Carpoolers: yet another loud black woman?
by Racialicious guest contributor nina
In light of recent posts about TV shows I wanted to share the following: I was flicking through stations last night and watched the last 10 minutes or so of a comedy on ABC called “Carpoolers.” The show is about 4 men who carpool to work together and share their lives. The thing that was distasteful is that the sole black male on the show, Aubrey, seems to have a stereotypically loud, controlling black wife and seven kids that he complained about constantly. The wife’s actual face was never even shown in the episode, just her legs. Meanwhile the faces of the white wives and girlfriends were shown and they had speaking parts to boot. Was this a one time thing or is that really how ABC is choosing to depict a black married couple? Then again see below how ABC’s website describes the 4 characters. Again, Aubrey is the sole character of color.
Gracen (Fred Goss, ABC’s Sons & Daughters) is the unofficial leader of the carpool pack. As a professional mediator, he thinks he’s a problem solver, but more often he’s a causer. He seeks fairness in an unfair world, and so finds himself in the middle of situations because he’s compelled to be there. In the pilot, Gracen is stunned to learn that his wife makes more money than he does, which sets his resolve to assert his manly authority.
Laird (Jerry O’Connell, Crossing Jordan) is Gracen’s playboy dentist neighbor and best friend. He thinks his life is an unending quest for stories - and women. In the middle of a messy divorce, he allows himself to live a little and taunts the other carpoolers with the freedom of his near-single status. He would never admit that he secretly misses marriage. Laird constantly leads the carpoolers into adventures, but once there, he isn’t sure what to do.
Aubrey (Jerry Minor, Mr. Show) is a sweet but intense pushover at the bottom of the family food chain. The daily ride has become the only peaceful time in his life. Forty-five minutes, two times a day - he needs the carpool the most. Always quick to come to the carpoolers’ aid, he believes in the brotherhood almost to a fault. Only the carpoolers know he’s boiling inside
Dougie (Tim Peper, The Guiding Light) is the eager newlywed. He doesn’t know all the rules of the Carpooler Society, often breaks them, and has to have the ways of the world explained to him by his tribal elders, the three other carpoolers. He and his wife, Cindy, are the perfect modern couple, but as you get to know them, you start to see their cracks. Dougie is the guy who seems to have it all together, yet he’s drawn to the carpoolers for a little excitement. The carpoolers will both instigate problems for Dougie and help him deal with the realities of life to come.
Thoughts?
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of 
daisy wrote:
Disclaimer: I have not watched the show, nor do I intend to.
Just reading the character descriptions, it strikes me that casting a black man in *any* of those roles would be problematic. The “Dougie” and “Laird” roles (subservient n00b and player) would be worse than henpecked “Aubrey,” IMO. “Gracen” might be better, except for the “can’t deal with a successful wife” sexism.
Really, this is a good illustration of the problems that arise when there’s only *one* character from an underrepresented group–they bear the burden of representing all members of that group to the audience, which rarely goes well.
The show kind of sounds like crap, anyway.
Posted 25 Oct 2007 at 8:13 am ¶
dnA wrote:
I thought depictions of black women in entertainment had evolved since Tom and Jerry. Silly me.
Posted 25 Oct 2007 at 8:44 am ¶
Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:
dnA - I thought the same thing when I read that. This is what we’re talking about.
Posted 25 Oct 2007 at 8:52 am ¶
gatamala wrote:
dnA, CVK as soon as I read that sentence I saw two legs and hands on hips.
I don’t need to watch this show, I already see the henpecked black man married to Sapphire on the Family Guy.
Posted 25 Oct 2007 at 9:07 am ¶
tasha wrote:
“The wife’s actual face was never even shown in the episode, just her legs.”
Are they nice legs?
There have been a lot of repititive devices in the ABC fall line up this season. My mom watches “Dirty Sexy Money” and “Big Shots,” and she says that both shows have transvesdite hookers and the face of one of the wives of the four male leads on Big Shots is never seen. She’s just complained about by her CEO husband and alluded to as this task master, who’s got him whipped. I saw the pilot, where they only shot her from behind, and she looked cute, from behind anyway, which is why I asked if the black woman’s legs were nice. I know it’s sexist, but I would feel a little better if the black woman on the show didn’t embody every negative stereotype. I mean, if she’s going to be a nag, can she at least look good? From what you say Nina, it sound like they’re doing the same thing in “Carpoolers,” but with a black woman. You know, you never see that technique done with a man. Ever since I was little and watched “Muppet Babies” where only Nanny’s socks were shown and Charlie Brown’s mom’s voice was this horn, I can’t ever recall a show using that same plot device with a man.
Posted 25 Oct 2007 at 9:13 am ¶
Wendi Muse wrote:
it’s funny b/c abc seems to make the effort to have diverse casts for whom race is not a problem. we see interracial coupling and people of color in high level positions on grey’s anatomy, but then i recall one show (which was awesome, but unfortunately cancelled), six degrees, on which the black male character was a former criminal and gunman (as was his toxic brother, also black and male)…the black female (alfrie woodard) on desperate housewives was nuts and locked her husband in the basement…and now this…
for abc to have the whole colorblind initiative going, it seems like the stereotypes still somehow work their way into the scripts…
Posted 25 Oct 2007 at 9:58 am ¶
merq wrote:
Ditto, and… ditto.
Posted 25 Oct 2007 at 10:08 am ¶
Brian wrote:
Thoughts?
Perhaps you should watch an entire episode before writing a review?
Posted 25 Oct 2007 at 12:49 pm ¶
Patricia wrote:
Charlie in Charlie’s Angels and Wilson on Home Improvement come to mind using the same device of men being heard but never seen.
Posted 25 Oct 2007 at 12:51 pm ¶
Finally wrote:
I thought y’all were never gonna get around to this show, I’ve caught a couple of episodes and I just can;t shake the fact that the black character has a whole bunch of unruly kids and a horrible wife. :smh:
Posted 25 Oct 2007 at 1:26 pm ¶
johnjihoonchang wrote:
tasha,
I believe George Steinbrenner’s (New York Yankees) fictional counterpart, as boss, to Jason Alexander’s character in Seinfeld that was always shot from behind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Steinbrenner#Steinbrenner_caricatured_in_Seinfeld
I imagine that this old technique of the “invisible” character signifies a person of authority or power over the seen character, who the seen character fears.
Posted 25 Oct 2007 at 3:18 pm ¶
Ike wrote:
By reading your post, the character Aubrey seems a lot like Bobby in Wild Hogs (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0486946/). The one black man in a group of white friends, unable to stand up to his wife, disrespected by his kids, etc. Is this a common stereotype?
Posted 25 Oct 2007 at 3:53 pm ¶
dnA wrote:
Dude really? you’re going to compare steinbrenner and wilson to a long tradition of minstrelsy and dehumanizing black women as unattractive castrating man-figures in popular entertainment?
Did I miss something? Is historical context just not cool anymore?
Posted 25 Oct 2007 at 4:02 pm ¶
tasha wrote:
Oh yeah johnji, you’re right. I never could get into “Seinfeld”, so I’m not familiar with the Steinbrenner character (Rockies in Game 6) but your explanation got me thinking. “Dr. Claw” from Inspector Gadget, “Charlie” from Charlie’s Angels . . .there have been quite a few, scary and/or powerful men shot from behind desks and sitting in chairs where only limbs are shown and voices heard. Now that I think about it, the invisible character is also used for comic relief, like Kenny’s brother, the mysoginist, on “The Cosby Show” and um, Karen’s husband Stanley on “Will and Grace”
Posted 25 Oct 2007 at 4:33 pm ¶
S. A. Bonasi wrote:
tasha,
Just two quick notes: You’re mom is somewhat mistaken. Carmelita (played by Candis Cayne) on Dirty Sexy Money is not a prosititute; and she’s a transwoman, not a transvestite. I can’t speak for Big Shots, having never seen it, although I can’t say I’ve heard anything good about it.
Posted 25 Oct 2007 at 4:51 pm ¶
squidfly wrote:
The show is a male satire. I think it’s very funny.
Posted 25 Oct 2007 at 5:04 pm ¶
Brian wrote:
Is this a common stereotype?
‘Dad as buffoon’ in entertainment has a long history behind it, and generally not limited to any one race, IIRC.
Posted 25 Oct 2007 at 5:08 pm ¶
Sewere wrote:
Or perhaps you should pick up a book on black characters in entertainment.
Posted 25 Oct 2007 at 6:07 pm ¶
deb wrote:
Ditto.
Now, I’m curious….
Posted 25 Oct 2007 at 7:01 pm ¶
ceej wrote:
But…but… if there’s no loud angry black woman, how will we know the show is funny?
Posted 25 Oct 2007 at 8:01 pm ¶
bdsista wrote:
Whew! and you wonder why there are still so many unmarried sisters! So Sapphire lives! Is it too much to ask Hollywood to show a black couple actually happy with each other? Black women who are quiet, understated, but know when to be assertive are the powerbrokers in corporate America. I know some of them and NONE of them act like this with their husbands. God forbid America gets to see a black women with some dignity and intelligence-oh, but then, how could you write that into a comedy, it’s much easier to just continue the stereotype that they don’t exist.
Posted 26 Oct 2007 at 8:56 am ¶
Brian wrote:
Sewere said ‘Or perhaps you should pick up a book on black characters in entertainment.’
What does that have to do with the observation that you can’t have valid criticism of a television show that you’ve watched 1/3 of an episode of?
Posted 26 Oct 2007 at 9:26 am ¶
Sewere wrote:
The part were as Nina said,
The wife’s actual face was never even shown in the episode, just her legs. Meanwhile the faces of the white wives and girlfriends were shown and they had speaking parts to boot.
One doesn’t have to wait for the entire show to end to see a trend pop that matches the trend in a good chunk of the body of work that has come out of media entertainment (Like post CVK linked). The same work that has historically depicted black women as being faceless, caricatures and loud, controlling, oversexed stereotypes (to name just a few).
It’s like having years of people insulting you in the same way and when the next person from the SAME GROUP OF PEOPLE insults you in the EXACT SAME WAY, you’re supposed to wait until the person finishes talking before you respond.
The benefit of the doubt only goes so far.
Posted 26 Oct 2007 at 12:17 pm ¶
Brian wrote:
One doesn’t have to wait for the entire show to end to see a trend pop t
I’m not talking about pop trends, I’m talking about a specific criticism.
Nina wrote
I was flicking through stations last night and watched the last 10 minutes or so
and
The wife’s actual face was never even shown in the episode, just her legs.
How does she know that the wife never had a speaking part or her face was not shown?
Posted 26 Oct 2007 at 2:42 pm ¶
Wendi Muse wrote:
i think that is a decent question to ask and it would help us figure out whether or not we should throw darts at abc…
i’m sure u can view the full episode on the website, so as readers, we should take a first look in full before we pass judgment on the entire show…
Posted 26 Oct 2007 at 3:28 pm ¶
johnjihoonchang wrote:
dnA: I think you read a little more into my comment than I intended to say. My note was a clarification on a specific visual storytelling technique (the invisible character), which as others have noted, does not have a history necessarily linked to race or sex. tasha was originally suggesting that the technique was used only on women, but there is a historical filmic precedent for use of the technique with any character that can be considered an antagonist.
What I was not doing was using examples of men as invisible feared characters to counterargue that mainstream media has a tendency and history of abusing the image of the women and peoples of non-white-European descent. Helping to correct that is one of the reasons that I’m trying to get into the entertainment industry.
Posted 26 Oct 2007 at 4:00 pm ¶
Nina wrote:
So just to clear up the question about how much of the show I watched, I went to the ABC website and viewed the entire episode online, which you can all do too. It is the episode that aired on 10/16/07 entitled Who Would You Do. Anyway, I discovered that I missed only the first 7 minutes and 49 seconds of a 21 minute and 30 second episode. The black wife’s legs were first shown at around the 6 minute mark but she never said a word, nor were any other parts of her shown.
Posted 26 Oct 2007 at 4:52 pm ¶
Kimi wrote:
“The black wife’s legs were first shown at around the 6 minute mark but she never said a word, nor were any other parts of her shown.”
Actually I agree with Brian on this one. I have watched about 3 episodes and I disagree with a few observations here. I think the show is actually very funny. And as far as a stereotypical “loud” black women….I’ve never even heard this character say a word. So how is she a “loud” black woman? Her children are definitely loud and a bit out of control, but as a character I don’t believe she has been depicted in this way.
However, she does seem quite “lazy.” Her husband seems to take care of most of the house and family responsibilities, while she sits on a Lazy Boy reclined chair. So that is one grip I have about the show. But she hasn’t been depicted as “loud” or overtly over bearing or emasculating. She is actually kind of not participating “at all.”
I don’t believe we should rush to judgment and say that it is an actual “racial” stereotype here. No offense to anyone who has commented, but I actually study Racial Representation in TV an Film in grad school. I’m concentrating in Racial discourse within the Media. So no need to tell me to “pick up a book on black characters in entertainment.” …. :o) LOL…. I immerse myself in this kind of research and information daily.
When I see a problem with racial stereotypes, I point it out - but I think some of us may be jumping the gun. It seems to be a good show……that’s all I’ m saying.
Posted 26 Oct 2007 at 6:29 pm ¶
Brian wrote:
Thanks, Nina. It’s a minor point but since you stuck that right at the top of your post it was rather out there.
I nitpick for a living, it carries over.
I will probably not watch the show online. If I watch TV I can at least pretend I’m doing something productive on my laptop. If I’m watching it on my laptop there is no pretending and I know I’m sucking on the glass teat.
Posted 26 Oct 2007 at 8:12 pm ¶
Michelle wrote:
Nina….bravo! Seriously, I think it is great that you went and watched the rest of the episode. It speaks well of you.
It doesn’t however speak well for the tv show.
Listen, I have been screaming and yelling at the top of my lungs for years. Film and television has a profound, perhaps immeasurable effect of the psyche of those who watch the mediums.
For instance, while Black women have made considerable gains in corporate america, the legal field, the medical field, even NASA, too name a few, the role of Black women in Hollywood has changed almost nominally.
There are very few Black women on TV, and of the ones that are, the overwhelming majority of those Black women are overweight and de-sexualized. I love Grey’s Anatomy, but the only woman on that show who is not shown having sex and being lusted after by someone, is Bailey. And yes, I am aware that Grey’s Anatomy is written, produced and was created by a Black woman.
And Hollywood will tell you that White America will not watch a show with a lot of Black characters, or interracial story lines, or Black characters who are not sterotypical. Well, Young and the Restless, a daytime TV show, is the highest rated soap opera and also happens to have some of the most Black characters in daytime TV. Now, it must be noted that daytime TV is all about White, middle American women. And, it is about selling things to those women. So the question is, how do we change the status quo? And, is the status quo inherently racist, despite their claims to only look at numbers and ratings to justify their programming and casting choices?
Posted 26 Oct 2007 at 8:54 pm ¶
hoo_boy wrote:
We are talking about the same broadcast network that, while showing the most children’s programming by virtue of owning Disney (culturally sensitive in an of itself, no?), also features:
(1) a an over-the-top loud black woman bordering on a “mammy” redeemed by the writers only by being a veteran, as well as the token minority best friend of a lead/titular character’s sibling who’s added for “hipness” value and mysteriously never heard from again (”Roxie” and “Cooper” respectively from “Hannah Montana”). Even the Southern and Malibu stereotypes are tired and bothersome, MTV cuts closer to home.
(2) a spoiled ditzy rich Asian American princess, a stiff/arch/uptight vaguely British black manager (the otherwise solid , an Latino bellhop of undeterminable origin all part of a hotel featuring wacky staff and guests noticeable more for their ethnicity– all catering to the whims and punchlines of two spoiled twin white kids raised by a single mom (”The Suite Live of Zak and Cody”). No cheap joke is spared, be it working class German, Irish, Jew, Italian, Indian, etc. [NOTE: All the adults on the show do a great job. Phill Lewis, the black manager guy, has a particularly interesting backstory
http://www.thecelebezine.com/p/Phill-Lewis
(3) a grotesque animated series where the few ethnic characters, in addition to stereotypical depictions, are routinely mocked or treated as “others” precisely for their features or where personality traits are considered extensions of ethnicity (”The Replacements”). [NOTE: Though I’m less generous than Rob when it comes to the depiction of the Incas via “The Emperor’s New Groove”
http://www.bluecorncomics.com/2007/10/review-of-emperors-new-school.html
it gets a slight pass here only because the jokes actually betray some thought, wit, and humor– and they snagged Eartha Kitt ]
(4) a loud, meddling, manipulative black teen woman who, despite psychic ability, lacks common sense and sound judgement or long-term memory (”That’s So Raven). Leaving aside the questions regarding why the solidly upper-middle class stable family members with parents rarely gets seen doing their thing (despite two really good actors Rondell Sheridan and T’Keyah Crystal Keymáh) and why this brat spends all her time making “psychic visions” reality instead of avoiding them for the cautions they provide.
This particularly bothersome show stands out for the mixed messages sent about acceptance and tolerance regarding body image (good thing), even though Raven invariably winds up each episode in a bad disguise mocking another group (bad thing). There’s also zero consequence shown as a result from her actions despite the harm she inflicts on others (lack of self control, lack of personal responsibility), and the “psychic” element doesn’t play an appreciable part in any of the stories– it just serves to enhance her exotic otherness in an environment where race doesn’t exist in her rainbow coalition of white best girl and black best boy pals.
(5) In general any kids show or sitcom that still has to pander by tossing out random nationalities from countries with made-up names and ethnicities stereotyped and played for laughs. Stoking a kid’s creative juices and imagination would be one thing, but when done in the service to reinforce tired played out adult notions, it’s time to grow-up.
Posted 27 Oct 2007 at 12:39 am ¶
tasha wrote:
hoo_boy
Wow, you really went after Raven. I personally thought the show resembled a modern day, “I Love Lucy,” but with a black teenager. You know how Lucy used to always get into trouble with her meddling? Well, it’s the same with “That’s So Raven.” Raven has a vision and thinks she can do something to alter the future and tries to prevent calamity, only to cause more. I’ve only seen some of the episodes, but I didn’t find Raven’s disguises or personna to be racially offensive. I always felt that the costume/disguise aspect of the show flaunts Raven’s budding range as a character actress. What Raven does isn’t different from what a Sarah Jones does in her one woman stage show. Many of the girls on the Disney Channel and ABC kid’s line up are prone to bumbling idiocy. Look at Hilary Duff? “Lizzy McGuire” had a monster run, and what was that show about? A junior high schooler who stumbled and bumbled through life, tripping and prat falling for comic relief, not really talented in anything, nor did that seem to bother her much. She had a nice wardrobe though. With the exception of her alternate ego as a pop-star, couldn’t you say the same about Miley Cyrus as “Hannah Montana?” And it’s about time they had a spoiled, Asian American princess on tv. The producers of “Suite Life” probably blind cast that role. With a name like London Tipton, the role was most likely originally written for a white girl.
Now “Grey’s Anatomy” is something I do watch religiously, and there are times when I struggle with the Bailey character, particularly because the exec producer of the show is herself a black woman, and you’d think that she would want to go out of her way to portray black women favorably on her own show and not play into stereotypes about black women, but Bailey runs the gamut: loud, stout, bossy, with no other black- female leads in sight. I think that in Bailey, Shonda Rhimes (Grey’s creator), sort of inserted herself into the script because Shonda and Bailey have the same body type, but I guess Rhimes exuses Bailey from being involved in the bed-hopping, soap opera drama (that makes the show appealing) because she’s married.
Posted 28 Oct 2007 at 5:06 pm ¶
hoo_boy wrote:
Tasha: Not criticizing Raven the person. but “Raven” the character and the show on which she appears, for which your defense was quite generous.
“Lizzy McGuire” and most other ABC/Disney shows prove bothersome in their own right and on their own terms without the need for “what about…” comparisons.
Taking a look at too many episodes (relatives *sigh*), especially in light of past dialogue on baord here, I’ve cringed at the costumes, mockery, and accents she dons in her various schemes to masquerade as people of various ethnic and body types. It’s cheap caricature for laughs, not characterization with insight a la Sarah Jones.
I can definitely agree that the premise heavily borrows the flavor of “I Love Lucy”, except she’s basically a self-centered not-too-bright Miss Cleo. If she were a smart generous psychic who helped others, fine. If she were a smart psychic who learned from her mistakes, I’d applaud her. If she were a normal kid who learned from her mistakes, that would be a landmark on t.v. We get none of those.
“I Love Lucy” worked because the actions grew out of the characters’ response to one another, not merely the situation or opportunity. They were all fallible, and Lucy wasn’t dumb, and selfishness from Ricky, Lucy, Fred, Ethel usually gave way to deeper need.
Here, she does not, as you say, work to change what she sees in her “psychic visions”. Every episode centers on her single-mindedness to fulfill them at all costs, despite consequences. Even when they are “good”, note that it’s for her benefit to make reality contort with her needs at the expense/convenience of her family and friends.
To make her character sympathetic or justify or actions, the shopworn “I guess I learned my lesson…” gets uttered, but you never see the results, and there’s no repercussion across episodes, especially when characters conveniently disappear.
Yes, I have this same problem with most kids shows (except, ironically cartoons).
Posted 29 Oct 2007 at 8:24 am ¶
Brian wrote:
Michelle
I love Grey’s Anatomy, but the only woman on that show who is not shown having sex and being lusted after by someone, is Bailey.
Tasha
but I guess Rhimes exuses Bailey from being involved in the bed-hopping, soap opera drama
I only casually watch that show but .. yes Baily is married and (iirc) has a baby. Someone is lusting after her.
If Bailey were bed-hopping .. well that wouldn’t be good - she’s married and a loud bossy stout woman - who is the boss - who sleeps around might be a worse character to have as an example to young women everywhere.
I don’t see what’s wrong with Bailey as a character or a role model. She’s pushy - but that’s her damn job. She’s bossy . . . but I’d be bossy and cross as well if I had Grey and company for interns.
What Bailey is .. is a competent doc who is at the top of her game in a tough field. Good ’nuff role model .. yes?
Posted 29 Oct 2007 at 4:35 pm ¶
Michelle wrote:
The fact that she is married is irrelevant. The cheif was having an extramarital affair, as were McDreamy (with Grey) and Addison (with McSteamy) and now Lizzie and George. So, the precedent for the show is that being married only helps to present more drama!
In the creative field there is a phrase, “show don’t tell”, with the idea being that what you show is far more powerful that what you explain away. Showing EVERY single other woman, but Bailey, on the show having sex, having relationships, falling in and out of love, leans toward a consistent negative stereotype about Black women being unlovable, unlustable and unattractive. Granted, they show her pregnant (cause she was pregnant in real life) and they had one episode where her husband came in because he was injured and they had one scene together. But in general, it falls into the questionable category.
That said, I love the Anatomy. I am a big fan and I am a big fan of the Bailey character and Shonda Rhimes the person. But no, Bailey is not a good ’nuff role model. Just like Aunt Jemima is not a good ’nuff role model. If good ’nuff was cutting it, there would be no need for Racialicious at all. The industry, the media industry, has to do better.
Posted 30 Oct 2007 at 2:29 pm ¶
Michelle wrote:
Sorry….chief. Silly me.
Posted 30 Oct 2007 at 2:30 pm ¶
Goose wrote:
FYI the part of Aubrey (and his unseen wife) were written to be a white couple. However, the actor Jerry Minor nailed the audition. So he got the part.
Posted 31 Oct 2007 at 10:27 am ¶