Texas Ranch House

I must say that I love the idea of these shows. I just wish that they would find people more suited to living in the 1800. The Cooke family women like so many others can not seem to figure out that in those times, women really had no say so. It was man's work and women took care of the men. Mrs. Cooke with her head in the clouds and her mouth in the on position, just didn't get it. Mr. Cooke, should have grown bigger ball's. The Cooke family saw themselves as successful, they lived in a dream world through the hole show. The maid should have been put in her place. She seem to think she had a right to prove herself and that was not the intention of this show. I hope the next time PBS does another one of these shows. They pick better people. I must say this family was the worst. As for the ranch hands, I would hire them anytime if I had a ranch.

PBS's reality TV consists of bringing a select group of people (usually at least one or two families and several strangers) back into the past to re-live the experience of living within various historical time periods.

Texas Ranch House is the newest chapter in that series. One must keep in mind when watching these that although the participants are educated on what their roles will be, their 21st century mind-set is still affecting their ability to fully adapt to the role.

Texas Ranch House is entertaining because it reveals the hardships and day-to-day experiences of the people as they might have lived. We get to see the families adjust to their new living situations (or not) and how they cope with doing stuff as growing a garden, gathering up cattle, and living without 21st century technology.

I have become an avid fans of PBS's reality shows, but I have noticed one thing that viewers do complain about which is not inaccurate. So I hope to set it straight here.

That said, these shows are not inaccurate in their portrayals of feminism. (That said, I would not call the whiny Cooke women feminists). Feminism is not a post-1950s concept. Post Civil War (when Texas Ranch House takes place), feminists were speaking out for the right to vote, the right to own property, the right to divorce their husbands without losing custody of their child, the right to marry and keep one's last name.

It is a shame the previous viewer claims to be a feminist and history buff but doesn't know his feminist history. The "First Wave" is historically dated to 1848 when the Senaca Falls Convention took place. There, Lucy Stone and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, among others, produced the "Declaration of Sentiments." Post-Civil War, feminists broke into 2 camps--one group headed by Stanton and her comrade-in-arms, Susan B. Anthony, the other by Lucy Stone. Each group was preoccupied with getting the right to vote by but using different tactics. At the turn of the century, the two camps merged into NAWSA, of which Carrie Catt became President of. It was under Carrie Catt's second term that women got the right to vote.

One can argue all day about what constitutes feminism and whether the women portrayed in each of PBS's reality TV shows represent feminism, but people, please be aware of your feminist history before calling it 'historically inaccurate' to see it in whatever time period that the PBS show is currently set in.

Texas RANCH HOUSE (TRH) is the latest installment in a string of similar reality shows. As a history buff, I've seen them all and like the idea of seeing real, live people coping with situations and scenarios from other centuries. I often wonder what I would do in such circumstances. In the case of TRH, I'd run. Away. Fast.

PBS needs to decide what it wants these shows to be. Are they truly about 21st century people in X century situations, or are they assigning X century roles/tasks to 21st century people who are expected to "play" those roles and perform those tasks in the X century manner? As PBS presents the finished product, they don't seem to be able to make up their minds. TRH shows this fault with abundant clarity.

If there is any psychological screening for these shows, PBS needs to rethink the methodology used. Participant-induced drama with fragile personalities who shouldn't have made the cut for the show does not necessarily make the best reality television, especially when the "reality" is also supposed to be educational. I would expect this from Jerry Springer or Oprah. I don't expect it from PBS.

The only real educational bits of this programme were those artificially forced in along the way by the producers. If the PBS mission for this show was "Let's get as much whining, complaining, backbiting, and sniping on the air as possible", then Mission Accomplished. Otherwise, no.

The show does have heroes and villains, sometimes the same people, and there are some interesting moments. But much of the programme is dominated by whining and complaining.

The last hour (episode) of the programme has some genuine entertainment value, and I'm probably not the only one who said "Oh yeah!" out loud when the cowboys do their thing, but that means sitting through seven hours of tedium previously to get to it.

In the end, as regards the Texas ranch house experience, one is better off reading a real book with some real history to it.

I guess I'm nerdy but I'll watch any of these shows. I'm also as feminist as anyone, moreso than some women, but no matter what the show's are titled, why do they all devolve into "Anti-historical feminist house?" Whether it's Mrs. Voorhees on Colonial House, or the whiny "I'm as good as any boy" Maura, it's the same old song.

Mrs Cooke is the major aggravation here; so stubborn that she can't understand that she's failing entirely to entertain viewers, inform them or provide anything to admire. She has one (modern) idea of how her intelligence should be channeled and accommodated and it's not happening for her. Without a Plan B, she bangs her head against the wall again and again; "Why am I not being included... Why was I not involved?" Because you're the biggest drag since RuPaul? Because you have major control issues in any century? What junky brand of feminism is it that only consists of post-neglect nagging? Supply a scenario and Mrs. Cooke will only be aware of what her personal needs are and her preconceived notions of how respect is properly performed, w/o concern for what effects she's actually having. Having done nothing, she nonetheless has insinuated herself into the center of all interactions, but it's not in some shrewd way you could admire. As a negative force she's easily reached the magnitude of impact she dreams of having via her own more ego-pleasing criteria. Mrs Cooke complements a weak mind with an intrusive presence and rapidly turns this into the least enjoyable of the 5 series I've seen.

My favorite moment so far was the Cooke womens proud, goofy (history-repairing) decision to set up the best table finery for the Comanches (!) who came over to tell them they'd kidnapped a man, stole two horses and made them accept a swindle. I laughed my butt off at the lopsided values that forced etiquette, of all things, into the foreground, only to be slapped down by the crude directness of the old west.

The next lamest moment concerns the time-travel of modern democratic ideals to the frontier: Maura whined and sulked until she got some horse training*, then concluded in last night's episode; "I don't even want to do it anymore. It's become a hassle..." or something. I just rolled my eyes thinking 'only the lazy and undeserving toss away a concession after nagging their peers into accommodating them.' That sends a terrific message. It's followed by a conflict with Robby telling her he doesn't appreciate her disrespect, and Maura interrupting to say she felt disrespected too. Try that next time your boss is giving you some negative feedback. It's not an encounter group.

Even leaving Mrs. Cooke aside, I can't fathom how a participant might ever reach the usual humbling conclusion, "Life is easier in the modern world," if he or she refuses to be humbled, or move outside their comfort zone. When your motivation is "I'm going to force everyone to meet me where I am," there's very little for a new-rancher to learn and just as little for a viewer to enjoy. There seems to be no reason to go on the show.

I love the idea of these shows. I hate the stupid gender-bickering they've turned into. The casting people need to better inform these women that it will be historically accurate, so the shows can become something other than women laying waste to the show's concept. Tiresome.

(* also not entertaining)