I'm enjoying THE BLETCHLEY CIRCLE on ITV but is it really necessary, in this post-feminist age, for the writer to portray ALL the men in it as either thick, patronising, sexist, misogynistic, violent or psychopathic or, worse, a mixture of some or all of these characteristics?
It's as though being a man he can only conceive of making his female characters heroic by dumbing down the entire society around them. Maybe he comes from the world of TV commercials and sit-coms where all the men are inept, dysfunctional and flacid?
In this day and age it comes across as cartoon writing. Making ALL the men morons diminishes the women's achievements. Can you imagine the outcry if it was the other way round, with stupid women and brilliant men?
The Noirdic writers do it so much better. BORGEN had supportive men and good marriages and the brilliance was showing that falling apart as the character flaws in both men and women became apparent. THAT's grown-up writing.
However it is, it's bloody lazy stereotyping and patronising to both sexes on every level.
On the other hand, it's a rattling good story so I'll stick with it. The pity is that with a bit more work and deeper characterization this could have been a classic. Right now it's just a Classics Illustrated.
Really? Have you seen Big Bang Theory? In almost all TV shows the women are shown as idiots. I'm sorry that you feel that this show, illustrating the sexism of the times, upsets your delicate sensibilities. Perhaps you should look at volunteering at a women's shelter,etc., to get an idea of how little things have changed.
Sorry but you're wrong. In comedy ALL the characters are idiots. That's why its comedy. Your analysis does not extend to drama and certainly not commercials.
In BIG BANG THEORY the men are intellectually brilliant but socially inept. The women are far more skilled in that department and the audience is encouraged to laugh at the men as the show is, in the final analysis, about them
I am actually criticising the writer, Guy Burt, not the portrayal of the period and I certainly am aware of the "sexism of the time" as I'm a professional writer who has researched and written about this period. I have especially researched Alan Turing and the entire story of Bletchley Park and the men and women who worked there.
It's a shame you reacted with your emotions and not logic, then you'd have seen I'm making a very simple argument here.
If you make everyone surrounding the women morons that DENIGRATES the achievements of the women ie they only have to be slightly more intelligent than idiots to appear clever. It would have been far more innovative to have shown the women triumphing in a world where there are men as brilliant as they are. These women worked in Bletchley Park, which would have fallen apart if the men had acted like the dinosaurs in this series.
However, that would have been far more difficult to write so the writer took the lazy option and made all the male characters out of 100% cardboard.
In other words it is Guy Burt who is sexist, not I, who abhore his (possibly subconscious) sexism
Britain in the forties and fifties, like now, was a world which had dinosaurs but also brilliance and wit and men who were supportive and sensitive. You don't fight a war without valuing the women who work in factories and shops and offices and on the land (all supporting the war effort) and who face death every day from the Luftwaffe's bombs, without valuing them.
Also please don't patronise me about "volunteering at women's shelters etc". I suspect I was actively living a supportive feminist life in my various relationships long before you were born
You're making a mountain out of a molehill. Why would the cops listen to anyone off the street who claims to know about the murders (don't care if they were code breakers), be it a woman or a man?
If they did, the cops would be chasing up dead leads all day long, instead of policing. I thought it was bit of stretch that they searched the area Susan claimed the body would be found. There is no way that would happen now or then.
Also, if the cops took aboard the BC's theories and acted upon them, it would no longer be about BC but about cops gathering evidence like every other cop show.
What also might be missing from the story, is that there is a parade of people after a popular crime who are crackpots bothering the police. They have to determine what is and isn't a real lead. Now, if one of them said they saw something, that would be different than presenting a theory.
Fascinating...I am always amazed when someone has to 'prove' their qualifications to comment on an internet thread. Your very response bespeaks an attitude very similar to those depicted on the show. Additionally, you may want to further your 'research' by looking up the definition of assumption and patronising. It's a shame you reacted with such an overbearing attitude and not civility, then you would not have had to try and prove your intellectual, feminist, and age superiority.
That being said, I like Bletchley Circle a great deal, although I do find the depiction of the men to be one dimensional so far. Unfortunately, it is about creating drama, and apparently nice, well-rounded, supportive male characters are not dramatic enough for this writer. Hopefully, we will see the husband and/or the police officer character fill that role, eventually.
I would be very interested in learning more about women's roles after the war in Britain. I would think that with the male population decimated by battle casualties, that many women may have had to take up non-traditional positions even after the war, particularly in Europe. In the US, because we came into the war so late and were geographically removed from the conflict(just as in WWI), we did not have the same experience. In the US, women were told to give those jobs up to the men returning home.
Unfortunately the same happened here in the UK. Women were expected to give up their working lives once the men came home but that was, to be fair, because all the men in the armed forces were promised, all through the war, that their jobs would be saved for them while they were fighting.
We were bankrupt after the War and the government could not countenance a huge unemployment problem on top of that. It made sense, given the traditional view of the world extant at the time, for women to return to being home-makers, something most men would have jibbed at.
On the other hand it has to be remembered that women mostly got the vote after WW1 (despite the heroic efforts of the pre-war Suffragettes) because they took over the jobs while the men fought and the attitiudes of the public shifted to approval of suffrage for women. Much the same happened after WW2. Many more women had worked and been in uniform than even WW1 so there is a strong case to be made for feminism springing from that in the 60s, after the inevitable conservatism of the 50s and immediately following the horrors of the War, ie a desire to have the world back the way it was pre-war.
My point here is that attitudes in the 50s were far more in flux than Guy Burt allows and that would have made his male characters much more interesting.
I'm sorry I came across as patronising but it is annoying to have sexism imputed to me when my point is that someone ELSE is sexist.
I'm reminded of the wonderful Stephen Fry response to the same accusation when he replied "No, no, my dear. I think you'll find THIS is patronising". lol
Reading the many responses to this thread, I too hope that the male characters undergo some development. There were hints of it in the husband character and, yes, the police inspector is remarkably forbearing but he does have a relationship with the husband to explain the first contact.
I think THE BLETCHLEY CIRCLE is a refreshingly original concept but it's merely good at the moment when it could be GREAT.
Let's hope this is just a shakedown cruise and the makers will take some lessons from Noirdic drama and other older series like CRACKER and indeed US series like FRINGE or any Josh Whedon or Aaron Sorkin series where ALL characters are more nuanced.
I am sorry as well for my initial reaction to your post. You were right, I was reacting to *perceived* sexism, which I initially inferred from your post. Some of the scenes in Bletchley were very difficult to watch. I would love to see more writing where both sexes are equally intelligent, working as partners. As you mentioned, Aaron Sorkin did this wonderfully on The West Wing.
Bletchley has the potential to be a great show, if they can work out the issues we are discussing. I wondered if perhaps the writer was trying so hard to establish the (in his mind) prevailing sexism of the times, and went a bit too far with his male stereotypes. Hopefully, he will now start to round them out. Certainly he seems to be going in that direction with the killer's character, hopefully to explore the damage caused in war while not excusing his reprehensible acts.
I will have to research this topic further. I am curious as to whether there was enough manpower left to fill all the jobs. With the economy being depressed after the war, perhaps there were fewer jobs to fill? I have wondered this about Canada after WWI also...their proportional losses were so high, and population so small.
I appreciate your sharing the quote by Stephen Fry. He is one of my favorites. Have you also watched Foyle's War? Bletchley Circle reminds me of that series, possibly because of the period sets.
I used to listen to a lot of old time radio broadcasts out of the States(a lot of radio stations will play those late at night). A couple of the themes that came across(almost to the point that it seemed like propaganda) was the shortage of housing and the attempt by the government to stifle black market activities (assuming there were food and other item shortages back then too and there was better money to be made on the BM). I don't doubt there were probably work shortages and I believe that was one of the inspirations of the GI bill in the US. They chose to partly solve the problem of all those idle soldiers who knew how to use guns by educating them.
It may have been different in Britain where they probably lost more men but I don't think it was that much different. Also, they had to rebuild the nation so that could have absorbed a lot of workers too. With America intact after the war, their main problem was idle soldiers
Really? Have you seen Big Bang Theory? In almost all TV shows the women are shown as idiots. I'm sorry that you feel that this show, illustrating the sexism of the times, upsets your delicate sensibilities. Perhaps you should look at volunteering at a women's shelter,etc., to get an idea of how little things have changed.
That is blatantly untrue, for the most part women are portrayed through film and tv with a great level of positivity and thoughtfulness. Using the Big Bang Theory as an example of sexism is ludicrous and indicates you have absolutely no idea what you are writing about.
Your shocking contempt and lack of politeness to the thread author betrays you. As for your 'domestic abuse' crack over 64% is carried out by women against men but you don't see them practising misogyny as a result do you?
You and I know What all schoolchildren learn Those to whom evil is done Do evil in return
reply share
Interesting statistic with no credible source material cited. Positivity and thoughtfulness? I must conclude that you are being facetious. Have a wonderful day!
In 2010 it was 42% and took a 20% leap by 2012 as men gained the courage to report serial domestic abuse. By 2005 the reporting of domestic abuse against men became more widespread as perceptions of what it means to be male were challenged.
There has been extensive historical evidence suggesting that high percentages of domestic abuse against men existed for many centuries, however they were not reported due to a sense of 'shame'. While women have been encouraged to declare themselves 'victims' men have tended to 'not complain'.
You and I know What all schoolchildren learn Those to whom evil is done Do evil in return
A newspaper (if the link was even working) is not a credible source. Where are the specific sources this paper used, what was the sample size, what demographic was studied and by whom?
No one is denying that female on male abuse happens, but your statistic does not match up with any reputable study that I have read on DV...and I read a lot as a DV advocate. My organization serves men and women.
I know this thread is old, but you are an idiot. HONEST DV statistics have long shown that slightly more than half of attacks are by women, although due to the physical size difference women's injuries are often more graphic and make better press. Most men however are conditioned not to fight back against a women's violence, and also not to talk about it with anyone. For this reason female aggression against their partners is HUGELY under-reported. Not only that but the same studies show women are responsible for nearly 2/3 of child abuse. Women are also far more likely to abduct their children and disappear. If your organization really does help men too then I ask you... where are the shelters for men? I bet you don't know of any.
I ask because I spent four years of my life afraid every day that my wife was going to kill me in my sleep. My wife regularly attacked me both in private and in public. Yes, as a male battered spouse I too read every study I could lay my hands on after escaping my situation. During that time as I tried to get away without drawing the attention of my friends and family to my plight, there was ABSOLUTELY no shelters or other support available to me. By the end I had a classic case of battered spouse syndrome, and was thoroughly convinced that I deserved the abuse and that it was my fault. The times I tried to seek the help of DV support organizations they literally laughed at me for suggesting a man could be the victim in such a case.
The DV support movement is heavily invested in painting all men as latent (or active) batterers and women as perennial victims. Male victims in this climate have nowhere to turn.
by - journalist1 As for your 'domestic abuse' crack over 64% is carried out by women against men but you don't see them practising misogyny as a result do you?
Absolutely pathetic! Where did you get these statistics?! I don't deny women can be abusive but to claim such a high percentage is ridiculous and insulting to women all over the world, especially those who are being beaten and killed every day just because they ARE women!! YOU have no idea what YOU'RE talking about!!
I wonder, does Miss Marple deserve the same scrutiny that BC is getting? I'm sick to death of patronizing old farts that can't just leave well enough alone!!!
I'll ignore your antagonism and lack of civility for what it is , extremely bad manners. Moving on, I collate domestic abuse statistics as a matter of course; part of my job description.
In 2010 it was 42% and took a 20% leap by 2012 as men gained the courage to report serial domestic abuse. By 2005 the reporting of domestic abuse against men became more widespread as perceptions of what it means to be male were challenged.
There has been extensive historical evidence suggesting that high percentages of domestic abuse against men existed for centuries, however they were not reported due to a sense of 'shame'. While women have been encouraged to declare themselves 'victims' men have tended to 'not complain'.
You and I know What all schoolchildren learn Those to whom evil is done Do evil in return
reply share
Could you back this up with a source? Fox News and MRA sites don't count!
yes of course, I don't know anything about any 'Fox News' or a 'MRA' purely ONS statistics. Moving on, I collate domestic abuse statistics as a matter of course; part of my job description.
In 2010 it was 42% and took a 20% leap by 2012 as men gained the courage to report serial domestic abuse. By 2005 the reporting of domestic abuse against men became more widespread as perceptions of what it means to be male were challenged.
There has been extensive historical evidence suggesting that high percentages of domestic abuse against men existed for many centuries, however they were not reported due to a sense of 'shame'. While women have been encouraged to declare themselves 'victims' men have tended to 'not complain'.
You and I know What all schoolchildren learn Those to whom evil is done Do evil in return
reply share
Well good for men who are reporting domestic abuse, but I still find it hard to believe more men are abused than women.
While women have been encouraged to declare themselves 'victims' men have tended to 'not complain'.
If a man or woman is abused, they are a 'victim', no need to be so dismissive of women who report abuse, it doesn't make your case any more valid.
reply share
Your link to the guardian article doesn't work. Find some stats that come from credited sources and I'll read them.
I am not surprised men are ashamed to report domestic abuse, but it's a situation they have largely contributed to themselves. They have created it, now they can get themselves out of it.
There's nothing in it that substantiates his rather bizarre claim that 64% of domestic violence is female-on-male, but there you go.
The thing to remember about reports that claim that female-on-male DV is as prevalent as male-on-female DV is that most of the "studies" that support the thesis don't differentiate between aggression and self-defence. So, if a man hits his female partner in aggression and she slaps back in self-defence, they are assessed as equal acts of violence.
They also assume that male victims of DV are all victims of female perpetrators. They're not. Many male victims of DV are abused by other men.
Actually, journalist1 is completely correct. There are many sources one can find corroborating statistics, although they will be almost universally rejected by those with the alternate opinion.
The thing to remember about reports that claim that female-on-male DV is as prevalent as male-on-female DV is that most of the "studies" that support the thesis don't differentiate between aggression and self-defence. So, if a man hits his female partner in aggression and she slaps back in self-defence, they are assessed as equal acts of violence.
Except, the reverse is almost certainly to be true. Boys are taught from early in their lives not to hit girls. The same is not true of girls. Because women hitting is treated lightly, even considered funny, they have few social restrictions to strike first. We see it all the time on TV and in film ... the woman slapping the guy across the face ... the kick to the groin.
As for being "assessed as equal", you're wrong there too. Nothing could be further from the facts or the way statistics are collected.
All you've done is make a whole lot of wild assertions and unfounded assumptions, without any statistical support whatever, at least journalist1 both qualified his knowledge and provided a source. You've got nothing but your hostility and denial.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" ~ Richard Feynman ~
reply share
I like what you have to say and it all ways amazes me how content most people are to stay uninformed. The general consensus is that all men are evil and all women are victims. It doesn't seem to bother most people that the highest rates of domestic violence occur in lesbian relationships. Origination's like Pandora's Project and others designed by members of the LGBT to help women victims of lesbian relationships give figures between 17-45% of women experiencing domestic violence in a lesbian relationship. That's double what the CDC reports for heterosexual couples and we still have women out there insisting that they cant possibly be perpetrators of violence that's a mans game.
for the most part women are portrayed through film and tv with a great level of positivity and thoughtfulness. Using the Big Bang Theory as an example of sexism is ludicrous and indicates you have absolutely no idea what you are writing about.
Women are eye-candy, particularly if they’re young. 31.6 percent of the 4,475 characters with speaking parts who appeared in the 100 highest-grossing movies in 2012 who appeared in “sexualized attire.” 56.6 percent of characters aged 13-20 appeared on-screen in such clothing, as did 39.9 percent of characters aged 21 to 39, and that number fell to 16.4 percent for characters aged 40-64. It’s no surprise that Hollywood has a particularly distasteful attitude towards middle-aged women—as Vulture revealed in a startling analysis, leading men tend to get older, but their female love interests stay in a similar age range, shutting middle-aged actresses out of a huge range of parts where they’d be paired against men their own ages. But it is actually remarkable that teenaged characters are actually portrayed more sexually than characters aged 21-39, who might be expected to have more sex and sexual autonomy.
Women are also much less likely to define the fictional world of the movies they’re in via narration. Of films that have narrators, just 27.5 percent of them were women. Those numbers have been higher: 51.5 percent of narrators were female in 2010, and 41.7 percent of them were female in 2009. But they were at a low of 18.5 percent in 2007, and 2010 is the only year in Annenberg’s analysis that women have ever been more than half of narratives. This might seem like a small element to notice, but narration is important: the narrator is generally considered authoritative even when characters themselves are unreliable. Narrators set the tone for the films they’re in, and frame the events they’re describing, and if men dominate those roles, their voices get to be more authoritative more often than those of women.
And women aren’t for interacting with men, either. Hollywood operates in a weirdly sex-segregated world, where in 2012, just 6 percent of the 100 top-grossing movies had casts where between 45 percent and 54.9 percent of speaking characters were female. It’s true that many of us spend some time in sex-segregated settings, having drinks with the girls or playing hoops with the guys. But in the world of Hollywood, it seems like all the women at brunch and all the men are off somewhere else punching each other. A blockbuster like the Fast and Furious franchise, which recognizes that men and women sometimes work together, and have each other as friends as well as enemies, is a relative rarity.
None of this is to suggest that there aren’t filmmakers doing fascinating work down the budget and gross scale. And given the fluctuations in many of the numbers that the Annenberg School is reporting, maybe 2012 was an anomaly—though the better years were obviously anomalies, too, rather than signs of more durable progress for women. But if Shane Black can make a big-budget superhero action movie like Iron Man 3 pass the Bechdel test, it would be nice if more writers and directors in Hollywood viewed their industry’s confusion about how to get women speaking parts in movies and what to do with them once they’re there as a creative challenge, rather than an entirely comfortable state of affairs.
Are you saying that the women in Big Bang are portrayed as idiots? Two of the major women characters are scientists, on an equal to, and perhaps smarter than the men characters.
Penny is the foil they play off of, but she's just as smart in her own way; she's just not educated. Actually, Big Bang makes a lot of fun of its over educated super smart geek characters; they all have deep flaws. I love this show because, so far, it has refused to be politically correct. It insults everyone equally!
I'm sorry but this is going to sound really "hateful" etc. but judging the world by what you see in a women's shelter is about as intelligent as analyzing the movie industry by watching porn. If you really think things haven't changed for the better for women, you need to get out of the women's shelter, or stop reading the moronic Democrat handbook and get a taste of reality. Duh! women are abused today, but if you're dumb enough to think it even comes close to what it was in the past, you need to wake up. What a stupid statement. Every man is not Ray Rice, nor is every woman the limp schmuck beating post Rice married. Perhaps you should listen to one of the greatest reporter/newsperson ever- Barbara Walters. Find her interview with some guy named O'Reilly and finally realize that yes, women can do anything, and yes things have changed a great deal. As for the show, I'm only 3 episodes in and am really enjoying it. I'm not sure I'd agree with the original post about ant-male bias tho, but I will say that any man marrying a beauty and not a brain is a complete moron. How can anyone stand to spend "quality time" with a bimbo and not someone who you can talk to is beyond me. Pretty dumb people are only good for modeling or acting I guess, who the .... would want to live with one. There rant over. Sorry to be insulting but it was truly deserved.
In this day and age I suppose it does seem a bit "cartoon writing" & "patronising", but back then this is largely how it was. Women were expected to stay in the home, look after their children and husband, the husband was the king of the household and the wife was expected to know her place and do his bidding. Like it or not, that's how it was. You can't generalise by saying every man was like this but on the whole, that was the thinking of society back then.
Women had enjoyed a certain freedom with men being away at war. They took over men's jobs, earned their own money, got used to making decisions for themselves and their families but were expected to slip back in to the secondary role of women when the men returned. After having a taste of all that many of them were suddenly not content with their lot. This was the era of the worm starting to turn.
This series is set in this era, why would they portray them differently??
i couldn't disagree with you more. you're the type who sees racism if a certain character is cast as a black, or if he's not cast as a black. go jump in a lake.
I agree with you on that issue and wondered if anyone else had been sensitive to it after watching the first episode. If all men had been the one dimensional chauvinists so often portrayed, women would never have got their foot in the door at all. What people always fail to recognize was that the support from men was instrumental in providing women with a voice and social advancement. It could not have been otherwise.
Stepping forward to fill a new and needed role also requires that someone with the authority to act has the foresight to make a place for you. There were many such "someones" and those "someones" were supportive and understanding men. You didn't do it all on your own, girls, regardless what they myth dictates.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" ~ Richard Feynman ~
I agree. Basically this is feminist propaganda disguised (thinly) as creaky killer hunt. Once again historical conditions rewritten to meet the ideological agendas of today by making the perps 100% "bad" & the victims 100% "good". In addition, the women in this are such clichés it's embarrassing.
"I'm enjoying THE BLETCHLEY CIRCLE on ITV but is it really necessary, in this post-feminist age, for the writer to portray ALL the men in it as either thick, patronising, sexist, misogynistic, violent or psychopathic or, worse, a mixture of some or all of these characteristics?" ------------------------------------------------
I think the root of the problem is that, up until the 1970s, people who worked at Bletchley Park were not supposed to reveal to anyone, including their spouses, where they worked or what they did. In the series this fact is shown when Susan cannot discuss her work with her husband, who seems an intelligent man. Whatever the case, perhaps the situation will be remedied in the second series.
That doesn't mean that until the Blair govt declassified what they did during the war, that these women all had to act dumb so that no one will realize that they aren't mental midgets. Lazy writing.
-- “There comes a point when seduction is over and force is actually being requested.” -DD
"I'm enjoying THE BLETCHLEY CIRCLE on ITV but is it really necessary, in this post-feminist age, for the writer to portray ALL the men in it as either thick, patronising, sexist, misogynistic, violent or psychopathic or, worse, a mixture of some or all of these characteristics? "
Yes it is. Because that's pretty much how it was then.