I wouldn't be surprised if most don't know that they're paid less than men.

We went to suffragettes to feminists. Maybe we need a new word for today's problems? I vote for equalists!

Just as republicans managed to convince people that up is down, MRAs and ... well not even MRAs but just people who apparently got sick of being reminded that women were treated unfairly, I guess... have somehow managed to convince the public at large that there is no pay gap.

Seriously, bring it up in GD, and watch what happens. It's flipping amazing.

There is a female pediatrician. The mom in the traditional family can out run her husband and appears to be much smarter than he is.

The stereotyped latina second wife of the patriarch is certainly not portrayed as weak, helpless or stupid at all.

One of the teenage daughters is a total brainiac, while her little brother is the opposite.

There is a committed gay couple raising a little girl.

I just don't see the sexism here.

I don't watch that show, so I don't know. Maybe they only refer to main characters?

I know that on TBBT, there used to be a couple more women who were accomplished, and one of those was even 'hot'... but those aren't main characters, so that would be my reason to suppose that they're concerned with the characters that appear on the show week after week. I don't watch the other shows mentioned though, so I really don't know.

you tell me

flippin channels...

mom sittin on a park bench, zoomed on her tits and her saying, i still have nice breasts. this creature i thought a kid but i guess a baby in swing. flies out of swing to sit in another womans lap. pushing her baby off her tit into a garbage can. and him sucking on her breast.

i am appalled cause t that point i think it is a grown kid.

the mom gets the "baby" off the strangers lap and tit and the kid/baby yells something about it wasnt good anyway cause it was a fake tit.

then i turned the channel

modern family? family guy?

oh, and the dads, had strippers stickin their ass in their face, one in a wheelchair.

I've seen a couple of episodes but I found it to be mostly horrible.

i am clueless about modern family then. thanks redqueen

I know precisely zip about Modern Family as well, other than the fact that it's widely acclaimed as one of the best shows on tv at the moment.

that is how much i watch tv

thanks

i couldnt believe you were defending that show, lmao

I bought the first season and can recommend it for anytime you need some side-splitting hilarity. It also incorporates some serious discussion about what is family.

Anyway, it really should be watched from the beginning in sequence. I bought the first season for under $20 and have shared it with lots of people. The third season is on now (I think) and it runs on Hulu as well as network TV.

what was it called. got hooked. and was fun watching like 6 seasons all at once. thinking

gilmore girls.

a couple years ago

But every time we watch it, I reach out to shake the blonde wife/daughter and say GET A JOB.

It's ridiculous. This really isn't how modern families work. She's university educated, her kids are all in school. What the hell does she do all day??

It's a shame in a show that's supposed to be about a modern family, and has all the other bells and whistles. Too much complication to bring two more careers into the picture? Fine, make her husband a stay-at-home or even a work-at-home, and retire the older-generation father and send the second wife out to work. Or even just one of them.

If that were the situation in the sit com -- the two wives worked and the two husbands didn't -- trust me, you'd notice. The fact that it's the stereotyped reverse just doesn't get noticed.

Also, I don't know whether anyone has noticed/mentioned, but that blonde wife/daughter is skeletally thin this year. I don't remember noticing that last year. It's just such a familiar path on TV -- Aniston did it in Friends (not that I watched that!), David Kelly's female leads were required to do it.

Now don't get me started on Parenthood and the whiny blonde non-employed wife/mother in that one, who's had to get some kind of fake job because she decided to have another kid for no good reason. Although, okay, there's a stay-at-home husband/father in that one. You just don't notice him so much because he isn't a whiny quacking pain in the ass. One watches some things just because it feels so good when it stops, right?

I mean, the show fits every stereotype known to mankind into its characters, so Claire is in no way the only character who's a stereotype. That's kind of what makes it so funny, imo...

The Big Bang Theory is the funniest thing I have seen since I Love Lucy. Nothing is wrong with it.

I only started watching in season 2 though I think, and I have to say after watching the pilot, they really have changed Penny's character a lot. She was a complete airhead at first. I'm really glad they didn't stick with that.

uninspired though they may be.

I've always thought that the social culture of war creates a backlash against the 'feminine'. As men increasingly define themselves by the standard of 'warrior' - even if the closest they actually get to it is a video game - their need to shoehorn women into antiquated models of behavior increases.

If men are to perceive themselves as 'warriors' then they have to have something to 'fight for'. Patriotism is always a big draw, but even more than that is the idea of protecting something weaker than themselves. Who better to put into that category than the women. In order for that to work, though, they have to create a view of women that require the sort of protection they believe they need to provide. Weak, unaccomplished, silly, stupid, venal - all those things suggest that women can't take care of themselves. They need protectors.

We have been in a 'war culture' since 2002; plenty long enough for the attitude to filter through society and make an appearance in entertainment media.

I don't really think that equality has ever really 'stuck' all that well with men. Many get it, but more just accept it without understanding it - and a considerable number just parrot the language without believing it at all. Given the slightest opportunity, those latter groups are probably the first to embrace any sense that the board has been redrawn in their favor.

. . . and this makes virtually no sense, but I'll stick it out there anyway. Perhaps someone can clarify my thinking for me!

And I agree, especially with the part about people accepting equality, but not being quite gung ho about it, or committed to it personally.

As for the war culture, I'm afraid I disagree, because I've seen some very shitty behavior from men in other countries, whom you would think would know better... but no. Far from it. I'm talking about online discussions though, so of course those are limited. However the increasing presentation of women as sex objects first and people second seems to be fairly universal.

the killing. i dont watch tv, but stewart and colbert when hubby turns it on. kids dont watch much and never prime time stations. so last handful of years, i am really clueless.

i watched the clip stewart put together and was....

fuck
omgosh
wow
geez

thru the whole thing.

totally brought me down AGAIN with what we live in today.

but I'll be checking it out later for sure. Thanks for the tip.

interest of the Leading Male character. The fact that they are unusual people dating in an unusual way does not alter that. She is dating the Sheldon character. So a person who sees that show and calls her undatable is simply incorrect. And that's just one oddity in this piece.

I think that going by the standards of the majority in society (conventional use), she does seem to me to fit the label.

...I don't know many men that would consider her "undatable" and she's not only (freakishly) brilliant and a bit twisted, but makes A LOT more money than Howard. Let's not forget Priah (sp?). Raj's sister who is an accomplished attorney. Unfortunately, she's also smokin' hot (Amy's words).

The women of TBBT are all incredibly strong and independent.

However re: Bernadette you are right, she's very smart and successful... and also not portrayed as being as undatable as Amy is.

undatable? They do not portray her as undatable her function as a character is to DATE Sheldon. They portray her DATING. How does that portray her as undatable?
I do not get this. We can talk Liz Lemon next. Why does this author care who she dates? Liz is a Show Runner. Mary worked for Lou, Liz IS Lou, on a Network show. Liz dates John Hamm and Matt Damon, then rejects them. Why does the author think this person needs a man?
Mary Richards had no mate. Liz does not either. Mary wishes she had Liz's gig. Yet this author claims things are regressing using Mary and Liz as reasons. The author is simply incorrect and a tad sexist.

does that mean I'm sexist?

Observing the conditions existent in society does not mean you agree with them.

Liz didn't reject Matt Damon. Don't remember John Hamm.

Don't think the woman who wrote this thinks these women "need" men... I think she's making a statement about the way they're portrayed. That's it.

It's not a scholarly article, I thought we could discuss the views presented without dissecting them as if they were presented as if it was scientific research.


Edit to add: This brings to mind a clip I just watched, in which Viola Davis, while attempting to answer the question of why she hasn't had a leading role before, says that she doesn't look like Halle Berry, and Halle Berry has trouble getting roles. Charlize Theron jumps in to protest, saying that Viola is "shit hot"... but this is beside the point. The observation Viola was making was referring to the fact that women who aren't conventionally 'fuckable' get fewer roles. This doesn't mean those women aren't having sex, it's just an observation of the situation as it exists. Viola wasn't putting herself down, she was just stating the facts... and it seems to me that the woman who wrote this is attempting to do the same. I don't have any inside knowledge, that's just how it comes across to me.

It keeps making exceptions to it's own demands.

It mentions in the first sentence "the unemployment rate" for women. But then when most of the examples it wants to use have working women in them, it dismisses the jobs (so because she's a shopaholic, being a nursery school teacher isn't a job?). I'm also not sure how Robin is a "failed journalist" on the show as she was a news anchor on the shows I saw (haven't in a while).

And the mother on 2 and a half men is an extremely wealthy, successful businesswoman. Oh but she doesn't count because she's also a manipulative mother.

And oh, yes on 30 Rock Liz Lemon is a successful working woman and TV executive. But she's undatable (you know, except for all the boyfriends on the show including John Hamm) so that doesn't count!!!!

I also didn't notice any reference to Christina Applegate on that Up All Night show who is a successful TV produce and her husband is a stay at home dad.

Or Whitney (which is a horrible show but I happen to have seen it) in which I believe she has her own business.

Or Happy Endings (on right after Modern Family) which has 3 successfully employed and actively dating or married women on it.

Or that Mike and Molly show (I believe she's also a teacher and shown as no more or less successful than her cop boyfriend).

Or Parks and Recreation which has a strong female lead.

Or the office which has and has had several successful female characters.

Also isn't the character of the girl who played Blossom who is on the Big Bang Theory some kind of scientist? Or is she the undatable one she's referring to? Does she mean undatable in the same what that the other male characters are?

Yeah, there's more dysfunction and under employment than maybe back in the days of the sitcoms she mentioned. But that's also the way life in general has changed. Unfortunately when it comes to working and the economy and employment we're all moving backwards.

But starting with a premise for an article, not looking at the whole picture, and then just picking and choosing aspects of the characters that the author is purporting to analyze is just shoddy writing.

Editing to also add that the article also doesn't address the fact that there are just in general fewer sitcoms on the air any more and more reality shows. So comparing the numbers now to the "good old days" is not accurate either.

I'd be more interested in seeing a study of all tv shows.

so I think expecting rigid consistency is a bit much.

However, to address your points:

It mentions in the first sentence "the unemployment rate" for women. But then when most of the examples it wants to use have working women in them, it dismisses the jobs (so because she's a shopaholic, being a nursery school teacher isn't a job?). I'm also not sure how Robin is a "failed journalist" on the show as she was a news anchor on the shows I saw (haven't in a while).

It's possible for fewer women to be unemployed, but for the portrayal of main characters in the top sitcoms to depict women as being less successful than their male counterparts. I don't watch the show, so I don't know if Robin is a failed journalist or not. I'll leave that for people who currently watch the show to confirm or debunk.

And the mother on 2 and a half men is an extremely wealthy, successful businesswoman. Oh but she doesn't count because she's also a manipulative mother.

It's not that she doesn't count, it's that according to this, in most cases when a woman is depicted as successful, apparently that is also cast in a negative light.

I also didn't notice any reference to Christina Applegate on that Up All Night show who is a successful TV produce and her husband is a stay at home dad.

Um...

But then that's another example of the picking and choosing. That's not a top sitcom either and far from it . So if they're going to look outside the top 5 for good examples, then there are plenty of others out there, including but not limited to all the examples I gave.

Again, 30 Rock, The Office, Parks and Recreation, Whitney, Mike and Molly, New Girl, How I Met Your Mother, Happy Endings and The Big Bang Theory and others all have strong, dating or married women who have successful careers of varying financial reward.

The fact is more that the most succesful shows in general are just usually pretty bad because most Americans have pretty bad taste. I'd chalk any of their complaints up to just bad, overly broad writing.

Also, on most of the shows they use the men are just as horrible at relationships and also not always successful at their jobs either. As I mentioned in my one edit they call the Liz Lemon character "undatable", when the fact is that she's almost always had a variety of attractive and sometimes succesful boyfriends on that show. So how exactly is that "undatable"?

But again, even on the shows they use as examples their thesis doesn't stand up.

But if they're going to open it up to all sitcoms (which they themselves do) then they've got to talk about the whole picture.

I'm not trying to say that women have it easy or that their portrayals are alwyas great on tv because they aren't. And I think there's a good article to be written about that and it's an important subject. This is just a really bad article that starts from a premise and then tries to shoehorn in examples to prove it's point where they just don't fit or are glaringly inconsistent.

I just thought it was an interesting and thought provoking editorial, that's all.

I think Geena Davis's organization probably does the kind of in-depth scientific studies that you're interested in, so I do recommend checking that site out.

I'll add that Parks and Rec is a show on which Amy Pohler, creator of the show, plays the head of a Parks and Rec department who is now running for elected office.
The author is not only picking and choosing they are also misreporting the facts of these characters in a sexist way.

Maybe Parks and Rec is one. I didn't think so, though.

As for misreporting, I think it's less the case that she's a sexist liar, and more the case that she has a different perspective on these things for whatever reason.

Parks and Rec gets more audience than 30 Roc which is finally getting some audience. I want to say that this is an area in which I am really informed and passionate. So that means perhaps too intensely worded. I am always glad to read anyone writing on this issue, and right now I'd like nothing more than to sit down and talk until dinner to the person who wrote that. I kid you not.
It confounds me to hear that framing of the Amy character, as it also suggests that the Sheldon character is not an actual man. She exists as a character to date him. Thus, if she is not date worthy, he is not a real date, and all of this is not correct. This is a really surface thing to do. The show, to me, is saying something unusual and the opposite of what the writer is thinking. The show thinks Amy and Sheldon are kind of sexy. It is like watching someone eat a ham while another tells me that the eating of the ham is to tell us that ham in inedible. The date means she is undatabe. What then does it say of Sheldon? Are they somehow NOT dating due to their looks? When they date, it does not count, as they are not great looking?
So see, I get carried away, and take it rather seriously. I could go on and on. It is as if the writer did not see the shows if you ask me.
On the other hand, on other shows and in general the writing of all people is crappy, shallow and the power is too often in the same old hands. There is lots of sexist crap out there. I'm not sure why the writer holds the word 'housekeeper' as equal to 'nitwit' and I find that tacky. On 2.5 Men, she's the ONLY character who is not deeply flawed, the only one we are intended to actually like much. Unless there is something wrong with her work, she's the only person on the show who is worth a plug nickle as a human. She is also the only working class person on the show. She is the punch line of no joke she does not tell. The rest are full time punch lines at each other, and from her. She is one of a thousand such parts in farce through the ages. That 'type' gets all the first rate one liners and wise cracks. They do not get fatal flaws, they get wit.
I'm going to stop now. The author means well, and we agree on larger points if not the details. I'm glad you posted this! So entertaining. Who needs politics? I got sit coms. Don't get me started on hour long drama, that's where I lose all control.
peace

thank you so much for all that detail! I don't watch anything on her list but TBBT, and I love that show.

And I agree with your point about housekeeper/nitwit... without that background information I had no idea how unfair of a characterization that was.

Thanks again!

Also, please let me know if you post in the tv group cause I like your insights and I'm interested in subscribing to your newsletter.

Where all men are dopey or flat out stupid?

Because it doesn't make for good television. Claire Huxtable was the model of a desirable woman, she was smart, a career lawyer, somehow a mother to like 30 kids, very pretty, sexually uninhibited, etc. etc. But she was soooo boooooring.

Why would you watch a sitcom about people who aren't in funny situations? That's what separated Murphy Brown from the rest of the pack, it wasn't ridiculous. It was intellectual! (Truth be told, the show gets old after 2 or 3 episodes. Not really a series for marathon viewing lol)

are you saying that if all the men are dopey or stupid, that it makes for boring tv?

I can think of a handful of tv shows about dopey stupid men that were fairly popular (Red Green, Trailer Park Boys, Jackass), but maybe a handful proves nothing?

Anyway, I guess I just don't watch enough sitcoms to know if the observations in this piece are completely accurate. It seems to have generated at least a sputtering start of a discussion though... and that, I like.

To complain about the things mentioned in the OP and ignore that men get painted in a certain light isn't fair either.

Sitcoms are boring when there's no conflict. Dumb men and quirky women are the formula that works. Not that it's setting the bar lower for women. Imagine a sitcom with Greg from Dharma and Greg (I hate the show, but I hate the guy even more lol) and Claire Huxtable. There's no humor there.

Everyone does stupid things, my wife and I are no different. Look at King of Queens. All of our friends say that we're a real life version of Doug and Carrie Heffernan. I settle for whatever as long as A) My family is set, B) I get a hamburger. My wife had high hopes and is 20x smarter than I am, but life got in her way so she's not as successful as she'd like to be yet. I may have lost my original train of thought, but my point from MY original post probably sounds a bit better if I explain it without sounding like a dope.

comedy (especially) will be more likely to use stereotypes that we are more likely to laugh at. It's easier to get a laugh with dumb characters, or with caricatures, so ... perhaps the person who wrote this piece picked the wrong genre to go after.

I'm thinking of some of my favorite comedies, and they are chock full of stupid (Father Ted, Trailer Park Boys, Arrested Development, The Exceedingly Poor Decisions of Todd Margaret, etc.)

It's not really comedy if there's nothing to laugh at. Then you're just reading Family Circuis.

I feel like I'm dominating this group, and I don't mean to.

I'm an opinionated person, and I do enjoy discussing and debating my views.

However, I don't want to be overbearing so I want to apologize to anyone who thinks I have been doing that, and I'm stating now that although I can't say that I will post fewer threads, I will make an effort to stay out of the discussions here, and let conversations flow without my butting in.

In my defense, I sometimes feel bad when I don't respond to a post, because I don't want to give anyone the impression that I'm ignoring them. Yes, I'm neurotic.

Where are the Murphy Browns and Mary Tyler Moores of our age? I figured it just made me sound old.

Sitcoms really have gone to hell in a handbasket. That brief moment of glory, Thursday nights on NBC, then poof.

Oh, honourable mention required -- Designing Women!

Claire Huxtable, though, hm, that whole family, sorry, kinda nauseating. Black people can be rich and never actually do any work too. Yawn.

Women went back to being helpmeets with the ... I don't know their right names because I never watched them ... one about a Raymond, one about a handyman or something, Tim Allen, and another one like that. The smart women with the dumb annoying husbands, except the dumb annoying husbands are the ones with jobs and the women just clean up behind them in various ways.

I would have had some hope for that one Kelsey Grammar came back in, except for Patricia Heaton. Bet ya didn't know:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patricia_Heaton

Political and social advocacy

is rather abysmal, especially for women. My wife and I enjoy the History channels, Science. Way more channels to choose from since I was a lop of a lad.

i got hooked on topshots. the only show i watch, lol