On Rachel’s thread about ‘tween girls and shopping, Mandolin and Joe had this exchange:
Mandolin: We’re talking about a society-wide pattern of representation, wherein shopping and materialism have, yes, been condensed as part of a larger narrative wherein women are portrayed as frivolous (interested in unimportant things) and unable to handle money. Check out a few episodes of I Love Lucy. ((I disagree with Mandolin here; I think that I Love Lucy, which portrayed women as constantly constrained by an enforced housewife role, was actually quite subversive and feminist for its time. I far prefer Lucy, who was constantly fighting against the constraints of her life, to the “happy to be secondary” housewife character found in many older family sitcoms.))
Joe: I think the simpsons/everbody loves raymond/king of queens/life according to jim/whatever have done a decent job of spreading that stereotype across gender lines. Fat dumb lazy guy married to thin pushy competent woman has become a staple.
It’s conventional for both feminists and (more frequently) MRAs ((MRA = Men’s Rights Advocate. I’m not assuming that Joe is an MRA, or that he’d necessarily disagree with anything I say in this post; his exchange with Mandolin just brought this stuff to my mind.)) to construct playing the frivolous, lazy and incompetent character in sitcoms as a sign of oppression; that is, feminists say the incompetence of the Lucy character (are her need to always be rescued by level-headed Ricky) is a sign of how women are denigrated in society, while MRAs point to the incompetence of Homer Simpson or Raymond (and their need to always be rescued by level-headed wives) as a sign of how men are denigrated in society.
Although in this instance a feminist, Mandolin, brought it up first, in my experience MRAs bring this argument up more often than feminists, presumably because the male-idiot-spouse is much more common on TV nowadays than the female-idiot-spouse. As “Mens’ Rights Online puts it, “Turn on your TV and you will see the sitcoms and advertisements that portray dads as speechless dolts in the face of the superior wisdom of their wives and 11-year-old children.”
It’s true that these sitcoms frequently utilize — and even delight in — sexist stereotypes about men. And I’m convinced that these stereotypes harm men and boys:
According to Gender Issues in Advertising Language, television portrayals that help create or reinforce negative stereotypes can lead to problems with self-image, self-concept, and personal aspirations. Young men learn that they are expected to screw up, that women will have the brains to their brawn, and that childcare is over their heads. And it isn’t just men who suffer from this constant parade of dumb men on tv. Children Now reports a new study that found that 2/3 of children they surveyed describe men on tv as angry and only 1/3 report ever seeing a man on television performing domestic chores, such as cooking or cleaning. There are far too few positive role models for young boys on television.
But despite all that, I don’t believe that this is an example of how men’s oppression harms men. Rather, I think the sexism against men in these sitcoms are an inadvertent by-product of how men are advantaged in our society.
Because when people list adjectives describing the male husbands in these sitcoms — dolts, incompetents, dumb, lazy, dufus, predictable idiotic territorial selfish doofuses who need to constantly be looked after by their wives, and so forth, there’s an essential adjective that always gets left out: The Lead.
As in the leading role, the central role, the funny role, the better role. What actor in the world, given the choice, would rather play Zeppo than Harpo? The smart, levelheaded, competent wife is the secondary part, which is why the shows aren’t named “Everybody Loves Debra” or “According to Cheryl” (or, for that matter, “I Love Ricky”).
Which sex gets to play the wacky characters who drive plots is a measure of which actors Hollywood is willing to give the juiciest roles and the highest salaries. The sexism in these sitcoms hurts both men and women, and that’s worth objecting to — but it’s not a sign of male disadvantage.
Thanks for not saying I’m an MRA type. I’m not. (or at least I don’t think I am) After I posted that I realized where the follow up comments where likely to go. I’m glad it didn’t happen that way. On a follow up comment I made the point that I don’t see this a big deal since men seem to be doing okay on average. I do disagree with you that this sort of stereotype is particularly harmful. I think it could be, if there were no other positive portrayals available either on TV or in the real world. Since that’s not the case I don’t see any real harm. Those guys need to learn to laugh at themselves a little bit.
Laugh at the buffoon is a common format. Do you think that a desire to avoid giving offense is denying roles to female and non-white actors? I know black people live in Queens. Do you think the “King of Queens” could have been made with a black cast?
yeah, I agree Amp. Furthermore, I feel like, in the end, the dumb husband always wins out, even when he is portrayed as a doofus. He wins out because the wife puts up with his ill-treatment of her, his incompetence with the kids, his “jeez, I just want to watch the game and relax because I Worked All Day (at a real job that actually means something)” attitude – and ultimately, the wife STILL takes care of him, so his poor behaviour gets rewarded in a “boys-will-be-boys” way. Even though the dumb husband is being portrayed as a dumb husband, it’s almost always to his advantage and the wife is stuck picking up the slack and doing all the heavy lifting.
I think these portrayals are reflective of the current US leader, by the way, but that’s another story.
I agree with the stereotype being harmful, to both men and women. I don’t see it as oppression as much as a social phenomena in response to feminism. It’s almost as these shows highlights the stupidity of men for the purpose of saying “see how dumb we are? this is why we need you to be strong by being submissive, because no matter how hard you try… we just won’t get it”. There is a certain amount of responsibility removed by that, and quite frankly it’s insulting to men and women.
Too many people have bought into this, just think how many women you have heard refer to their husbands as a child. It most likely isn’t feminists who do this, because they value equality and being someone’s mother is no better than being their servant.
That was me, not Myca. ;)
I think it is important to add that these men, who are the punchline creator’s are also disproportionately working class.
I frequently notice that MRAs very rarely account for race and class. It seems that the real men they care about are middle and upper income white guys. (But please don’t let this derail the thread.)
Oops, sorry! Yeesh, what a brain fart!
Anyhow, I’ll correct the post.
joe, isn’t/wasn’t (I’ve no idea if the show is still running) there a show with the whole doofus husband/competent wife routine that features one of the Wayans brothers? The little snippets I recall seeing of that seemed to indicate the show was following a similar pattern.
For the record, I think the energy displayed by MRAs is largely misplaced (at least those militant types I’ve ready…namely Fred-x and shit like that). Although they’re fighting for equality, they do so in an unconstructive, mysogenistic way.
I don’t see anything wrong with the Simpsons, either. Every single character on that show is a stereotype of some kind. That’s what makes the show great and worthwhile in terms of critiquing our own culture. Even Chief Wiggum has a pig nose.
Anyway, the fact that the media misrepresents both men and women and reinforces culturally acceptable gender roles is not up for dispute. I happen to think men’s commercials are significantly more objectionable than most shows (although, to be honest, it’s been years since I’ve had cable). Remember the “Michum man” ads? Or the Dial soap commercials advertising body wash for men in a bottle shaped like an oil can?…. with the slogan, “Take back the shower.” Don’t get me started on pickup truck commercials. All of these reinforce a bullshit version of masculinity that keeps men trapped in a generic box. These ads emphasis a hypermasculinity which not only tells men how they are expected to act and respond in society, but more importantly shuns those men who don’t fall under that definition. That is oppressive. Homer just points out the absurdity of it all.
Both/and. While there’s a subversive narrative, there’s also an encoded dominant one. Lucy’s attempts at establishing her own identity are almost always ridiculous, and she is not portrayed as having a realistic understanding of money.
I agree, it’s nice that she chafes, but the chafing still exists within a framework that supports the social whole — Ricky must, and does, rein her in. At the end of the episode, the status quo is restored.
It’s like… Raymond Chandler Harris. Some African American scholars have found subversive messages there. That doesn’t erase the dominant messages that pervade the text; they exist simultaneously. Obviously, though, RCH is a much more blatant example of a dominance-supporting text than I Love Lucy — I don’t mean to equate their social role, just the possibility for simultaneous coexistence of dominant and subversive narratives.
It’s always bothered me that “dumb husband” sitcoms will portray men as dumb but will still reinforce standard gender roles. Lucy must be rescued and taken care of by Ricky, and this demonstrates that women are too stupid for real responsibilities like jobs and preznit’in.
But when Raymond & dumb husbands everywhere do something stupid, no one watches the show and thinks, “Wow, men should not be allowed to run the country.” The dumb husband phenomenon doesn’t cause people to actually question whether men should be allowed to be in charge.
People who watch Commander in Chief are more likely to accept the idea of a woman president, but I somehow doubt that those who watch Raymond & the Simpsons are less likely to accept the idea of a male president.
It seems like negative portrayals of women & racial minorities are more likely to cause harm than negative portrayals of the “power” group.
It’s the end of the semester and so I’m having a hard time developing thoughts on anything not related to Early Modern literature, but if I think of something more developed I’ll post it.
“But when Raymond & dumb husbands everywhere do something stupid, no one watches the show and thinks, “Wow, men should not be allowed to run the country.” The dumb husband phenomenon doesn’t cause people to actually question whether men should be allowed to be in charge.”
Well, part of the humor may derive from the fact that the idea of men as dumb (in ways that don’t have to do with housework/childcare) feels like a counter-narrative, so it provides a gap between expectation and manifestation?
“preznit’in”
????????????????????????? Translation anyone, please?
““preznit’in””
Being president, I think. (a condensation of president-ing)
Just thinking of the Simpsons as an example, I did notice comments a few years back (maybe I haven’t seen any in a while as I’m more skilled at identifying a MRA and avoiding.) Anyhoo, I remembered vaguely that I hadn’t seen many female names in the credits for that show, so I did a google, and sure enough – there might be the occasional woman on this or that episode, but mainly, the people working on that show were overwhelmingly dudes, dudes. So if you wanted to portray The Simpsons as some kind of feminist plot, you were somewhat at a disadvantage, as I pointed out. Not that it got me anywhere, of course.
I feel motivated to do another google and see if the ratio of women writers / other roles has improved since the new series, but it’s friday and I’m too lazy.
Oh, I just googled Everybody loves Raymond, and here are the writing credits:
Philip Rosenthal
Ray Romano
Tom Caltabiano
Leslie Caveny
Tucker Cawley
Mike Royce
Lew Schneider
Aaron Shure
Steve Skrovan
Jeremy Stevens
“Leslie” could possibly be a woman, so that’d be one out of ten, at the very most.
Yes, this portrayal of Dads in sitcoms is teh Feminist Plot, all right!
Just tweaking Batgirl’s quote a bit: “[Bush] & dumb husbands everywhere do something stupid, no one watches and thinks, “Wow, men should not be allowed to run the country.”
And let’s not forget one of the original dumb guy/stern wife reining him in shows: The Honeymooners. It’s certainly not a new idea, which leads me to the question, where does it come from. Is there, like most stereotypes, a grain of truth to the dynamic?
My theory is that it comes from the male self-image of ourselves as big, lovable lugs. Plus, the idea is, “if a lovable loser like that guy can successfully run a family, then heck, I’m not so bad off.”
So yeah, I think there’s a grain of truth, but not in terms of fact, more in terms of perception. The fact that this basic idea repeats over and over isn’t coincidence, I just think it says a lot about how men see themselves rather than about how men are.
LAUGH!
Ahh, Mandolin, it’s not the first time, and I’m sure it won’t be the last.
The only show I can think of that reverses these roles is “Roseanne,” where Roseanne’s husband Dan is indeed a “big, loveable lug” but who also shows his wife love, sensitivity, and cares a great deal for the children.
I remember first being bothered by this stereotype of woman = competent, put-upon straight man, man = lovable, zany clown, in a commercial I watched WAY back in college, showing a dorky guy doing all kinds of tricks with beer cans while in line at the supermarket to impress a conservatively dressed, brunette, thin girl behind him. Her only role in the commercial was to blush and simper at the very end of his antics.
More recently, there is an allergy medicine commercial in which a wife watches her husband and kids spread allergens all through the house by leaving doors and windows open, etc. Then her idiot husband buys a dog, obviously without any awareness of her allergies, while she just rolls her eyes and smiles indulgently and pats the dog. “Thank God for allergy medicine so I can put up with total thoughtlessness!” This commercial drives me INSANE.
I think you might be right about the sitcoms filling a nitch. If I assume that people watch them because they like and identify with the characters than the average male viewers takes pleasure in seeing himself as an fat dumb and lazy buffoon. Or more likely interprets that as a laid back, unpretentious down to earth and fun loving. The average woman takes pleasure in viewing herself as an unhappy, conniving, autocrat. Or more likely interprets that as driving, goal oriented and holding everything together.
Amp, you wrote that these roles benefit men because men get to play the comedic lead. There may be some truth to that. It seems to me that these types of situations don’t get set up with minority casts. It’s not hard to imagine a lot of problems with a show centered on the misadventures and personal failings buffoonish black man. Do you think this fear of offense is harmful? Or are minstrel acts too fresh in our memory for those jokes to be funny?
Damon Waynes had a show called my wife and kids. It was pretty good. But they didn’t play him as a buffoon. He was funny, but his flaws seemed to more along the lines of being over competitive and too driven. I don’t remember it too well but I think he owned his own company, which he’d started when he was young. He had a son that played the part of the buffoon.
Bernie Mac also has a show. He definitely doesn’t play a buffoon.
Well, there was The Jeffersons, a spinoff of All in the Family with some similarities and some differences. George Jefferson was not so much a buffoon (he did run a very successful dry-cleaning business) as a blustering blowhard who was always trying to keep his wife under his thumb and never succeeding. Like All in the Family , the show often tried to address social issues by blowing them up larger than life and putting a humorous spin on them. (I don’t know how successful it was. Truthfully, I don’t remember a whole lot about it as I haven’t seen it in a good 25 years.)
Do you mean, by “successfully run a family”, sitting back and letting the strong, competent woman do all the scut work which the man is too stupid and lazy to do?
And yet *he* gets the credit for “running” the family?
Why would anyone in their right mind think that men suffer from this type of stereotype? It’s an obvious story: male success is guarenteed solely through possesion of a penis, with no regard to individual competence.
Women, on the otherhand, lose despite all and any intelligence, strength and competence. We have our place, and it’s below the husband.
Did you never stop to wonder at the sheer amount of work it take to love a lug?
Yes, Q Grrl, I agree completely. My response was just to the question of why I think this keeps recurring.
I don’t think that this is a case of men suffering at all. I think that these types of television roles support the patriarchy and are written entirely from a male perspective and are blind to the issue of “the sheer amount of work it take to love a lug.”
I’m with you on this.
—Myca
I think a big factor in the loveable lug characters is class. These shows represent a class of “regular” americans. The sports loving, beer drinking, working man who just wants to come home to a warm dinner and a beer in front of the TV. That his wife would both chastize him and infantilize him is part of the culture of “she nags because she cares”. The viewer gets two payoffs, either the sense of head nodding as identification either that “yep, men are just helpless without us women” or “yep, my wife loves me and she’ll put up with me”, or they are laughing at a working class dynamic. It’s stock “Stand by your Man” behavior.
Pingback: Toy Soldiers When is sexism a good thing? «
Q, Myca, I’ve been offended by some of these same trends in television for the same reasons as you, but I don’t think these shows are meant to possess secret, inner meanings, like real women are expected to tolerate the same sort of behavior by their real-life husbands. They’re serializations of specific comedian’s acts. A popular men’s style is a self-depreciating, slightly exaggerated lampooning of immature male behavior. If you turn a successful comedian of this style into the lead in a series, male or female, their spouse must by necessity become their straight man: level-headed and practical, forever saving them from the consequences of their actions and supernaturally tolerant of what would, in a real person, be very serious flaws. Abbott to Costello. I think it works if you can allow yourself to push the reset button and take each episode like a night at the comedy club, because these characters aren’t people, they’re living comic strips, like Calvin and Hobbes. They can’t grow as normal people would grow.
I think that the intent is more or less as you describe, CJ, but intent and effect are two different things.
I think the the effect of these shows is to reinforce the idea that men are buffoons who need women to take care of them, which is bad for women, because it teaches real-world men that that’s what they can (and ought to) expect.
—Myca
Do you think Lucy meant the same to women, Myca? Made them expect less of themselves?
God, I hate sitcoms with idiot husbands, simply because I consider myself to be a competent woman who does NOT want to end up married to an idiot. Honestly, I think it’s somewhat denigrating to the women in these shows that they’re supposedly so smart/pretty yet are married to people who act like dolts all the time. Which is possibly why the only ‘sitcom’ I bother to watch is Scrubs– the two ‘couples’ who have central roles in the show (Turk and Carla; Dr. Cox and Jordan) are both fairly equal pairings.
Genevieve, I agree with you that sitcoms are pretty much junk. But I do think it’s funny that while you think the stereotypes have an effect, you see no problem with teaching the lesson that men are generally losers. I think CJ’s point about the origin of these acts is a really good point.
I think male bufoons are harmless since almost all the other white guys on TV seem to be doing fairly well. And I also don’t know how important stereotypes really are in general.
There was an episode of “According to Jim” were Jim does the grocery shopping; subsequently it becomes the chore he’s always asked to do; he hatches a plot to become incompetent at it so that he can get away with never doing it again.
This is hilariously revealing of the dynamic at work on the male buffoon sitcoms: “If we can successfully portray ourselves as idiots in need of someone to take care of us, maybe women will take care of us and not ask anything from us.”
Bad for men AND women.
I think what you’re describing is more male wish-fulfillment than anything else. Most guys would love to be able to just sit and watch TV and drink beer all the time. But if you’re a homeowner you’re busy taking care of that home: repairs, yard work, etc. That image is fantasy, because someone has to take care of the home. A working class family can’t afford gardeners and the like.
I’d be willing to wager that most sitcom watchers are male. Sounds like the world needs some female-oriented sitcoms.
I think that the best thing to do is to reverse every statement.
If we see a male being punched on a sitcom by a woman, we should think “What if a female was punched by a male on a sitcom”
I think when we buy keyrings and T’shirts that say, “I am a bitch and proud of it”, we should think how it would feel if we saw someone wearing a T-shirt or having a key ring saying the opposite.
That is the best way to see how the other side feels.
Except that your idea ignores the different histories and social contexts which affect the ways that men and women move in the world.
Except that framing everything in terms of differential history and social contexts strips away the common humanity that we all share. It hurts to get punched in the face, or raped, or told you’re a fat loser. Surely, the differential context makes a difference in an abstract way, when we’re talking about the cumulative effects of a phenomenon.
But we all feel the same pain, and we forget that at the peril of our very souls.
“But we all feel the same pain, and we forget that at the peril of our very souls.”
But we don’t all feel equal pain at equal insults.
Moreover, there’s a difference between a linguistic argument (“bitch” is a loaded term) and a physical act, so I reject your attempt to condense them in the prior comment.
But we don’t all feel equal pain at equal insults.
Yeah, so? We’re all people, and we all hurt. Fine, social mockery against men on TV doesn’t hurt in the same way or as much as social mockery against women. It still hurts, and the reversal of “how would you feel if it was you” is a perfectly appropriate test to apply. People aren’t morons (well, some people, anyway) and can make a cognitive adaptation to recognize whatever differences are relevant. (“Gee, if that happened to me, it would be even worse than it was for you…but it would suck for either of us, and I sympathize with your pain.”)
“and can make a cognitive adaptation to recognize whatever differences are relevant.”
But that wasn’t the argument. The argument didn’t include an adjustment for history, context, or power. It’s disingenuous of you to suggest it did.
The argument was: “If we see a male being punched on a sitcom by a woman, we should think “What if a female was punched by a male on a sitcom””
And there’s an obvious difference in the power that a *depiction* of violence against women has in this social context, and the power that a *depiction* of violence against men has in this social context. One can take a stance saying that they’re both wrong, but they aren’t *equal.* Men and women are not cogs which can be swapped in and swapped out, without the situation changing.
You want to argue that people know intuitively how to change the situation to adjust for power, then make that argument. But it isn’t the one on the table.
Of course they aren’t equal. But julie wasn’t suggesting that they were equal; she was suggesting that this reversal is “the best way to see how the other side feels”.
And I think she’s correct. If you want to know how someone feels, you have to put yourself in their shoes. Sure, their shoes might not fit you exactly, but you’ll get an idea. The suggested goal is emotional empathy, not analytical precision.
Asking them directly would probably provide better information, but we usually don’t have that option when dealing with things like TV. The producers or writers can’t go out and poll 150 million Americans of the opposite sex.
Most people, when feeling, don’t stop to think “but wait, what about the intersection of race, class, and gender!” We feel what we feel. If (say) I call a woman a bitch in an argument, and she asks me “how would it make you feel if I called you a mean name right now?”, my empathic reaction does not need to understand the differences of history and context and power to come up with the answer “It would make me feel bad. I just made you feel bad. Shit, I’m sorry.”
“I think when we buy keyrings and T’shirts that say, “I am a bitch and proud of it”, we should think how it would feel if we saw someone wearing a T-shirt or having a key ring saying the opposite.
What do you think would be the opposite of this?
I’m all for empathy. But – like other folks here — I think that in many cases it’s better to try for empathy by taking account of different contexts, rather than by ignoring different contexts.
I also worry that just “reversing the sexes” in any situation can be just as easily used to justify a lack of empathy (“If I was in that situation, I wouldn’t think it was a big deal, so why is she whining so much?”).
Regarding the harms of the main character of something like “Home Improvement,” I actually don’t think the primary harm is men’s hurt feelings; I frankly doubt that most men’s feelings are hurt by that sort of thing, anymore than most women’s feelings are hurt by seeing Julia Louis Dryfus play an incompetent fool in “New Adventures of Old Christine.” (Hey, I just used Julie’s reversal!) But when a stereotype is played out not just in one show, but in many shows, I worry about the role models being sent to the next generation. (This may be especially important in light family sitcoms, which are perhaps more likely to be watched by kids with their parents).
Sorry, CJ, missed your question until now.
I tend to agree with Mandolin in her comment #9 in that I Love Lucy both reinforced and subverted the traditional narrative . . . I guess the Simpsons might be an example on the other side. That is, both shows present an essentially sexist narrative, but do so in such a way that they simultaneously undermine it.
I think part of the difficulty in coming up with a female ‘equivalent’ for this sort of thing has to do with the lack of female-based sit-coms on television . . . which, once again, is also sexism. If we need to go back to I Love Lucy for an example, I think that tells us something.
Of course, the next most obvious recent example of a popular female-headed sit-com would be Roseanne, which I think deliberately subverted all of this . . . both Roseanne and Dan were the ‘funny one’. Both Roseanne and Dan were ‘the straight man’. Both and neither were incompetent.
—Myca
Right. I think the reversal can be useful as a tool to spur empathy, but like the golden rule, it’s often more useful to ask not ‘how would I want to be treated were I in their circumstances’, but rather ‘how do they want to be treated?”
—Myca
You’re describing a personal interaction, not a mass media message. People who are encoding mass media messages *do* have to work with finer instruments than “mean name” versus “not mean name.”
The problem isn’t that my feelings are hurt when a woman on TV is shallowly depicted as enjoying a rape. The problem is that this shallow depiction plays into a common construction of women as rapable, and of rape as okay, or even loving. That conception is part of our cultural narrative, the narrative which makes it more possible for a teenage boy to rape a teenage girl and see it as a compliment, or as loving, or whatever other bullshit excuse it is.
And these are the kinds of places where uninformed role-reversals go wrong. *I* wouldn’t mind it if lots of random girls grabbed my butt, so why is she complaining about the acceptance of sexual harrassment against women in my script? And etc.
You’re trying to condense a bunch of different types of behaviors, Robert. Name calling =/= physical act, neither of which is equal to media narratives or depictions of name calling or physical acts. The original comment was about media depictions. These cannot be appropriately governed with the rudimentary rules you present for navigating name-calling in personal relationships.
Political Narratives: Shaping How We Think at Ambling Along the Aqueduct:
[…]I think that one of the strongest effects of culture on the human psyche is to shape the narratives that we use to dissect the world. These narratives give me a lens for interpreting what happens to me. I, as a western woman, am likely to interpret my choices from an individualistic perspective. I decide things. I make them happen. In Invitations to Love: Literacy, Love Letters, and Social Change in Nepal, Laura Ahearn discusses the ways in which Nepali women will talk around the concept of agency[…]
I don’t see how this stereotype harms women. So far, I’ve read that women lose out because they are left to take care of the incompetent husband. Is this good for men? The viewing audience will still praise the enduring wife as the heroine and the layabout father will be funny, but everyone will still think of him as “the guy on the outside of the joke”. Men should be taught independence, that they can take care of themselves. Men do not carry out chores in the average sitcom because it takes the “long suffering wife” persona away from the woman. Sitcoms like this are trying to portray women as the “unsung heroes”. This is what needs to stop. Men should take care of children and be capable. Men shouldn’t need wives to keep them on the right track, this just supports the idea in today’s society that men cannot function properly without the help of a woman.
Pingback: Boomer Women on TV This Fall - Is This a Good Trend? at Going Like Sixty
Pingback: Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » Men’s Legitimate Complaints
I’m replying to this because one of the shows you mentioned happened to be the simpsons. not only does it portray Marge and Homer in a very sterotypical buffoon/male, pushy/female marriage, but if you look at the roles of other characters on the show [other than possibly Lisa (maybe they think she makes up for it)], the women have jobs like teacher, lunch lady, and day care while the men are doctors, lawyers, and millionaires. Most of the women are housewives. Though the show has it’s moments, I still wonder what kind of effect this really does have on young men and women.
what about the movies? men are portrayed as violent or as no good jobless losers. I don’t think men are advantaged when a man plays those type of roles.boys see those things and think just because they’re boys they are doomed to failure.
I love Lucy is not showing anymore but the simpsons and everybody loves raymond are so I don’t know what’s the problem with that feminist.
what about when they show women slapping men but not vice versa,they are saying it’s okay for women to hit men but not for men to hit women.
Othsma, I really think you didn’t understand the argument I made in my post.
As for women hitting men (but seldom vice versa), I agree that this is about sexism. However, I’d say that it reflects sexist tropes which are bad for both women and men, rather than being bad only for one sex.
well, you didn’t metioned movies. If I didn’t udnerstand please explain to me what you said.
Gotta disagree about the portrayal of men being a product of them being advantaged in society. If a specific group, in this case men, was really more powerful, advantaged, privileged than another then the greatest evidence of this power/advantage/privilege would be the lack of criticism of this perceived advantaged group. Noam Chomsky in his book “Manufacturing Consent” talks about this in depth in his chapter on “Worth and Unworthy Victims”. Men are the unworthy victims in current western society, neither worthy of acknowledgment of their grievances nor worthy of reparation for their grievances. If men were truly in power and controlling, negative message about men would not be saturating popular culture like it does. The straw man argument that typically justifies the view that men are powerful is to point to the historical preponderance of male politicians, CEO’s, or men holding seats of power while ignoring the fact that a man is orders of magnitude more like to be homeless, a trash man, or unemployed than he is likely to be in a position of power. Men are more likely even than women to exist in the underbelly of society and because men can’t give birth they also can’t qualify for welfare from the state. Because it is perceived that all men have power and privilege because of the socio-economic power of few, men and boys cannot qualify for any government protectionism including initiatives for men in education, improved health care funding for men, child custody rights, reproductive rights, genital integrity, prosecution equality (men server longer sentences for committing the same crimes as women). It is illegal to circumcise a girl while it remains legal to circumcise boys, despite the fact that the most common forms of female circumcision remove less flesh than routine infant circumcision of males. Circumcision in the west is a classic case of the worthy and unworthy victim paradigm. In this case a crime committed against men is ignored and marginalized while the west simultaneously condemns equivalent crimes against women in other parts of the world.
I’d like to know what you all think about some newer sitcoms: the New Girl, Big Bang Theory, or How I Met Your Mother. Are these sitcoms evolved? Do they have the correct female/male dynamic? Are children who grow up watching these shows doomed? Just wanted to hear people’s thoughts.
Pingback: UN Women Ad Campaign Response | Tom Burns
Pingback: TOWARDS A PROGRESSIVE MEN’S MOVEMENT | A collection of published and unpublished essays written by David Heslin