Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
While I suppose it's de rigeur to suggest that women are more often (or at least more negatively) stereotyped on the small screen, I've long thought the opposite true: male stupidity and inability are central themes of television and have been for some time. Compare Homer and Marge or, a generation earlier, Fred and Wilma. Husband is unquestionably a moron and wife picks up all the slack. (And then consider what's being imprinted on youngsters watching.) And it's not just cartoons: the screeching idiot father on Malcolm in the Middle; the obvious intelligence gap between Sam and Diane on Cheers or Tony and Angela on Who's the Boss?. No doubt you can make a list of contrary examples, but broadly I think Traister is confirming a trend not discovering a new theme.
I would offer one possible explanation, at least for the comedy. Going pantsless is simply not funny unless its a male character. I don't think this is a cultural artifact but something a little more primordial: scenes that involve physical injury or juvenile stupidity simply don't make us (women and men) laugh when a women is involved. Can you imagine a woman being anally raped by a baboon in a sitcom? Would anyone find any amusement in it whatsoever? I doubt it--more likely, the producers would be arrested.
It's sad that they can't make shows where men behave like normal people whether or not they make more or less money than a woman. A lot of guys spend time with their kids without losing an inch of their self esteem, rather the opposite. Stupid tv-people create fake problems. There are, of course, some men who have very low self esteem and need to feel superior to women. They might not be very successfull in the long run. Who want's to spend time with something like that?
You didn't answer why women were not content with their homeward bound status and fought for the right to be lawyers, bankers, etc.
You did answer why the high-powered status job may not be as advertised, but you did not answer in any way at all why it was that many women wanted out of being "kept women," baking bad-ass cakes and kicking ass at the PTA.
I look forward to your response.
if 65 means you are 42, you still have time left(but not much) to have a real life with a real woman, but you have to change your attitude. whereof do i speak? i noticed 40 years ago (i'm 62) that i was having a lot more luck with women than my friends. however a "long term affair" would last two weeks. why is that? the only possible explanation is looks. i couldn't see it myself, but i guess i must have been good-looking. (i was one of those who didn't age well - if my wife of 25 years met me now, she probably wouldn't be interested.) you have to face the facts, a woman is essential for a happy life but they are different from men. they are more shallow (ok, "socially conscious"). if you are fat, you must lose the weight (for some reason women obsess over weight, even of others). on one of your innumerable posts, you say you dress well - good. i didn't have to, but then i was good-looking, if you're not, you have to help out nature. once you have a relationship, and if, fortunately, you get one (accidently) where "the rocks in his head fit the holes in hers", you can have a wonderful life. all is yet open, but not in 20 years.
LeCastor! nice to see your name! but as usual, i disagree with you (back to former persona). you say, "France has a women's labor participation rate of nearly 80%, while the US cannot break 60%? How about our college degree attainment rate of only about 23%?" what's so great about WORKING? i thought the french were more civilized. they mandate two people working, but they each only work 35 hours? no wonder they have to pay people to have children! there are 3 women for each 2 men in college. School is for Girls! everyone knows that. didn't used to be, but now it is. and on top of that, how many people *ought* to go to college? One manager per worker? (with undocumenteds doing all the scut work)
@LeCastor sentence error...
...and decided to fight for the right to have that 70-hour/week job...
...while still wanting to be wined, dined and bejewelled on weekends by a man who earns more than they do.
I fixed your sentence for you.
You don't have to thank me.
-- Linney Uston
I don't want to be wined and dined, and especially not bejewelled, by any man, no matter whether he earns more or less.
Besides, at what I'm earning, there are only a small class of the i-banker-lawyer-etc. stratum of society that earns more than me. And as more women take over those high-earning jobs, the relative number of men earning that much is in fact shrinking.
This is a great article, but I question the logic of the last paragraphs. Men are only "feminized" insofar as they are relegated to what they perceive to be a lower slot on the social totem -- the one they have traditionally associated with women. That doesn't mean every characteristic that is ascribed to a "feminized" man is applicable to "females" as a category.
No, we don't think you freak out and get angry when we have more money than you do. No, we don't (always) think you flip out when a man comes on to you -- though that one's more up for grabs, since people of all stripes tend to flip out when somebody they don't want to hit on them hits on them. No, we don't think you end relationship because you've been passed over for promotion -- though it's got to be awfully frustrating by now.
By your own system of ascendancy, though, a male wouldn't be simply re-inscribed with female characteristics -- he would view a woman as a usurper. Hence the bitterness. It's not about a simple flip-flop in which everything male becomes female and everything female, male. Women, instead, become the lovable underdog who, through unbridled tenacity, make that shot to win the game. And then we don't see the other team, the team that was "supposed" to win, onscreen for the rest of the movie. So, these shows are a glimpse into that locker room. Are they good shows? I have no doubt that they are not good shows. But, to expect no bitterness -- to assume bad sportsmanship is somehow equated with a distaste towards everything women used to represent that men have somehow come to represent -- just wouldn't be fair. I'm not saying men aren't babies. But, one of the perks of being a loser is, you get to be a baby sometimes.
You worry that men on these shows are too "unattractive, or silly-looking"? Shoot. Sometimes that's just how we are. Submissive. Beaten down. Pansy-assed. Buffoons, caricatures, dopes or just angry, neutered bastards.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
Salon headlines in your mailbox
