In the old Ginger or Mary Ann debate, I wanted a third choice

By David McElroy · December 30, 2020

Actress Dawn Wells’ death today at the age of 82 brought back memories of the old debate from my childhood. Do you prefer Ginger or Mary Ann?

Gilligan’s Island was a ridiculous sitcom that many of us loved anyway. The show was old enough that I grew up seeing it in late-afternoon syndication. My sisters and I often watched it every day after school.

At some point, most people who watched the show took up the question of which of the two young single women in the cast was more desirable. Ginger was the glamorous movie star who had a huge ego. Mary Ann was the small-down girl from the Midwest who was the quintessential “girl next door.”

If you were a man, your choice said something about the sort of woman who appealed to you. If you were a woman, your choice said something about who you really wanted to be.

I felt a little lost in such debates — because I didn’t think either of them represented my ideal woman.

I didn’t dislike either character. Each had her charms. Each was attractive in her own way. And I understood the preferences voiced by the advocates for each. Even though I was only about 12 or 13 when I watched the show most often, I already had a feeling I wanted something more than what the writers gave us in either character.

As played by Tina Louise, Ginger was a confident and beautiful woman, but she was mostly confident about her looks. She knew that men wanted her and that she could use her beauty to manipulate them. She was a great stereotype and it made for ridiculous fun in the plots, but she was essentially a cardboard cutout beyond that.

Wells’ characterization of Mary Ann had a lot of charm and charisma. She was attractive, but not in the glamorous way of Ginger. She was more approachable and down to earth. She didn’t necessarily lack confidence, but it was different from Ginger’s aggressive sexuality. She was more like a comfortable pair of jeans to Ginger’s high-society party dress. But she was essentially someone to stay in the background and wait to be taken care of.

As a young teen-ager, it’s no surprise that I looked at attractive characters on television and imagined having such a woman as my partner. Millions of other boys and men surely did the same. But I couldn’t imagine choosing either one of these women.

Gilligan’s Island was a product of its era, so it’s natural that neither of the women was presented as especially smart or competent. I don’t mean they were shown as idiots, but it was clear that they were just there for their looks — to be background for the men. Their role was to be protected, not for them to be functioning parts of the characters’ many attempts to survive and escape.

Even in my very young brain, I wanted a woman who was a lot smarter than these characters were. Mostly, though, I wanted a woman who was competent — who was just as capable of playing a strong and leading role at times when it was called for.

That wasn’t the way the male creator and writers of the show saw women of the mid-1960s. I certainly wasn’t some protofeminist who was on the barricades for women’s liberation. I just knew that my ideal woman was stronger, smarter and more competent than Ginger and Mary Ann were.

I couldn’t quite put that into words when I was 12, but I felt it — and it’s why I had trouble agreeing with those many guys around me who fervently argued for either the glamorous Ginger or the down-to-earth Mary Ann.

I wanted more, even if I couldn’t quite explain it.

This didn’t take away my enjoyment for the ridiculous show. I took it for what it was and loved it. I haven’t seen an episode for years, but I still feel nostalgia for the castaways.

My vision of the ideal woman today is pretty complicated, but she’s still smart and competent and strong, in a way that wouldn’t have worked on television in 1964.

So if I’d had to choose, which would I have chosen? It would have been the 5-9 Ginger over the 5-4 Mary Ann. If I’d had to choose, height would have won out. At least that part hasn’t changed for me.

With the death of Dawn Wells, Tina Louise is the only surviving cast member. True to the self-conscious vanity of her character, she asked a reporter today not to mention her age when she made a statement about Wells’ death.

Ginger and Mary Ann were both wonderful in their own ways, but it’s pretty clear to me that the ideal woman is far deeper than either of the characters. At least for me.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts