by KATIE FOUND
Channel Seven’s reality show Who Wants to be a Millionaire? … I mean, Beauty and the Geek Australia, has one-upped itself on the sexist front this season.
The show is constructed as a social experiment: 10 female ”beauties” and 10 male ”geeks” live together in a mansion. They pair up and participate in weekly challenges that test their academic and social skills.
What tends to happen – as evidenced in previous seasons – is that the ”beauties” help the ”geeks” become more socially comfortable, while the geeks help the beauties become more intellectually comfortable. Together, they combat insecurities, expand comfort zones, establish friendships with people they wouldn’t usually associate with, and evolve into more well-rounded human beings.
The emphasis on this facet of the show is embarrassing, and the beauties’ reaction to it even more so. The 10 young women were reduced to giggling, gasping schoolgirls when Bernard Curry, the host, revealed the twist in the first episode.
”Money does make guys a little bit more attractive”, pronounced one beauty. ”I like presents, so I really wanted the millionaire so he could buy me cool presents,” said another. According to one beauty, a chorus of ”I got dibs” echoed throughout the mansion following the announcement.
In the third episode, the secret millionaire geek was revealed. It happened during a challenge in which the beauties and the geeks attempted to break the world record for the longest hug. In reaction to the confession, a beauty quipped, ”You’ve got a millionaire’s arms around you; dream come true, isn’t it?”
When the rest of the participants found out, more gasps and squeals ensued. One beauty posed the question, ”Do you reckon some of the other girls in the house will change, knowing that he’s a millionaire now?” to which another replied, ”I think that every girl has that fantasy of marrying a rich man.”
The majority of the beauties, however, seemed sure that nothing would change; that Nathan would be treated in the same way as before. I find this very hard to believe. I can’t imagine that the beauties are going to merely congratulate the millionaire geek on his success.
Not only would this behaviour be out of line with how they have presented themselves thus far, but it would not support the reason for including a millionaire in the first place: drama.
Social experiment validity aside, the inclusion of a millionaire geek reinforces negative gender stereotypes: financially successful man, gold-digging woman. Beauty and the Geek already relies on negative gender stereotypes as the basis for the show, but this addition is just taking it too far. It is merely a cheap and insulting way of inserting a bit of extra drama.
The creators should have added to the groundwork they laid last season: the twist being the inclusion of one female geek and one male beauty. This twist was intelligent, and worked to erode negative gender stereotypes. Couldn’t they have made this year 50/50 with female geeks and male beauties?
Perhaps it’s not the creator’s fault: Channel Seven seems to have picked a clear theme for our Thursday night viewing, and this cheap twist means that Beauty and the Geek Australia fits within that theme perfectly.
All Channel Seven needs to do now is make Ted Mosby reveal that ”How I Met your Mother was by waving a wad of fifties in her face” and the 7.30-9.30pm timeslot will be one well-oiled, sexist machine.
This article was originally published in The Age and has been republished with full permission.
Katie Found is a Melbourne-based journalist, playwright and director. Keep in the Katie-loop via Twitter: @katiefound.
Do you watch Beauty and the Geek? Do you find the format of the show sexist?
Top Comments
This comment years after the show stopped airing, but I was curious about the show and did some research. It's funny the original author claims the inclusion of a secret millionaire geek "ruins the experiment." Despite its billing, Beauty and the Geek was never a serious experiment. What's the hypothesis? Where's the control group? Are they not concerned over the rediculously tiny sample size? It was originally and continued to be simple entertainment, albeit with a unique, perhaps even thoughtful and well meaning premise. Sometimes, it wasn't even consistent with its own terms. The "beauties" are nearly always portrayed as intellectually lacking, but this is often a result of trick questions, inquiry into unfamiliar fields of study, and clever editing. Many of the women held college degrees, and as multiple "geeks" indicated, they are all experts in the areas they enjoy and find most rewarding. Likewise, not all the "geeks" were/are as socially awkward as shown. Many of them were quite successful in their chosen social spheres, and saw no reason to retain the aesthetic assigned to them by their makeover, or adjust their associations. In point, the declared goal of "becoming more than just a beauty and a geek" begs the question; in truth we have always been more than the superficial labels societies slap on us, and we accept.
The program itself unquestionably shows sexist stereotypes, but at the same time, gently scolds the viewer for falling for those stereotypes. If there is a consistent theme, over all the seasons in the various mutations of the "experiment," it is the cliche truism, "don't judge a book by its cover." In that sense, perhaps the real experiment is to find if reality tv can have a positive effect on its viewers.
I loathe shows like this too much reality tv crap. Talk about dumming down the population. Totally moronic bullshit really annoys me. So sad so many people watch this stuff or we could have more quality programs on TV