.

Personally, I think the "last acceptable prejudice" will be adultism. To be frank, the section of the population most restricted by law consists of those deemed not to be adults; in other words, people under 18 years of age. I won't argue here whether or not these restrictions are good or bad, but they exist.

On a lighter note, you might find this funny:

http://www.spaff.com/poesy/sexist.html

"this sounds like a fem-dom, male-sub porn show. Gor in reverse."

Haha, you've read those? I like fantasy so when very bored have contemplated them... But I think a huge series of books where half the point is that women NEED to be controlled blah blah blah might drive me mad

Fenriswolf: the Gor books would offend me horrendously if I could keep a straight face while reading one. But they're so hilariously bad. See the infamous parody Houseplants of Gor for an example of this.

There are scads of other fantasy series I could recommend, but I'm OT enough here.

"Anti-atheist prejudice probably beats that out, too. According to some poll or another, more US citizens would refuse to vote for an atheist than refuse to vote for a homosexual."

You are probably right. Wait, what about paganism? Or feminists? It seems to be acceptable to make fun of feminists. This just goes to show us that we still have quite a bit of work left to do.

I enjoy how they explain women as the primary "obedient object" I have got one question, when was the last time you met an obedient female? I have got a show for FOX. How about what happens when men and women work as equals instead of against each other. We can call the show Eutopian Society.

Tell me, Lee, do you ever bother to answer those who respond to your posts? Or are you just trying to stir up trouble and hope it's entertaining enough on its own?

Because I'm still waiting to learn why you think you can speak with any authority on the topic of domestic violence.

For the record, Lee appears to be misinformed. Although he said, "all female leaders of states," which would include, say, senators and representatives, not all female heads of state have gone to war.

For example, Mary Robinson, past president of Ireland is known for her human rights advocacy, was hailed by her predecessor as a better president than he ever could have been, and never went to war. Tarja Halonen, current president of Finland, also has not been to war. Rather, she is a proponent of pacifism.

Lee's premise is false.

Uh hey, Lee, I think you might have missed something:

So your point is that there have been female heads of state before and they've been total jerks, just like male heads of state, right? Well doesn't that just support the feminist thesis that the differences between the sexes aren't significant enough to merit a difference in social standing in and of themselves and therefore people should be judged for their relevant characteristics like intelligence and ethics rather than their gender? Better luck next time, dog

Um, I have no interest in dominating men. Trust the retards at FOX to miss the mark entirely.