Both The Simpsons and Family Guy feature a very fat husband married to a wife with a model-perfect body. So did The Critic. Hank Hill isn’t very fat, but he’s got a spare tire, whereas Peggy Hill is pretty thin (their son Bobby is fat). Fred, Barney: fat. Wilma, Betty: thin.
This same pattern is found in non-animated family sit-coms, too, but I think the explanation for that is pretty obvious: most of those sit-coms are built around well-known male stand-up comedians or actors who are fat. This is just plain old sexism at work; it’s easier for fat men to become celebrities than it is for fat women. Very few fat women become famous enough to get their own family sit-com built around them, and even if they do, the network may order them to lose weight (which is what happened to Margaret Cho). Roseanne Barr got away with it, but then again – if the quality of her sit-com is anything to judge by – she also had ten times as much talent as nearly any other sit-com comedian.
But animated shows don’t face these problems. They can make any character buff, or any character fat. So why not a fat woman on these shows?
I think it’s one of two things. Or maybe both of two things.
First, there’s the cruelty factor. There are a lot of fat jokes made about the fat characters on The Simpsons and Family Guy. In our culture, being fat is considered a pretty bad thing for a man, but a mortal sin for a woman. Constantly making fun of fat women might just seem cruel, rather than funny.
Secondly, for both Homer and Peter, being fat is a physical manifestation of their main character trait: unrestrained Id. Neither character ever has a desire that he doesn’t immediately act on; they run entirely on impulse and want. All that unruly flesh is just a reflection of their unruly personalities.
So why couldn’t we have a female character who was a creature of pure Id, whose unruly mounds of fat, like Homer’s, is always threatening to crush the furnature, leak over the sides of all restraints, and just generally refuse to fit in?
Well, I think there could be such a character. If she was well-written, I’d find her funny. But to have a woman be that character… well, it somehow wouldn’t be very status quo, would it? I think a lot of America might find a female version of Homer Simpson or Peter Griffen – that is, an unashamed fat woman whose fat gets everywhere and who unabashedly goes after every passing want – more than a bit threatening. Not exactly the comforting material that successful sit-coms are made of.
Pingback: The Blob That Chases Butterflies
I think I recall you posting on this before. I don’t recall if I mentioned it last time if this has a more direct thread:
the sitcom is a format of plagurism. the sitcom exists because the honeymooners was on the air. no, I’m not selling Lucy short. she’s brilliant, and her show was a profound impact on the culture, but The Honeymooners set the format of fat man, thinner woman, a man in a non-descript, dead end job who somehow still earns enough to pay for a home and family (although, unlike most modern shows, Ralph did have significant money problems throughout the show)
the genre expects the exact same thing, so they can, without thinking, establish the characters, be it live action or animated.
clever things make people feel stupid, and unexpected things make them feel scared – Phillip J. Fry, another drawn guy with a bit of a gut
I like your point about the unruly character–Rosanne was great, but her fatness was not a manifestation of character as an unruly, impulsive person. I don’t remember her stuffing her face or anything like that–she was just fat in a mater-of-fact way.
The point about the cartoons being derivative is well taken, but there are so many other sitcoms… why is that the one that had to set the format, at least in terms of physical bodies?
I also think that there’s another aspect to these characters, with their unrestrained Id, and that is that the female then becomes the perpetual Mom. To the kids, and to the children. I don’t think it’s just that America would find a female Homer or Peter threatening, it’s also that if she were a family woman, if, horror of horrors, the mother of a family were all about unrestrained gratification of her own needs, I can’t see that sitting well with the public. Even I’m having difficulty imagining such a scenario. Not to mention that it would then put the guy in the Responsible Mom role.
And I’m sorry if this is poor blog comment etiquette, but I’ve been wondering, Amanda, is there something wrong with Pandagon? I’ve been trying to get to it most of the weekend and keep being told there’s either no such site, or that it’s not accessible.
Hmm.
I think that Patty and Selma come as close as I’ve seen to women fitting the unrestrained Id characters on cartoons. They’re not fat, but they’re ugly, which is, though not as bad, still a sin for women. The difference is that Homer’s Id doesn’t keep him from being happy (possibly because Marge is there to keep it in check) whereas it’s made fairly clear that it’s Patty and Selma’s refusal/inability to play by the rules that keeps them perpetually miserable and lonely.
So women, even cartoon women, need to be punished for being perpetually self-serving, whereas men need to be lovingly guided to a better way to be.
How ’bout this? Let’s just forget the whole fat/thin thing and try some television based on WIT. Or is that just too much to expect?
Men are allowed to get old, go bald, gain weight and no one treats them like they’ve “let themselves go.” Women, on the other hand, either have to be enormously talented, such as the aforementioned Rosanne or Kathy Bates, or be willing to poke fun at their physical appearance, such as Kirstie Allen, in order to be accepted. It’s sexist and wrong.
But, you know, don’t listen to me. I’m just an overweight female.
I think that’s unfair of you: Both the Simpsons AND Family Guy have some really witty moments, you just need the lots of stupid to get a broadbasted audience. And Id Vs. Superego odd couple is a fairly standard duality on these shows, and it’s comforting to a great many people. Besides, I think that #3 is on to something: The wife is “Mom” and that’s about it- anytime they leave “mom” you can guarentee that it’ll end before the next episode (Marge’s Police Women, Lois as a lounge singer).
acallidryas:
actually, there aren’t that many sitcoms. I’d actually hold there are about 3:
The Honeymooners: fat man, thin wife, unrestrained Id using the wife as a comic foil, see also Everybody Loves Raymond, King of Queens, etc
The Dick Van Dyke Show: Lucy predates it, but I think the Van Dyke show, with Mary Tyler Moore AND Dick Van Dyke better exemplifies the theme of antics based on a series of events piling up. see also Bewitched, Fraiser
the third, more recent model, are the “single woman living in new york working in some nebulous but hip office, perhaps an ad agency or magazine” there are plenty of examples. all of them suck.
in case anyone askes “what about friends/sienfeld” they’re both in catagory two. and they both suck. so don’t ask about them
periodically, something actually sets up which IS completely different. typically it gets cancelled after 6 episodes. usually, it’s because they’re brittish, who for some reason don’t believe in continuing a series past it’s prime, so pretty much every English sitcom can be purchased in a single DVD box set
I agree on the perpetual Mom point acallidryas made. I’ve always felt that the implication in these relationships where the male=Id and the female=caregiver is that men aren’t really expected to “behave” themselves. Peter or Homer can do anything without any serious punishment from their wives, who are portrayed as being beautiful and intelligent women. It’s as if the writers, and audience, are regarding their antics with a sigh and collectively excusing it as just a product of masculinity. A woman couldn’t behave that way because then she wouldn’t a passive force for a masculine Id to bounce off.
But I do realize that the format is supposed to be comedic so I’m not expecting a “Homer and Marge get divorced and have a nasty child custody trial” story line.
Rugrat‘s Betty de Ville may be the exception that proves the rule. Because she is so self-consciously written to conflict with stereotype, she illustrates the stereotype more clearly.
Betty is a heavy-set woman with an alto voice, wears sweat pants and a sweat shirt with a feminist symbol, and is conspicuously handy and quick with opinions. She is not depicted as especially nurturing or aware of other people’s feelings. Her focus is almost exclusively on adult conversation (which is a necessary plot device because the adults must be detracted to enable the babies – the show’s stars – to repeatedly escape their playpens and go on adventures). She is married to Howard, her slender, nervous, henpecked husband. If you aren’t a Rugrats viewer, see here and click on “Betty.”
Rugrats is created by Arlene Klasky and Gabor Csupo, whom I believe originally animated The Simpsons.
I don’t know about cartoons but I also thought of sitcoms and yes, Rosanne came to mind. There’s another tv comedy character that more or less fits your description – Lindsay in ‘Teachers’, a British tv series, here is how she is described:
The realism of the series wasn’t that much about looks (there were a couple of unrealistically gorgeous male and female teachers the likes of which you’ve never seen in any school), but behaviour. Even if it was pushed to surreal limits. With a bit of the cringe comedy effect too.
I suspect that the thin, intelligent wife is also a signal of the male’s redeemability factor. The guy may be a stupid pig, but he can’t be all bad if this woman stays with him. So viewers should see him with the same affectionate eye his wife does.
Where does Peg Bundy fit in?
I think there’s still a subconscious expectation in our culture that women are the moral gatekeepers. Acallidryas nailed it, I think: women have to be the Responsible Mom, not only to the kids, but also the childlike husband. Mom is all that stands between the man and self-destruction in many plot lines. “I Love Lucy” and “Dick Van Dyke Show” were, I think, notable exceptions to this in that the wives were the ones having the dizzy escapades.
“Roseanne” broke the sitcom mold in a lot of ways, but note that she was also paired with John Goodman, a large man. I think this served to set them up as “equals”; to have cast a thinner man would have resulted in her seeming more domineering (and threatening) to a lot of people. When “fat” is often seen as shorthand for “raging Id” or a certain degree of irresponsibility, in most cases it’s the men whom our culture is most comfortable seeing in that role.
Re: Peg Bundy, I think the whole premise of that show (Married With Children, which I never liked) was “there are no adults in this family.”
A woman can behave in a silly or neurotic fashion on sitcoms if she’s single. But once you’re married and Mom, you immediately become competent.
I definitely agree that the fat husband/thin wife thing springs from the Honeymooners. And The Flintstones is a pretty direct animated ripoff of that show.
The “Andy Capp” comic strip featured a skinny little guy with a fat wife (can’t recall her name). She was always angry, and he was always provoking her. Both Blondie and Dagwood are thin (but not very funny). George Burns and Gracie Allen had a hilarious weekly show, and neither one was fat. Keeping Up Appearances is a Brit-com that is in continual re-runs on American PBS–Hyacinth is a heavyweight while Richard is normal size, and again the wife is the haranguing nag. No fat jokes in there, either. Edith and Archie were both tubbies, but Maude was much heavier than …what was his name?…she was portrayed as a “headstrong” woman. So looking back, it seems that FAT itself wasn’t joked about, and yet it was used to characterize a type of personality.
Well, in that vein, there’s The Vicar of Dibley, where a collection of eccentrics in an idyllic old English town meet the very modern Geraldine Granger, a heavy, “chocolate-guzzling, joke-cracking, irreverent reverend.”? A fine BBC production, which evidently produced only 16 episodes over the course of 5 years!
Maybe it’s more that most sitcoms need at least one person in the relationship to be an idiot, of various sorts. Ross wasn’t fat, but he was a neurotic dink, never quite as smart as whoever he was with. Actually all the guys on Friends were pretty dumb. Lucy was played ditzy if not dumb, and there are still ditzy wife/girlfriend roles out there. Ray in Raymond isn’t fat, but he is dense–see also (shudder) Tim Allen in Home Improvement.
Perhaps the real function of this id/superego idea is to give the audience someone to both identify with (the smart one) and laughingly understand (the dumb one). Jerry Seinfeld was marginally smarter than most of his friends–but we all understood George in some way or another.
And how many shows are based on the “one normal guy/girl surrounded by a gang of wacky misfits” premise? I think it’s all part of the same thing.
The lack of fat women on tv remains a problem, except that comedy has always been more welcoming to them than drama. Nell Carter had a show; Mrs. Garrett in Facts of Life was plump; Weezie was never thin, or Edith for that matter.
Hmm. So if I’m really thin, does that mean people are seeing me as dominated by an overactive superego? That’d explain a lot.
Amp wrote:
why couldn’t we have a female character who was a creature of pure Id, whose unruly mounds of fat, like Homer’s, is always threatening to crush the furnature, leak over the sides of all restraints, and just generally refuse to fit in?
Don’t overlook Mimi from the Drew Carey Show.
???
Surely you jest. Marge and Lois are completely average and unglamourous.
None of your list of cartoons are based on that format, and very few of the live action ones are.
With regards to the cartoons, it’s simply the creator’s choice. I doubt he or she ever thought “I’ll do everything I can to make sure the wife is thin.” Inspiration has a way of being difficult to control; the old adage that characters write themselves is very true.
How is it that you can take a clear bias to make husbands look incompetent and make it into implied sexism? The wives in these shows always come off smarter, wiser, and more mature.
Well, since you took these shows to task for having competent wives who were thin, I suspect that a “female Homer” would upset you even more.
What you’re illustrating here is that TV is “damned if they do/damned if they don’t”. Not having fat wives is anti-fat. Having fat wives who behaved like the fat husbands would also be considered anti-fat.
Why not write one yourself?
It sounds like you know what you want. Go ahead and give it a try, and write a screenplay for a sitcom, or a novel.
Bobby Hill isn’t really fat; he’s out of shape but not obese.
Marge Simpson is apparently considered an attractive, if not spectacular, woman by the people in her community; she doesn’t do anything for me, but tastes do vary. Lois Pewterschmidt nee Griffin is a smokin’ hottie, and this is clearly communicated. (And in one rather touching episode, we find out that the reason this wealthy, classy, smart, gorgeous hunk of burning love goes for Peter is that the big lug is the first person she met who cared more about her than about any of the externals.)
Part of this cultural phenomenon is archetypal; the Honeymooners, for better or for worse, became a Founding Show of television and all subsequent shows are of necessity connected to Jackie Gleason. Which means fat man + skinny woman = funny.
Another part of it is simple reality. Go to most places where couples gather, and you will see almost every combination of gorgeous, average and ugly – except for one: you will see very few gorgeous guys with ugly gals. Sexism? Cultural discrimination against one gender? A sign of male insecurity and status-seeking? All of the above, probably, but there it is. In my own circle of acquaintances and friends, I can think of a hundred good-looking-gal-with-goofy-guy combos, and exactly one combo that’s the reverse. (And they were from a very small town in Alaska and were childhood sweethearts.) So probably there’s some conscious decision being made by some producers to not push the envelope by showing a combination that is foreign to their audience’s experiences and expectations.
As noted, Mimi on the Drew Carey show was a female character similar to Homer/Peter/Ralph Kramden – chunky, indulgent of the appetites of the flesh, unrestrained. She was a pretty successful character, although I didn’t much care for the show once it got self-indulgent. (Around episode two, I think.) So the theme isn’t entirely absent.
I think that there are two main reasons we don’t see more Mimis: sexism, and fear of feminist backlash. Sexism: a male who transgresses the responsibilities of self-control is funny; a woman who does it is a terrible person. Note that Mimi has no family, no children, no responsibilities – only as a unitary person with no connections is she permitted to be a Homer. Homer has Marge to follow him around and clean up his messes, so we’re comfortable watching his horrific child abuse and neglect because we know that Marge will fix things. Fear of feminist backlash: we don’t see the reverse scenario very often (amusingly incompetent Mom is acceptable because competent Dad covers for her) because producers fear making such a show will bring them in for criticism. (Although King of the Hill has done some shows along these lines which I thought were pretty good.)
It’s interesting but not surprising that the shows with the most depth on these questions (and most other questions) are cartoons. That’s because people who draw are naturally smarter and more perceptive than those who don’t. (That takes care of my brown-nosing to Barry for the year.)
You’ve got a good point, Barry, but Hank and Peggy don’t belong in it.
Robert – thanks for pointing out what I was going to with regards to Marge and Lois.
Lois is absolutely revered as a hotty:
ex1. Meg and Lois go to Spring Break and all the teenagers are gaga over Lois
ex2. Peter -and- Chris’s friends consistently make comments about Lois and wanting to get with her.
… the references are pretty well established within the show and it would be really hard to make a case that Lois is run of the mill.
While I’m no where near as avid a fan of the Simpsons as I am Family Guy, I definitely remember mentions of Marge being seen as beautiful, and many a man actually hits on her in the scads of seasons we get to see the family in.
As for inherent sexism? Well, I always feel disloyal pointing it out, because frankly I do love the show, but at least with Family Guy, their are consistent jabs at the women’s movement, implying that the war is over, so to speak. I think Seth McFarlane is great and all, but ultimately the wayward son (Peter) is redeemed consistently, and the lessons to be learned are sluffed off as oversensitivity, etc.. The best example of this in my opinion is the episode where Candace Bergen is a guest character in the form of a feminist work-shop/consultant at the toy company. Peter is sent off to sensitivity camp and wackiness ensues that has Peter go from one extreme of bad stereo-types of men, to bad stereo-types of women. The show is resolved by Lois and Candy B.’s character getting in a fist fight including clothing ripped and bra’s popping out, ending with Peter grabbing Lois from the fray to take her home because the hot lesbian fight scene made him come back into his old self, hence a need to get busy with her.
Their are plenty more examples where that came from, but the attempt at dismissing the existence of sexism in Family Guy (or the Simpsons for that matter) is just plain naive and arbitrary.
One place where the paradigm is reversed is in sit-coms with black characters: The Jeffersons, Good Times (especially after it became clear that J.J. was the male lead and they fired John Amos), and Gimme A Break! (thanks Emjaybee!) all come to mind. I haven’t watched enough TV in the last 25 years to know if the pattern holds, but I wonder whether it’s an effort to de-sexualize black female characters?
If you look at television in general the vast majority of men are painted as “Homers” to one degree or another if there is a female of any age around. Commericals being the prime offenders, if there is a father and his five year old daughter the daughter will ultimately point out something to dear old bumbling dad. Men are portrayed as idiots.
As an artist, and having done caricatures I can tell from experience that women, even in caricature take it more personally. If a man has a huge nose I can draw it even bigger, fat even fatter and they don’t take offense. Early on when I drew women the same way I could literally see them physically react with hurt and or anger. So I would say that you can’t do the same humor with women as men.
As someone else stated I think the dynamic of fat men/thin women is more true to life, if not necessarily the Homer/Marge personalities.
What Kim said. Although I did think the Sensitivity Training Video, ca. 1956, was hilarious: “And remember: nothing says, ‘Good work!’ like a firm, open-handed slap on the behind!”
And yes, Lois is considered a smokin’ hottie.
Daffodil, you’re clearly totally unacquainted with feminism, but Gloria Steinem already answered your argument about how ridiculous it is to complain about the perpetually beautiful, inhumanly competent wife: “A pedestal is as much a prison as any small, confined space.” There are definite drawbacks to being the Angel of the House, and sitcom wives are just a new variation on an old theme of wish-fulfillment. It’s not okay to dehumanize women in any way, either by turning them into goddesses or by making them into monsters. Patricia “I got them for me!” Heaton and Mimi “I’ll kill you all!” Bobeck are a pretty limited set of options.
And uh, yeah, the characters write themselves. They write themselves based on the prejudices the author brings to the drawing board. No one’s saying that Seth or Matt should be shipped off to re-education camp, but what pre-conceptions cause them and pretty much every other sitcom creator to create the exact same male and female couple every time? Why are they all sharing a muse? Name a husband/wife duo apart from Peggy and Hank that doesn’t fit the paradigm.
Fred: I remember reading an excellent book by bell hooks once that explored, in part, the 4 classifications of black women in white culture, and the statement about de-sexualizing a certain category featured prominently. Unfortunately, I read it about 6 years ago and I don’t have much more than a recollection that her statement existed…
As to the Mimi comparison, bean wrote what I was thinking, too. She did finally get married, but even then, no one was supposed to sympathize with or really like Mimi.
I think that Mimi is supposed to be likable by the time she got married, in the sense that the audience is meant to feel bad for her when her feelings are hurt. The character (by far the most original character on the Drew Carey show) lives in a sort of gray zone; we’re supposed to enjoy her being hurt by Drew’s pranks, and recognize that she’s an awful person, but at the same time we’re supposed to enjoy her victories over Drew and find her lovable. She’s a lovable monster, like one of her troll dolls.
Still, although she comes closer than any female character I can think of, I don’t think that Mimi has the sort of joyful Id abandon that Homer and Peter display. Mimi’s too clearly bitter and malicious; and the actress (who I think is very good) plays the character in a way that suggests that she’s got loads of swallowed pain and defensive mental walls.
(Not that I’m criticizing the Mimi character. I think the character is, on the whole, great; it’s not like there are a huge number of fat female characters on TV who consider themselves sexy, are in a stable relationship, and are constantly allowed to be the funny flawed character rather than the boring perfect-mommy character).
Really, I’m not sure that a likable protagonist of pure Id can even be done in live-action, because having a human actor adds so many complexities. Johnny in the movie Airplane fits, but he wasn’t the protagonist. Maybe Jim Carrey in the Ace Ventura films, or Mork in the first season of Mork and Mindy – both characters who were more like living cartoons.
Yup. You see the same anti-male dynamic played out in a lot of commercials, too. Although I’m unhappy with the sexist way women are treated on TV, that doesn’t mean that I disagree with complaints about how men are treated on TV. Sexism is usually a two-sided coin, with negatives going in both directions.
So in family sit-coms like The Simpsons and Flintstones and Family Guy and (moving to live action) Home Improvement and Everybody Loves Raymond and Grounded for Life and many more, the woman is sensible, perfect, pretty, and adult. The man is foolish, bumbling, not so perfect looking, and childish.
It’s pretty easy to see why men’s rights activists find this dyad anti-male – and they’re right, to a degree. What they miss, however, is that there’s a word for the wacky, bumbling character, and that word is “star.” Just as men’s rights activists can justly ask, “why is the idiot almost always a man, and the smart one almost always a woman?,” feminists can justly ask, “why is the lead actor almost always a man, and the boring character almost always a woman?”
Of course, if we ever come to a point where women and men are about equally likely to get cast as either funny leads or as straight men, then both problems will be solved.
The flip side of the ‘bumbling male’ stereotype is that the woman is the one who is expected to be responsible, clean up the bumbling husband/dad’s messes, and be the center of the family. It’s just creepy all around.
Ah, but notice that on both shows, there have at different points been single-episode characters who were added to tempt or distract the husband. These women are drawn like supermodels; their physique and look are distinctly more glamourous than Peg, Lois, or Marge.
Anyhow, I’m still not sure what the point of this is. The strongest case here is one that Ampersand chose not to focus on – which is the habit of comedians who get their own show (and creative control of it) who clearly use their position to get to meet hot women. Seinfeld – a show that hasn’ really been brought up much – is the strongest example of this, given Jerry’re rotating number of girlfriends. King of Queens is another example. (Someone else mentioned Everybody Loves Raymond, which to me is a bizarre example. I think the wife on that show is less attractive and less physically fit than Raymond is – and btw, what about Raymond’s parents as exceptions to this trend?)
But the bottom line to me is not “what do they look like”? It’s “are they talented?” If an actress is good at what she does, then I don’t care what she looks like. Quality should be the goal, not appeasing advocacy groups. I mean, could anybody here honestly say that they would choose to cast the woman who played Mimi over Meryl Streep or Charlize Theron, if they had a chance to cast the latter actresses?
LOL. I’m quite acquainted with it; I am simply trying to show that one can be a feminist and be objective, too. Perpetual anger towards trivial issues only undermines more worthwhile feminist causes. It does no one good to live a life that’s focused only on things that frustrate you. You are a witness to the world for the merits of feminism, to paraphrase Christianity. If people see you complaining all the time, they won’t be interested in considering your views. Particularly if they’re pretty happy people to begin with.
So because Steinem said it, that closes the debate?
Sorry, but I don’t happen to think that portraying wives as thoughtful and unselfish is a bad thing. I’ve never felt intimidated by fictional characters, nor do I know of any women who fret over the pressure of living up to Marge Simpson’s standard. You’re working from a fundamentalist model of pop culture, i.e. the assumption that we’re all blank slates incapable of resisting the images and opinions expressed on TV shows – the whole argument that Marge Simpson puts unfathomable pressure on real-life wives is no different at its foundation than the argument that the Teletubbies are trying to make kids become homosexuals.
To me, Steinem is working moreso from a model of narcissim; me first, etc. People like that tend not to appreciate the notion that we have some moral obligation to think of others’ needs.
As for female characters in TV shows, I suspect that Mark and Robert have hit the nail on the head: what is being wished for here would only upset you even more.
Nope. That’s not the way it works.
Again, you’re working from a fundamentalist viewpoint. The assumption that fiction reflects the creator’s views is foolish; I can testify that the views of people I have known have found their way into my novels far more often than my own opinions have. My fellow authors and screenplay writers have stated the same thing. Assuming that Homer and Peg reflect Groening’s view of husbands and wives in general makes no sense at all; they are simply two characters.
They may reflect his views, but it’s just as likely that he’s slipping his true opinions into Smithers or Krusty.
Nope–even Matt Groening has said that he deliberately drew Marge as a hottie. The character was deliberately conceived to reflect the hot gal/ugly guy model.
I’m always interested in where the viewer’s sympathies are supposed to lie. From what I can tell, it’s usually with the man, regardless of how much of an idiot he’s supposed to be. The women are often the spoilsports, while the men are just trying to have a good time. And when the men do make really stupid mistakes, they’re usually forgiven/redeemed by the end of the show.
Does anyone see it the other way around, with the women as the sympathetic characters?
I mean, could anybody here honestly say that they would choose to cast the woman who played Mimi over Meryl Streep or Charlize Theron, if they had a chance to cast the latter actresses?
This strikes me as a strange question. First, all these women have been typecast throughout their careers based primarily on what they look like. The woman who plays Mimi–her real name, by the way, is Kathy Kinney–would never have been chosen to play any of Streep’s or Theron’s roles. So we can’t know that Kinney’s less talented than either Streep or Theron. She’s never been in a movie, or for that matter a role, that’s comparable to anything they’ve been in, and it isn’t because she can’t act.
Second of all, “talent” is tied directly to appearance. Rarely is an unattractive person cast in a role that’s intended to gain sympathy from the audience–except for the without-a-man or “Welcome to the Dollhouse” type of sympathy, which is more pity than anything else. They even choose beautiful actresses to play “ugly” roles!
Third of all, it makes no sense to compare a TV actress to a movie actress, or to compare a primarily-comedic actress to a primarily-“serious” actress.
Fourth, why would anyone assume that it takes less talent to be Mimi than any “serious” character? I can’t imagine it’s easy to play a character like Mimi.
And fifth, there are many different movies that require many different kinds of acting. For certain roles, most casting directors would choose Kinney.
The Simpsons has always made it clear that Marge is decisively out of Homer’s league. Although they actually have played with the idea of women being attracted to Homer on a couple of occassions, they are still easily outnumbered by the times Marge is persued by another man. For goodness sake, she was in Maxim. I’ve been told that is a fairly good indicator of the mainstream definition of hotness.
Any discussion of fat cartoon women ought to at least mention Toot Braunstein from Drawn Together, Comedy Central’s animated reality show.
The treatment of Toot is depressing — she’s scripted as the evil character. While she’s overtly sexual, her advances are generally rejected, and she’s portrayed as disgusting and lacking hygene.
Thomas
Pamela Anderson just got a sitcom. Is she quality? Has she ever been intentionally funny?
(sigh) No, just that Steinem managed to eloquently phrase the truth. A positive stereotype is still damaging to the extent that it reduces the stereotyped party to a two-dimensional caricature. The Angel of the House is a good example: not just “thoughtful” and “unselfish,” but utterly devoted to the needs of others. This is not a good stereotype to be associated with–ask Betty Friedan. Turning all women into type-A neatfreak housewives with killer bodies isn’t really better than making them all fat, stupid slobs. And the fact that you think the totally false dilemma bears any resemblance to the dynamic Amp would like to see is pretty good evidence that you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.
What Amp would like, I’m guessing from his posts, is to see a range of human relationships represented on television, and a range of male and female characters. All men are not fat, stupid slobs, and all women are not anal-retentive MILFs. Funny, talented actors of both sexes should not be classed out of TV because they don’t fit the mold. The pervasiveness of this single model is indicative of social prejudice.
You’re right. I shouldn’t say that an artist’s creations necessarily reflect his view of the world, but that what he or she encounters finds its way into his or her work–which is what you’re attesting to here. In Groening’s case, it seems that Marge and Homer were created to deliberately reflect the Honeymooners paradigm.
I think you’re unfamiliar with–or horribly misinformed about–feminism because of what you’ve said in other posts. The idea that, for example, Ann Coulter should be assigned reading in Womens’ Studies courses, or that her absence from the syllabus is representative of anti-conservative bias.
And this:
is making me think that you don’t own a television. The woman just underwent thousands of dollars’ worth of plastic surgery. She’s not to my taste either, but by mainstream standards, she’s very good-looking. And she’s prettier than Raymond of the goofy face and lil’ belly.
As far as commercials, my favorite has always been the JC Penny’s ones. The manage to capture both negative stereotypes without any subtlety.
Man: Where’s your mother? I didn’t even notice she was gone until something in the house wasn’t being taken care of!
Narrator: Here at JC Penny’s! She only left because she was excited about getting more things for prettying up your home, like towels! We know you’re completely incompetent at caring for yourself and your children, though, so don’t worry, we made the sale only 24 hours!
Because the stereotype that women are the protectors of civilization, and the righteous ones, the fairer and better ones, is a viewpoint that harms them. Saying that men are animals who can’t control their sex drive, where as women are more moral and can maybe insulting to men, but it’s the women who have to cover their hair.
And saying men just can’t handle the home is just another, more polite, way of suggesting that women have to stay at home. I don’t think that’s the ultimate point of all the television shows being discussed, but it is a part of the Perpetual Mom myth. Men are granted a lot more freedom because of it, while women are further constrained. I think the portrayal of men is insulting to them, but it’s certainly not meant to show how great women are and that we can do anything. There’s a reason the Perpetual Mom’s usually don’t have outside jobs.
…Exactly. Thanks for elaborating.
Somehow, the idea that women are more thoughtful and capable never seems to translate into greater support for women in power outside the home. Except, of course, for the writings of some of your wackier, more man-hating gender feminists.
Hm. Now I’m thinking of “Super Duper Sumos,” where the three (male) heroes are enormously fat, and the villain is a scrawny (not skinny; scrawny) woman.
I agree with alot of what others said here, there is a double standard on both sides of the issue.
I cannot say with certainty about stereotypes of woman and men who are married with kids how they act or feel about their respective roles I do know what I expereinced as a kid.
I was the youngest out of five, my dad worked the typical 8 hour five days a week job. my mom stayed home. tho my mom didn’t work outside the home her job was tougher. if one of us was sick who lost sleep? my mom. who cleaned up poop, vomit or whatever? my mom. when we needed to be fed clothed bathed, helped with homework even most of the discipline (except the spanking which my dad did when he got fed up) who did it? my mom.
when my dad wanted peace and quiet who was responsible? my mom. when he got fed up with us where did he go? he locked himself in his ham radio room. when my mom was tired and needed a break what did she do? nothing. she couldn’t give the responsiblities over to my dad as he wouldn’t accept it.
but when my mom needed a little extra money for her needs she got a part time job? did that mean she got help with the other responsibilities? absolutly not. my oldest sister when she got old enough helped my poor mom out. when she could.
but my dad did not lift a finger, tho he complained if something didn’t get done, he would just go into his little world when he didn’t want to be bothered, which eventually was all the time.
so my dad only took on something that interested him, anything that was considered gross derogratory or demeaning that was my mom’s responsiblitiy.
and let’s not even talk about vacations, my poor mom did all the cleaning (I was too young to do some of the work) cooking and whatever needed tending including watching us all the time. my dad did nothing.
that is how he was raised, I don’t blame him I blame society’s way of teaching people what is expected of them in their roles in socieity.
have you noticed that the undesirable chores of life are designated to the women, you know the parts that are unglorifying? when you get married if you are a guy (back in older days especially) you could have any kind of career or job you wanted., like you could be a carpenter, or writer for newspaper, doctor (if you had the resources) lawyer, or animal trainer, or farmer or whatever, but if you were a wife your choices were limited to doing the same thing all other women who are married with kids are doing,
laundry, cooking and cleaning and taking care of kids. and to top it all off there was little respect for women in those roles, not like the honor for a guy who is a doctor lawyer, or mechanic or whatever. if you say especially years ago, but it occures now too, you are a doctor or you run a business people gasp with awe. they look up to you as a real go getter someone who knows what they want out of life etc,
but if you say your a wife with 3 kids and you stay at home and care for them it is like O is that all? thats nice and they move on to something else. or they say something stupid like don’t you want to get more out of your life? make some money or somethign? do something worthwhile?
as if rasing children to be productive citizens were a simple unimportant task!! then to top it all off with the utmost indiginity, they throw the responsiblity on the women to always be pretty, thin and in control. (in iran women are responsible for men’s controling their hormones that is why they are made to cover up) men are not responsible for anything. if the household fails it is the women’s fault.
if the man is unhappy it is the wife’s fault, it is never the man’s fault, as far as society is concerned. if a man leaves his wife who do they blame? the woman, not the guy for being a jerk or self centered idiot.
if a man in the olden days (and still in some societies today) commits adultery it is because his wife didn’t satisfy him well enough. it is never his fault for being an insensitive creep.
so prejudices and stereotypes abound, there is no way we can be rid of them, fat guys and thin women, let’s face it society will always be one sided in favor of men (being able to be any kind of person he wants to be except being a pervert). he can be outgoing, neglect his family, he can treat his family very lovingly or be indifferent, he can go out and climb mountains sky dive or whatever and he is accepted, or he can start a business, step on others to get ahead, he can be anything he wants fat thin , sedeatary or active and no one cares,
but let a women do the same things and she is nuts or unlady like, or picking a job that is typically a mans’ job. you know at one time being a secretary was mostly men, when women got into the act being a secreatary lost it’s prestige.
horse handling used to be a man’s domain now most horse owners are women, many books on horse training are by women. tho there are a few men trainers they are few. it seems that when women start to get into something it loses it’s prestige, as if men have to feel superior and being on equal terms in a particular job where women do as well as men and are entering in great numbers is threatening to them or something.
but fatness that is something that seperates the women from the men, a man is fat so what, a women and the earth will stop spinning. people gasp and groan about how fat people are desgusting or increasing the cost of medical care (as if that fatness was needed to cause price increases anyway) they would of increased regardless.
it would be nice if they would just stick to reality and have a mixture of people in different roles on tv and not just focus on one thing.
oh yea the fat actress show is a disgrace, I couldn’t finish watching the first episode that I caught.
RR
Cartoons are not real life. They use stereotypes to strengthen their message. For example, see Ampersand’s own cartoon (called Ampersand): CEO’s are fat, balding males, protagonists are more often female, antagonists are more often male *), etc. I wonder wether cartoonists do character choices consciously or not.
*) I sampled about 10-20 strips for this study. No offense for the cartoon here, the message of it is good – it just seemed like a nice example.
nobody.really
Ah yes, Dawn French, she was great in that one. I thought the episodes were a lot more, but perhaps because I always get mixed up with repeats. Another vote for the Vicar here. Speaking of French… Saunders, ok she’s not really that fat, and she was neurotic, in Absolutely Fabulous, but I think all these sitcoms have something in common that goes beyond the fat/thin thing, or sexism or not, it’s the total shamelessness of characters in indulging in drinking, smoking, sex, eating, and the fact they’re not rich, middle/upper class, stylish fashion victim women who go on and on about the usual clichés of how to reconcile work and family and the fear of being single and be responsible and grow up and settle down… They just can’t be arsed, indeed. And they live in ordinary settings. And they speak in a realistic way of realistic things. And they don’t get beeped.
That’s the kind of tv I want more of. Best of which has to be The Royle Family. Even if I also end up watching stuff like Desperate Housewives because it’s the kind of thing, you start watching it, you get sucked in even as you cringe at all those clichés and al those demands on suspension of disbelief, and you’re going, ah come on… Maybe Americans should stick to crime and law drama (and hospitals, of course), and leave the comedy to Brits ;-)
Ok, Americans win on the cartoon front as well… I don’t watch those a lot, but I don’t think they’re as full of clichés and moralising as the sitcoms.
To be fair to The Simpsons, and I don’t know if this has been pointed out before, Homer’s gluttony, childishness and stupidity is hugely exagerrated as is Marge’s patience. I would actually say that these two characters are a comment on the stereotype itself more than a continuation of it.
All this talk about raging Id got me thinking of the comic strip The Wizard of Id, which to some extent reverses the the cliché in the shape of the Wizard and his wife, but then that a) also ties in with another popular stereotype – the meek tiny (more often than not hen-pecked) husband and the often imposing giantess (Bianca Castafiore from “Tintin” also would fit in with that pattern, especially in the interaction with the diminutive Professor Calculus in “The Castafiore Emerald”, as would Wilma’s mother in The Flintstones, IIRC, and to some extent Margaret Dumont opposite the Marx Brothers), and b) neither Blanche or the Wizard are particularly likeable (come to think of it, at least the way I remember it, there are no characters to sympathize with in The Wizard of Id).
The fat husband/thin wife possibly also goes back a bit further than TV sitcoms – you can see it in “Bringing Up Father” for instance, with portly Jiggs and slender Maggie (although both had pretty unattractive faces – which also ties in with another stereotype from many comics and cartoons: marriage turns people ugly).
Also, in adding my own endorsement to Dawn French and the Vicar of Dibley, I would also like to favourably mention English comedienne, writer and actress Victoria Wood.
Hmm, thinking about this thread and the comments, for me it’s kind of come to a question of intent. Are the stereotypes being glorified and perpetuated, or is the commentary knocking down the glorification and ending the perpetuation?
Meryl Streep typecast?!
She’s played pretty much every kind of role imaginable. Charlize Theron played the lead in Monster – which is decidedly not her image.
Are you serious?
Why do folks have to take what I say to such an extreme? To say that Streep and Theron are superior actresses does not by definition mean that Kinney lack talent.
???
That sounds shockingly sexist to me. If a guy said that, they’d be tarred and feathered, and deservedly so.
That’s not true.
You can’t have it both ways.
Either typecasting is bad, and you should celebrate when beautiful actresses take “ugly” roles, or typecasting is good, and actresses should only take roles that fit their looks.
Actually, it makes a lot of sense. I chose Streep and Theron because they each have unquestioned talent. My goal was to help people realize that there are attractive, thin actresses who have an amazing amount of talent, and should get good roles.
Mimi’s basically a one-note character. I’m surprised that folks here aren’t offended by her, since she strikes me as far more of an insult to fat people than Marge Simpson or Ray Romano’s TV wife.
Thank goodness you’re around, to help us simple folk understand the nature of typcasting in showbiz. Boggle.
Well, that’s awfully lucky of us. Because really, the thin and talented actresses of this world get no recognition whatsoever. For goodness sake, they only keep getting Oscars, Emmy’s, and Golden Globes. And even then an occassional fatty like Kathy Bates steals one away. (at least Camryn had the decency to be belatedly apologetic about her size) A very good thing indeed that they have you looking at for them. Mustn’t be having other people suggestiong fat or non-conventionally attractive people might have talent. What would be their incentive to make themselves proper then? For every Melissa McCarthey who gets the message, there is a Lindsey Hollister waiting in the wings who’ll need to be taught that lesson. Keep up the good work!
piny:
Uh..they’re cartoons. Everybody is a caricature.
It does women no good to act as if they’re at the mercy of whatever shows the networks decide to broadcast. People are far stronger and more intelligent that Steinem assumes. If you’re looking for things that may damage a person’s psyche, odds are that their family and their environment will have much more to do with it than TV shows ever will.
After all, who would want to emulate Jesus or Mother Theresa….
If you were talking about Carol Brady or 50’s sitcoms, I’d think you’d be dead-on. But none of the characters mentioned here are so flawless.
Please read closely, instead of projecting. I never said that Coulter should be assigned reading. (I happen to loathe her and all she stands for.) The point of my question regarding the WS syllabus was that a field of study – especially those that are more intellectual than scientific – should allow for strongly dissenting views. Personally, I would not choose Coulter, were I to suggest a conservative voice. Her name is instantly recognizable though, which made my question simpler.
Since when does plastic surgery guarantee beauty?
roberta:
The way I look at it, if a given character reflects a real person, or certain type of person to a reasonable degree, then you can’t complain about it.
I think it’s fair to criticize industry-wide stereotypes, but it would be a much stronger argument if the critique were expanded to include all age groups and both genders.
The problem though begins when one takes these shows on an individual basis. Even if it could happen, I’m not sure I’d want people outside the creative process meddling with the casting of a show (or the way characters are drawn).
Mikko:
Exactly.
And in the modern day we say that when either men or women do it *recalls the article on unfaithful wives in Newsweek that practically praised the practice outright* -_-
These gender/body stereotypes play out in a particularly zany way in several of Disney’s animated movies. In “Beauty and the Beast,” Belle’s father is short, round, and patently absurd; her mother, as is often the case in Disney movies, literally isn’t in the picture. Of course, the absent mother is a common feature of many of the fairy tales that Disney uses as source material, but nowhere in de Beaumont’s “Beauty and the Beast” is the father described as fat and hapless. To complete the stereotype’s dichotomy, Belle’s mother should be gorgeous and reliable, but that would provide too much competition for our heroine. Besides, Belle herself assumes the role of sacrificing mother when she takes her father’s place in the Beast’s castle. Also, having no responsible person to look after her makes it that much easier for Belle to set off on her own for an exciting adventure.
“Aladdin” is similar. The Sultan is basically Maurice with a beard and a turban, and the closest thing Jasmine has to a mother is her pet tiger. If her father weren’t so generally clueless and out of touch with his daughter in particular, Jasmine wouldn’t have been so inclined or able to escape the palace.
One thing one should also consider is the standard set in a particular cartoon, which not all that surprisingly is different for males and females. For instance, if you do not look at Marge and Homer Simpson in isolation, but in the context of the population of Springfield, then Marge does not really have a model-perfect body (it is not markedly more beautiful than those of most other women in Springfield her age) while Homer looks less fat than quite a few of the regular supporting males (in a crowd consisting of the Comic Book Guy, Chief Wiggum, Barney Gumble, Mayor Quimby and Krusty the Clown, he blends right in, in my view, and young Homer was leass noticeably fat than Martin Prince, Uter and Ralph Wiggum are today). And it would seem that most male Springfielders tend to be at least a little paunchy (even Apu has a bulging belly). While fat women tend to be rarer (and usually older than Marge) in Springfield.
There is also a tendency in cartoons for males to come in a wider and more extreme variety of body shapes than females. And where you have fat or e.g. freakishly short women, they tend to be supporting characters, comic relief or anatagonists, usually clearly not involved in any romantic sub-plot because they are either married or above “a certain age”. And in funny cartoons like The Simpsons it does seem as if for males to work as comedic characters, any body shape BUT the one usually considered most attractive goes (Rainier Wolfcastle is someone you laugh at, not with, and even though he is quite a physical specimen, women tend to avoid Groundskeeper Willie). And of course, since Dryad brought up “Beauty and the Beast”, the physically most attractive male in that movie is a narcissistic jerk.
Re. “Beauty and the Beast”, I’d say it also depends on the effect you are trying to create – in this case what they were clearly after with Belle’s dad was laughs, and that would be easier to achieve with a “funny” body (short and fat being an obvious choice, but they also could have gone for the long and gangly George Jetson or Goofy type or the scrawny, tiny Pappy Yokum type). In “Mulan”, where you have a not entirely dissimilar situation, they played it more seriously, giving Fa Zhou a kind of body which made it believable that he was a formidable warrior before injury and age took their toll, while Fa Li had a kind of “aged gracefully” look with a little weight put on and graying hair. (Of course Grandmother did rather conform to the “energetic midget” stereotype embodied by Asterix and Eve (The Incredibles)). BTW, I wonder if Jasmine’s dad was in any way influenced by the guy who played the princess’s father in the 1940 “Thief of Bagdad”.
Until the end of the movie, anyway.
Coming to the discussion late, but with the discussion of thin noncomedic actresses, may I just inject a note of praise for zaftig Camryn Manheim. Her book “Wake Up! I’m Fat!” is a great read.
Also, fwiw, I’ve heard many actresses comment that comedy is harder than drama. The Oscars may praise dramas more highly, but comedy is more difficult.
I’m coming late to the party too, and this is an interesting discussion. But I think something’s been overlooked about the Honeymooners paradigm. Ralph’s heaviness isn’t just about making him a schlub and incompetent, making him the boy and Alice the mom. It’s also about making him a-sexual. If he’s pure Id, why’s he missing the most salient Id-forward characteristic? A pure-Id guy should be jamming his pelvis at every female in sight, or at least putting the moves on. Unless he’s really a little boy, pre-pubescent. Pre-pubescent is something the networks, the sponsors, the viewers can handle. (Sam in Cheers is sort of Iddish but not at heart, if I remember the few episodes I’ve seen. But he’s not fat.)
And that’s one reason why, IMHO, we don’t have female central characters who are adults and pure Id unless, as many people have pointed out, there’s something wrong with them. The Mom role is adult by definition. The impulse-driven hubby role is childish. (Fat is often seen as a marker for childishness too, BTW.)
If one of the points of this comedy set-up is to define wayward husbands as willful children, the job is easier if they’re a-sexual, because that hides the most prevalent form of waywardness. It also allows watchers to think of it as mere infantilism, and that can make it easier for the women to simply soldier on, as it were. Boys will be boys, seems to be the basic storyline.
I came late to this discussion, but I’ll also contribute these observations:
Lisa Simpson’s chubby, and the episode aired on 11/21/2004 had her worries about her weight as a major plot point. (Two good bits were the girl models at the department store disappearing when they turned sideways, and the store dressers complaining that the mannequins didn’t look right – and then planing material off the mannequins!)
However, adult Lisa has been portrayed as thin, except for the fantasy where she was married to Ralph Wiggum when she thought she was turning stupid.
Two other female characters from Fox Sunday Night of note: teenage girls Maeby and Ann from Arrested Development. Maeby is medium-sized and smart – too smart, a budding conwoman. Ann looks a bit chubby, and is also from a fundamentalist Christian family, but isn’t portrayed as offensive in any way (her parents are a different story…)
Except that Ann’s lack of attractiveness is a frequent joke on the show, Aaron, and a lot of the characters are seen blanching at George Michael’s relationship with her for that reason alone. Of course, that seems to have more to do with her face than any weight thing.
Which wouldn’t be such a big deal, now that I think about it, except that Michael did it and it’s really out of character for him to be mean and judgemental like that.
Amanda – agreed – I don’t know why Michael criticizes George-Michael being with Ann, except that it’s just an example of how screwed-up the family is.
Just my two cents in on Everybody Loves Raymond–on that show, like Married With Children, everyone is an ass–Raymond’s wife Debra is an ass in her own right, if you watch the show for any length of time, you will see that she feels superior to Raymond and his family and regards them as a bunch of uneducated oafs. That being said, the show is terribly stereotypical, I think the only sitcom that ever really approached believability at all was Roseanne.
Really? They make fun of Ann? The couple of episodes I’ve watched, she struck me as a perfectly ordinary looking girl. Which fit in well with the perfectly ordinary looking cast.
I notice there is a sketch show about to debut on Spike TV that features a fat female cast member. While fat men are often seen in sketch comedy, fat women are few and far between. The only one I can think off the top of my head is Lori Beth Denberg on Nickelodeon’s All That. And while a fat girl on a kids sketch show is two kinds of unheard of, they seemed to keep her around just to play adults. Her’es hoping Sarah Baker can fare better.
Kind of off topic, but on, I’d LOVE to see Alex Borstein (sp?), the woman who does the voice for Lois, MAD TV Alumni have a sitcom. She’s fantastic and interesting, as well as being much more of an ‘I-Guy’ for the typical woman.
It’s a running joke on the show that everyone disapproves but no one is going to say so to George Michael’s face.
This is really quite a good article and I think you hit the nail right on the head: American culture would and, in fact, does find fat women threatening. As someone somewhere recently said, “White anorexic girls are our nation’s greatest national resource.”
Two women walk into the room; one woman is overweight, the other one is supermodel thin.
Which woman will intimidate the guys more – the thin woman, or the heavyset woman?
Which woman will the other females react more strongly to?
Personally the reason why there are more fat men than fat women in cartoons is because 90% of the animators, staff, producers are INFACT men. Quite simply put, men are always looking to create attractive female characters THAN a fat one. Why? Because when it comes to drawing women they draw more with lust than with the sense of humor. They leave MOST of the sense of humor to the men. That’s why most men are drawn either fat, drunk, lazy etc. MEN almost always serve the MAIN character, and what comedy would be funny if these men had wash board abs, a high paying job, ooh and BRAINS! Women on the other hand, aren’t so lucky. In most cartoons they’re practically no more than extras the producers HAVE to throw in to make the show. So why would they want to throw in a fat potbellied houswives that are always making a pig of themselves, when they could put in a supermodel figured women instead? It’s pure and simple. Cartoonists use REAL men for the actual show, and humor and use unimaginably fake women in great shape simply to fill in the empty spaces. Women are more like beautiful scenery than actual characters, so why would they be drawn fat?
Seriously, when have you EVER seen an episode of the Simpsons where Marge or Lisa have ACTUALLY made you laugh or have increased viewer ratings? But what about their male counterparts, Homer, and Bart? Can we EVER stop hearing on and on about them in the media? Bart was voted the greatest cartoon character in Time Magazine! Runner up was Mickey Mouse NOT Minnie Mouse. And guess what… there WERE no Female runner ups!
So basically, Men rule the world (well in the media anyway). There are more more shows based on them, more commercials, more cartoons, etc. Most of the episodes, plots, jokes revolve around men. Men do MOST of the funny stuff, while women sort of just sit and nag from time to time.
Infact the male character has become SO powerful, that the female character itself to represent ACTUAL fat women becomes obsolete. If Homer gets fat, it doesn’t mean he’s making fun of fat men, he’s making fun of fat people in general. This is to the extent which Men have generalised everything.
Btw, there MAY be much more adult cartoon shows that tried the fat women thin man thing, but haven’t really achieved that much recognition as ‘The Simpsons’ or ‘Family Guy’ yet. I’ve noted though, that in Children’s cartoons, the FAT women is more used than the fat man.
TV shows based on LIVE actors are different
Take for example ‘Home Improvement’ Tim is ALWAYS in great shape, and he teases his slightly pudgy wife Jill about her weight from time to time. In Frasier, both Daphne and Ross get fat on seperate occasions.
Drew Cary show features an episode where his girfriend pigs out and gets FAT. Let’s not forget Friends, where Monica (though skinny now) is CONSTANTLY reminded how fat she WAS.
I personally think women are MORE humiliated, degraded, and USED in the media about their weight than men. I mean just look at the hype that surrounded when whats her face starred the main role in ‘Bridget Jones Diary’ had to gain all that weight. They made a MOVIE solely about one fat women and how fat she was in ‘Shallow Hal’ (I don’t think I’ve ever seen a movie that starred a Fat man about how fat he was). And the TABLOIDS (ouch) Kate Winslet, Geri Haliwell, Kirstie Alley, all hounded and eaten up alive by the media, and television shows about their weight.
I could go on all night!
Ampersand, I think you hit the nail when you said that SOME cartoons like Simpsons and Family Guy, Flintstones, (Barney is NOT fat by the way and neither is Betty that thin… not according to the Movie) but you REALLY have a LOT more to look around a before you say the same about Sitcoms, or fat women in the media in general. Fat women will ALWAYS be made more fun of than men. Hell we even have an expression made out of fat women
‘It ain’t over until the Fat lady sings.’
Well it’s over now… (sigh)
P.S.
Ooh please check out my website by the way, especially if you’re an FA looking for some Fat girl cartoons and stuff.
With all due respect, I don’t believe your suggestion that your site is FA friendly is entirely accurate. It appears to be weight-gain erotica, which I’ll thank you to know has nothing to do with being an Fat Admirer. The two groups cannot be fairly lumped together.
I agree with some of Santhosh Chris’s points, but as a Simpson fan, I can’t let the following slide: ” when have you EVER seen an episode of the Simpsons where Marge or Lisa have ACTUALLY made you laugh or have increased viewer ratings?”
Marge has made me personally laugh too many times to count, and I believe Lisa is in fact one of the characters that large numbers of hard-core Simpsons fans routinely name as their favourite. Not as many as Homer (and maybe Bart…but didn’t the whole Bart thing cool off somewhere around 1993 or so?), I grant you, but she has a freaking huge fanbase.
Maybe you’re talking about people who watch the show sporadically or watch it mainly for the jokes involving burps and/or butts?
Crys is absolutely right about Lisa and Marge – they are the only sane characters, and the ones with whom I consistently identify (and therefore the funniest). The episode with Lisa and the saxophone payer “Bleeding Gums” was hilarious.
The hot-babe-with-fat-loser syndrome does has some basis in reality – like the country music scene. Dates all the way back to Hee-Haw and beyond. Another reason to hate country music.
Some exceptions though: Superhero comics are directed mostly at male audiences, and most of the male heroes are pretty buff – only the villains are pudgy.
I find pudgy male characters tend to be kind of stupid, which may be another reason why the women are thin and the men fat. TV commercials have driven home the pattern of woman is smarter shopper than man (catering to mostly female buyers, of course) for decades, and now it is part of the culture. Fat just goes with that, I guess. TV needs some really smart fat guys.
It comes down to the do as i say not as i do sentiment, doesn’t it?
Males are this hillarious, childlike influence and are the comedic out put of most shows. They make mistakes and get through them, they have character, people love them for who they are blah blah blah.
Which is great and all…. but how come the chicks don’t recieve such tolerence? See, a guy can be something other than a sexual image i.e funny, smart etc
whereas a woman has to be seen as a sexual creature at all times to be acceptable.
If, however she is outside of that image, then whatever her flaws are become her character. The ugly woman, the fat woman, the annoying woman. No more than characters based on exaggerated faults.
See, a guy can be something other than a sexual image i.e funny, smart etc
whereas a woman has to be seen as a sexual creature at all times to be acceptable.
If, however she is outside of that image, then whatever her flaws are become her character. The ugly woman, the fat woman, the annoying woman. No more than characters based on exaggerated faults.
Pingback: Big Fat Blog | The fat acceptance weblog.
This trend goes far beyond just cartoons and sitcoms. Have you noticed the television commercials for everything from appliances, to home loans, to theme park vacations, to bathroom cleaners, etc? They ALL feature the fat/portly/pudgy man with a slim, obviously hit’s the gym and/or diets to keep her slim physique, wife.
In no time in history have there been this many fat male actors getting work.
It’s a conspiracy, for sure.