Are feminists showing support for fellow feminist Ashley Judd's tv show "Missing"?...
I love our sister Ashley and I also think her new tv series is awesome. Her show is in danger of being canceled.
My question is, can we feminists find away to help her keep her show by showing support? How would we go about that if we wanted to do that? Could we find other feminist groups to join us? Can we stick together in support of this great actress/feminist?
Anybody have any idea's on how to help her keep her show on the air? Or am I just dreaming?
She needs us lobbying ABC for her and her show. Can we do that and find others to join us? How would we go about this if enough of us agree that Ashley deserves our help?
Or am I just a bleeding heart? Or should we feminists bond together to in order to help another feminist?
Time is of the essence.
= new reply since forum marked as read
I think that's more the problem -- that the audience skews to the old.
Get the younger women watching it, and it would have the advertisers' holy grail. With a continuing story, though, it's too late to get them on board. And as a late-season entry, it isn't likely going to be in summer reruns.
What do 30-something feminists watch on television? :headscratch:
In my day ... we had Murphy Brown and Designing Women. Before that, Mary Tyler Moore and Maude. This year it's that B**** in apt. 23. (I love that one, along with GCB, simply for the fact that they blow the whole stupid argument about how "bitch" is mainstream-media sanctified out of the water. - edit - but I hasten to add that that's the only thing I love about them. 
)
Like that's gonna happen!!!!!!
Okay, great art it ain't. But it stars an excellent actor who happens to be an older woman, and it continues the Boston Legal drama-as-polemic tradition from David E. Kelley (along with his fixation on young skinny cosmetically perfect women, of course): pretty much every episode features an issue and a soapbox speech about it giving voice to the progressive left.
Last night it was ... oops, I think it airs on Sunday in the US, so I won't go into detail, but it involves the ban on gay men donating blood in the US.
If you watch on Sunday, look out for Harry's line (approximately): "Sometimes I long for the days when I was 18 to 49 years old."
The writers knew they were for the high jump -- the series has now been cancelled, and that's why: the demographics were wrong, same as for Missing.
http://ca.eonline.com/news/watch_with_kristin/new_hope_community_no_hope_ashley_judds/301767
On one hand, the new thriller was a marked upgrade over Wipeout in the 8 p.m. hour.
Its 10 milion viewers represented broadcast TV's second-largest overall audience of the night; only American Idol scored more.
On the other hand, its 2.0 demo rating was weak. The number made the Judd series look like Harry's Law, a show capable of drawing eyeballs, just not the demographically desirable kind.
We are perfectly happy to sit and watch TV for 3 hours after I knock off work in the evening. Most of what we're watching these days is downloaded BBC stuff -- from medical soaps along the line of ER (not to mention Coronation Street, and EastEnders for me - he can't understand the dialogue) to historical drama mini-series to whatever's new in cop/courtroom drama. We both read all day and are perfectly happy to be entertained by well-written video at night, be it frivolous or deep.
Aha, the big Man U / Man City shootout seems to have ended. I'm guessing City prevailed over QPR and United thrashed Sunderland, which means City takes the prize on the season point score. Yes, it's Sunday soccer in this household.
Soccer provides an interesting exercise in male-female communication for me. You know how girls going on dates are always told to show an interest in the boy, ask him about himself, blah blah blah? And of course not talk about themselves. Well, I never dated, and all that stuff just sailed over my head anyway. When I was with a man I just talked about the stuff I talked about with anybody, politics, generally, and whatever else interested us both that was the whole damned reason I was bothering with him in the first place, which included the work both of us did. I'm a bit of an amusing-story-teller, and that's a significant portion of my conversation.
So we watch soccer. I ask questions. City lost a man to a red card today. Can they decide what player they will be down? No, it's the guy who got sent off who has to stay off. No, I understand that part of course, but if a striker is sent off, can they put another striker on? Oh yes, they can shuffle the players as they like. Paul Scholes is referred to as having returned. When did he come back? In January; he had retired last year, and then in December he went to Alex Ferguson and said he regretted retiring, and the team had had a lot of injuries, so they took him back. Ah, I was just curious because I hadn't heard his name a lot this year. Yeah, they don't play him every game, he's 37 and he can't do that these days.
So ... I know all about Premier League football. Who came up this year, who's being relegated ... well, not all. But enough that I can carry on a conversation about soccer if I happen to find myself having to do that. And the co-vivant gets quite animated when I query him or make some relatively informed-sounding comment about a game. So everybody's happy.
Except that ... it isn't reciprocal. He doesn't ask me about anything. If I start telling a story about some event of my day or expounding on some issue of interest to me (the equivalent of soccer would be genealogy, and my exploits in my families' histories really are absolutely fascinating), I can pretty much see the eyes glazing over and the mental watch being checked.
Some of this sort of thing is personal -- I'm curious as hell, and I developed an interview-style way of talking to people long ago. It puts people at ease and makes them happy to be asked about things that interest them, and I actually learn things, even if it's only about soccer. (I'm not meaning that I try to pry into personal stuff.) I guess that's why girls are told to do that on dates: it makes people like you. I find that most people don't have either the genuine curiosity or the genuine interest in other people, or just stuff in general that other people might like to talk about, to make the effort to interact that way. And I do find that men are more likely to fit that pattern.
This subject might have been more suited to the "mansplain" thread, but I just got going here.
Gotta go ask which team came out on top.