Spare us your pop psychology. This comes down to the question of whether women should be treated differently than men. The whole idea of the women’s movement was that men and women are equals. Women can be emotionally strong, and men can have emotions. Let’s please, please drop this outdated crap that women are frail, hysterical creatures that fall apart at the slightest setback, while men are strong, silent, and unfeeling. It’s just utter bullshit. It’s also self-fulfilling. Women are supposed to be over-emotional, so a woman who is self-possessed and assertive is made fun of, called a “bitch” or a “dyke”, while a man who shows his sensitivity is called a “wimp” or a “pussy”. Then, after imposing these roles on everyone, we so glibly announce that “men and women are different”. OF COURSE they are - we force them to be. I’m sure there are some innate differences, but most of it is societal expectations.
It’s funny how the only kind of counter-argument one ever gets in these kinds of debates is ad-hominem, i.e., “Don’t be a wimp”. :rolleyes:
One of the worst I’ve seen is a commercial for a Honda SUV where the man of the family is acting quite literally like a dog, with his head out of the window and tongue hanging out of his mouth, and when they reach the forest, he jumps out of the car and runs around like a dog would, all while his “mature” wife looks at him like he’s a complete moron.
Can you imagine what the outcry would have been if the situation was reversed and a commercial showed a woman acting like a dog?
I think it does have an effect. I have seen many young couples in the US where they are “acting” out the idea that the man of the couple is somewhat of a dunce and immature (although all in a “joking” manner), but when I visit countries where such anti-male stereotyping does not occur, couples don’t behave like that.
In fact, my wife, who is not from the US, has noticed the trend in US media and is pissed off by it.
Of course, it’s not clear which way the causality goes. Does the US attitude towards men affect their depiction on TV, or does their depiction on TV affect the attitude towards men.
One small observation is in couples where the guy is acting out the role of the “dunce”, the couples tend to be young (20s) whereas I have not observed this in older couples as much. This might indicate that the depiction of males is causing the current attitude amoing younger couples. Anyway, just an observation.
What Rune said. Men are the last class of people that can be made fun of without fear.
Sorry, didn’t mention the Jetsons and Bewitched, but I think the point still stands that most of these sitcoms are recent. (And the list ommitted several more recent ones like “Mad About You”, “Men behaving badly”, “According to Jim”, “Home Improvement”, etc)
You know, you people are right. I should feel offended and hurt that I, a fat, hetero, white guy with an attractive wife who is smarter than I, am being stereotyped in the media as stupid and boobish, a pink Homer Simpson. And if I weren’t too busy making three times as much money as my wife I’d complain about it, too. :rolleyes:
I see it as my duty as a member of the Ruling Class to let the little people take their puny potshots if it makes them feel better about themselves. Noblesse oblige can be such a burden sometimes.
How about the commercial with the men who go camping with their new SUV and as they’re out in the woods the song ‘Dueling Banjos’ from Deliverance starts playing. They hear it, fear getting raped (as in the movie) and high tail it out of the woods in their SUV.
I didn’t think that was ‘cute’ or ‘funny’ at all, and it certainly wouldn’t be acceptable for a commercial to make a joke about women getting raped, or fearing getting raped.
Or how about the one where the little girl is doing her homework on the Internet and her father is in the room. The mother comes in and scolds the father about how the little girl doesn’t need his dundering idiot self around because she can handle it on her own, and the mother and daughter share the whole ‘got that idiot man out of here’ look?
All in all though, the commercials don’t bother me as much as the pervasiveness of anti-male t-shirts, stickers and buttons I see the younger girls sporting. It must be hell to be a boy in elementary school with all those ‘Boys are stupid. Throw rocks at them.’ and 'Boys lie. Poke ‘em in the eye.’ and ‘Boys are icky.’ messages floating around.
How about Tim Allen? 1990s. Sean Finnerty, Doug Heffernan, Hal, and Raymond Barone are all currently on TV, and as far as Homer Simpson goes, they may’ve started years ago, but are still producing new episodes of that show.
To an extent I just suck it up, 'cos if I made a noise about everything that irritates me I fear I’d start to sound whiny-assed (checks his English to American dictionary), but I did see a poster that really lit my fuse a year or two back. It was advertising a car, which I’ll call “the Crapola” for no particular reason, and the poster didn’t show the car at all, only a picture of a trousered male crotch with the crotch-owner’s hands cupped over it, either protectively or therapeutically, I’m not sure which. The caption was “The Crapola. Ask before you borrow it.”
Get the message, boys and girls? And a lovely message, to be sure. :rolleyes:
Were told by who? Me? Well since you found me out I’ll let you in on more of my dirty secrets. I am the one responsible for the generally lower pay rates for women - and I intend to keep it that way. I am the one who keeps women out of math, physics and other exact sciences. I am the one who ensures that a pregnant employee is treated like a liability at most companies. You may have won one by making me look like an idiot on tv but its not over yet!
If you’re really worried about impressions on children growing up watching TV, you should check out Nickelodeon sometime.
I never objected to my kids watching Rugrats or Ren & Stimpy, but the commercials in between were appalling. The common message being that parents are uncool and clueless about the wonders of this cereal, candy, toy, etc.
Homer Simpson isn’t portrayed though as being stupid because he’s male-but because he’s well, Homer Simpson.
This is why I refuse to watch sitcoms. The wife is usually a shrill, superficial, materialistic harpy control freak and the husband is the big dumb schmuck who can’t find his ass with both hands and a flashlight and thinks only about sex.
What was that about holding sons responsible for the sins of their fathers? Perhaps all white people should let blacks and jews call them names, burn crosses in their yards, and lynch them. After all, Joe-Bob’s great-grandfather had Leroy’s great-grandfather for a slave and he beat him all the time, so it only seems fair for Leroy to take it out on Joe-Bob.
I’m not sure if I believe in karma or not, but I don’t think it works that way. :rolleyes:
Mr Punch believes in knocking trouble on the head - literally. His story springs from a more chauvanistic age when Punch was seen as an Everyman character beset by the popularly perceived burdens of the common man: The nagging wife, the mewling brat, petty officialdom, the medical quack, the strictures of the Law and the fear of damnation.
Punch meets each tribulation with the cheerful use of his Slapstick and makes quick dispatch of wife Judy, the baby, beadle and the doctor. The constable and the public hangman are similarly served and Punch’s final triumph is against Old Nick himself. “Huzza Huzza, I’ve killed the Devil”.
In the Victorian age when this story was developed there would have been a great deal of sympathy with Punch. Today, with a different attitude to marriage and family life, and with greater respect for authority, the story is often modified although the general pattern is retained. The main change is in the audience. In Victorian times the showman was definitely aiming his wit at an adult audience whereas today the Punch show is considered a speciality for children.*
So there is nothing new about the idiot husband stereotype. At least now he’s channeling his rage into passive aggression, acting like a blundering moron, instead of outright violence. (and now I’ve got to work the phrase “mewling brat” into conversation)
To some extent, I think the persistent media stereotype of men as dumb and clueless about household arrangements, clothes, etc. (which I agree is very tedious and annoying) is being perpetuated by tensions over social acceptance of homosexuality.
Male homosexuals are frequently stereotyped as clean, neat, knowledgeable about fashion and decorating, good housekeepers, etc. Many male heterosexuals are very averse to the idea of resembling homosexuals in any way. Doing or liking something that is popularly associated with “gay” can be very troubling to them.
Maybe this is part of the reason that audiences are still willing to accept media depictions of (heterosexual) men as clueless dolts around the house. It may be insulting their intelligence, but at least it confirms their “masculinity”.
Lots of comedy has had women who were portrayed as flighty, helpless, or stupid. Most often, those women aren’t married, though. The stereotype is that married men are stupider than married women, and unmarried men are smarter than unmarried women. Unmarried women are completely in thrall to their desire to get married. Once married, they have the upper hand.
To me, this is merely a play on the old idea that marriage is a blessing for women and a shackle for men. Marriage saves women and entraps men.
I disagree. I think that tidy, stylish gay men are held up as ideals simply to give one more thing to yuk it up over clueless straight men about. IHNSQEFTSG, but I thought the idea that the show was demeaning was right on the money - in that it implied that straight men were so hapless they absolutely needed to be set on the right path by a buncha cool gays.
Also, I’ll lay a spot of the old six to four that a random browse through a women’s-magazine rack will yield, minimum, one article about why all women should have at least one homo friend. Good luck to 'em, for all of me… except insofar as it’s yet another part of the constant drip, drip, drip about how practically every lifeform from the common newt upwards is superior, and preferable company, to the traditional masculine straight male.
FTR, I’m secure in my sexuality, can both pack and unpack the dishwasher, and if anything, am slightly Mrs M’s superior in the kitchen.
:smack: