On-screen gender balance...

Is it enough for male quantity to be balanced by female ''quality?"

Case Study: Animal Kingdom & Ted Lasso

It is fairly well-known that there are many more males with roles in the Film & TV Industry, than females. With growing waves of equality missions, it seems against the tide to have predominantly-male casts in recent series successes; 'Animal Kingdom' and 'Ted Lasso.'

I am a fan of both shows, and the only reason I noticed the imbalance of representation was because I am currently working on a script where there is only one female; the lead, in a main cast of seven. I had been having doubts over whether that is "acceptable" or "wrong of me" - as a female. Then, I realised the two shows I had been watching, contained minimal main characters who weren't male.

The two main, female characters in each; Smurf in 'Animal Kingdom,' and Rebecca in 'Ted Lasso;' are strong, powerful, determined, leaders who also happen to be blonde. Is it enough to restore the old "ditsy, dumb blonde" stereotype with 1-2 blondes who are anything but, instead of having a greater number of females in the main cast with varying traits?

Given the creators of these shows probably assume their audience to be predominantly male, they may be aiming to mirror their audience on-screen to create deeper relatability, and greater viewership.

In 'Animal Kingdom,' Smurf is seen to be quite the manipulator of men; particularly her sons/grandson, who are mostly oblivious to it. A lot of other portrayals in media, of female manipulation of men, involves sexual advances. Obviously, Smurf isn't offering that type of 'carrot,' although it is her use of the word 'baby' that keeps them hanging on; giving a similar sense of comfort and adoration. It seems the boys would be lost without her care and direction, and that's exactly how Smurf planned it; she wanted them to want her... until she no longer wanted them.

In 'Ted Lasso,' Rebecca leads the male characters with a touch classier, yet more vulnerable edge. Overall, the males in both shows have more vulnerable moments than the females; which is opposite to past and/or usual patterns. Another quite well-known fact is that 'male mental health' is an area requiring further attention, so both shows do a good job at exposing their 'mostly male' audience to it.

Perhaps, Rebecca's kindness is the 'character ingredient' necessary for the males to open up. While Smurf rarely admits her faults and areas of improvement, Rebecca's insecurities are faced and dealt with. One thing that she doesn't own up to, outside of her close circle, is her relationship with a male "employee" much younger than her (probably around 20 years her junior). Again, in reverse to usual trends, it's a female who is in power, and striking up a fling with a younger colleague. Albeit, Rebecca's ex-husband's story came first, whereby he cheated on her with several younger women.

So, both shows contain males who portray traits typically associated with females; and females who portray traits typically associated with males. This proves that a person of any gender can have any attribute. Personalities and actions are not bound by gender. Sure, this is a step forward. But, the the issue is not what a certain gender CAN have, it is what they CAN'T, and in both these shows it seems females (and non-binaries- that's another discussion) can't have equal representation in numbers; which certainly mirrors a lot of working industries out there.

Is it enough to say; "here's your superwoman, and her female sidekick,"... but the city below is still full of men?