walsh@ihuxi.UUCP (11/30/83)
Has anyone else ever noticed how slanted TV shows are toward sons vs. daughters? I'm thinking of the 'soap' type of shows, like Dynasty, Dallas and the daytime soaps (AMC in particular). Look at Dynasty. Fallon and Jeff HAVE to have a son, so he can be named Blake and be a little prince. Then, Sammy Jo and Stephen have to have a son, because why else would Stephen come all the way back to Denver? Surely not for a mere daughter. The only one with a daughter was Claudia, and she was a wacko. The only people that have daughters in these shows are undesirables. Take AMC. The only character that had a girl was Estelle, an ex-hooker and poor person. And Devon had a girl, but she was an alcoholic and fooled around with Shawn. But boys! Now, Cliff had a boy (otherwise he wouldn't have wanted the child) with Sybil (and she was an undesirable, so they killed her off), and Nina later adopted him. And Donna and Chuck had a boy. When Jenny and Greg were engaged and talking about having kids, they wanted LOTS of SONS! (Greg DID admit he'd like, well, maybe ONE girl). Now, with Jesse and Angie, they had a son but she gave him up for adoption. Jesse wants his son back sooo badly! The writers probably thought if it had been a girl, it would be unrealistic to have him want his daughter back so much! And Tom and Brooke are trying to have a SON (Tom even said so and bought a little boy shirt for him). Now, how about Dallas? J.R. had to have a son, so he could be named John Ross. And Bobby and Pam had to take What's Her Name's kid, Christopher, probably because he's a boy. Maybe I'm paranoid, but it sure seems as though TV writers don't value daughters as highly as sons. Anyone else notice such things? B. Walsh