Comments:

Smed - 2006-01-11 15:46:44
God, Lifetime! Yikes. Isn't the classic Lifetime movie the one where the father hires a call girl and it turns out the be his daughter???
-------------------------------
rs536-2000 - 2006-01-11 16:02:18
Gloria Steinem is an embarrassment. I wonder how much she got paid for this.
-------------------------------
catie - 2006-01-11 16:06:12
De-lurking (oi) to proclaim my love for you for what you wrote in this entry. Lifetime television is an insult to women due to it's general horribleness and grossness. I would throw my satelite television provider (DirecTV) a party if they got rid of Lifetime.
-------------------------------
Harriet - 2006-01-11 16:07:05
Although I addressed it to Gloria, I was actually more dismayed to see groups like NOW and the National Women's History project represented. Embarassment doesn't begin to cover it.
-------------------------------
elgan - 2006-01-11 16:34:17
I wouldn�t know. I�ve never heard of this channel, but if it�s like one we get called �The Women�s Network�, good riddance to it.
-------------------------------
Melanie - 2006-01-11 16:54:07
Amen, sister. The fact that "_____ than a Lifetime movie" is the punchline of many a joke is obviously lost on Ms. Steinem. (Although they still do show the occasional rerun of "Unsolved Mysteries"....)
-------------------------------
Zon - 2006-01-11 17:31:20
Lifetime has one of the WORST records for running shows that repeatedly show the victimization of women. Never mind that the women overcome the victimization. It's the fact that on most Lifetime programs, women are seen as victims, targets, and prey. No thanks.
-------------------------------
Leigh - 2006-01-11 19:18:05
"Mother, May I Sleep With Danger?" starring Tori Spelling. Enough said.
-------------------------------
Erin - 2006-01-11 21:26:16
ouch.
-------------------------------
Dr. Geek - 2006-01-11 23:14:58
Could it be perhaps that Ms. Steinem receives a residual for her portrayal by Kirstie Alley in "A Bunny's Tale"?
-------------------------------
cat - 2006-01-12 00:50:52
I've always wondered why the majority of shows/movies offered by Lifetime is call "empowering" to women, when all they seem to showcase are females being beaten, raped, denied their civil rights, duped, etc. Um, tell me again Gloria/NOW/Women's History Project, what inspiration I'm to take away from such fare?
-------------------------------
cat - 2006-01-12 00:52:28
*are called*
-------------------------------
whyme63 - 2006-01-12 10:12:33
I have Dish Network, and this kind of thing happens pretty regularly--it's a pricing war between cable companies, satellite networks, and networks. The dispute stemmed from Lifetime's demand for a 76 percent increase in the license fee for Lifetime and Lifetime Movie Network, as well as a proviso calling for carriage of a third channel. Charlie Ergen of Dish plays amazing hardball in cases like this, and simply says no. That ad stated that Mr. Ergen doesn't have women's best interests in mind, but if the man is removing HORRIBLE television from the line-up, and saving me (a woman) money on my satellite bill, I think he's got MY back. And I am thoroughly aghast at Steinem, NOW, and the Ms. Foundation for Women for taking this stand. I can only assume that Lifetime has promised them large infusions of cash for their trouble.
-------------------------------
manduca - 2006-01-12 13:27:38
i too am stumped as to why GS and those organizations would support Lifetime. From NOW's website: "NOW has frequently worked with Lifetime to provide programming ideas. We have observed that much of network and cable television ignores women's real concerns, minimizes the importance of women's larger roles in society and frequently exploits women by emphasizing violent or sexual content." -http://www.now.org/issues/media/011006lifetime.html uh, whatever (agreeing with comments above about exploitative shows on Oxygen). does this mean that NOW would also fight against other shows with predominantly female audiences, like network soap operas? idjits.
-------------------------------
Harriet - 2006-01-12 13:43:44
I'm inclined to think, as whyme63 and rs536-2000 mentioned, that this is about money. It would be interesting to know how much Lifetime donates to NOW. However, it also sounds like NOW is seriously misguided. As zonoria wrote, Lifetime's record for portraying women as victims is alarming. I am not (obviously, given my comments) a huge watcher of Lifetime, but based on the descriptions of their program, they seem to glamorize the victimization, rather than portray a story from the point of empowerment. If they really wanted to empower women, they could provide something besides glorified soap operas. How about some women's news programs? How about some investigative journalism? It all comes down to money. Those things don't sell as well.
-------------------------------
lemming - 2006-01-12 14:03:32
Oh, I'm sure it's all about money - heaven knows there are plenty of other "women friendly" channels out there. I must say, Lifetime movies can becomes oddly addictive, albeit depressing, and I still get excited by Unsolved Mysteries re-runs.
-------------------------------
claudia - 2006-01-12 15:01:02
I'd miss Lifetime about as much as I'd miss ESPN. Not much. I can only add my "ditto" to the above comments. I hate things that do women more harm than good. Who watches this gratuitous (sp?) shit anyway?
-------------------------------

add your comment:

your name:
your email:
your url:

back to the entry - Diaryland