Does True Feminism Exist Anymore?

[Knask]

You know what, I'm convinced. You've won me over. To be clear, I didn't change my mind because of the link you provided since that was obviously just a misclick from your side (it didn't actually support your point when you read it)

It actually did support my point on the rise of the "dumb dad" ... in spite of being written from an opposing perspective on the interpretation of what that meant.

Despite this discursive containment
of women in early sitcoms, it is striking
that over time the genre seems to have
worked out a peculiar representation of
men. Fathers and husbands in situation
comedies often play by different rules
than men on other kinds of television
shows. For example, Muriel Cantor
writes, “The dominating, authoritative
male, so common in other genres, is
rarely found in domestic comedies”
(276). According to her, domestic
comedies do not feature “macho men”
because the major theme of domestic
comedies since the 1950s has been “the
myth of female dominance and breakdown
of male authority” (283).

That's why I think you linked to something you didn't mean to. Your claim that there's been a "recent growth of stereotyping male partners as dumb and incompetent" simply isn't supported by the paper. We see it more in a certain specific subset, family sitcoms (since anything more than 0 equals growth, and we've identified a couple which aren't obvious satires), but I'm sure you had a different and very persuasive source in mind to prove that men are being portrayed as stupid and incompetent in media.

Hey, you mentioned action movies, maybe that's the paper you were looking for? You should post that. For the ladies and gentleman. Not me. I'm absolutely convinced already.

I watch comparatively little TV

What?? No! I would never have guessed, you're displaying truly expert knowledge!

Homer Simpson has his moments. Peter Griffin has his moments.

Peter Griffin does? When?

Consider the standards that you're using for good dad.

I'll be using your standard in the future, where the normative ideal of good fatherhood is someone who is physically abusive and neglectful if not worse, but claims to love his family and that makes it all OK.

You say Richard Castle is far from the paragon of fatherly competency because he doesn't understand his teenage daughter, and you say he's good father in the same ways that Homer Simpson, a violent, neglectful and abusive alcoholic, is a good father. You have set quite a remarkable standard for good dad. In addition, according to your standard, Peter Griffin, a man who've abused his family in incredible ways including outright murder, is a loving and caring father.

It's a simple standard to have. If we can't have perfect dads, at least we can have abusive good dads.

[Tahar Joblis]

It actually did support my point on the rise of the "dumb dad" ... in spite of being written from an opposing perspective on the interpretation of what that meant.

Despite this discursive containment
of women in early sitcoms, it is striking
that over time the genre seems to have
worked out a peculiar representation of
men. Fathers and husbands in situation
comedies often play by different rules
than men on other kinds of television
shows. For example, Muriel Cantor
writes, “The dominating, authoritative
male, so common in other genres, is
rarely found in domestic comedies”
(276). According to her, domestic
comedies do not feature “macho men”
because the major theme of domestic
comedies since the 1950s has been “the
myth of female dominance and breakdown
of male authority” (283).

That's why I think you linked to something you didn't mean to. Your claim that there's been a "recent growth of stereotyping male partners as dumb and incompetent" simply isn't supported by the paper. We see it more in a certain specific subset, family sitcoms (since anything more than 0 equals growth, and we've identified a couple which aren't obvious satires), but I'm sure you had a different and very persuasive source in mind to prove that men are being portrayed as stupid and incompetent in media.

The paper has very little to say about things that are not sitcoms. It shows dramatic growth of the "dumb dad" - inept and stupid (and unattractive, adds the paper). It quotes one person as saying that there's something unusual about the depiction of men in sitcoms, in particular in lacking a type of male character.

The paper does not say - not even in quoting others - that the role of men onscreen outside of sitcoms has not changed. Note that the paper goes as far as to not only provide a contradictory view to Cantor's statement, but that "these findings contradict Cantor's observation" - in referring to the authors' own claims.

My base claim is that there has been a recent growth of stereotyping of men as dumb and incompetent. This is visible in television (the base claim does not have to do with television, but television at the least tends to reflect extant stereotyping), and in particular in sitcoms. If no change whatsoever occurred in other genres in the depiction of men, then growth of stereotyping of men in only one genre would be net growth of stereotyping of men on television, and evidence for the growth in negative stereotyping of men.

Hey, you mentioned action movies, maybe that's the paper you were looking for? You should post that. For the ladies and gentleman. Not me. I'm absolutely convinced already.

I'm not quite done hand-holding you through this paper yet. It takes a long time to step you through the most basic evidence. To wit, you asked for specific examples out of a list of TV shows; I provided you with specific examples. I linked you to TV Tropes articles. I cited academic papers. And still you keep issuing what appear to be sarcastic denials without providing any evidence of your own that in any way contradicts my base claim that there is a growth of negative stereotyping of men. (Your angry attacks on Homer Simpson and Peter Griffin actually support my base claim of a rise in negative stereotyping of men; those are very popular long-running TV shows.)

I'll be using your standard in the future, where the normative ideal of good fatherhood

No, that's me trying to figure out what your standard of a good father is. I haven't expressed a single positive normative ideal about what a good father is in this episode; I've just roundly disapproved of the depiction of fathers on TV. Including Peter Griffin and Homer Simpson.

See, having the least clue of what one is doing wasn't on your list of virtues, but it was in fact what I was talking about. Which makes me think that as far as you're concerned, it's not important for a father to have the slightest bit of competence. He just has to mean well. "Loving" and "caring" are commonly viewed as emotional states. The only active part of your description was "doing whatever it takes to protect" (also a statement about willingness rather than competence or effect).

That means that in this particular episode, Peter Griffin is by your standards a good dad starting when he swears to be a good dad. Even if he displays the same gross ineptitude typical of his character and takes "overprotective" to a new level.

But that's OK, because:

He's loving and caring, doing whatever it takes to keep his daughter safe.

Loving? Check. Caring? Check. Doing whatever it takes to keep his daughter safe? Checkety checkiest check, down to stalking through the bushes!

[Knask]

Despite this discursive containment
of women in early sitcoms, it is striking
that over time the genre seems to have
worked out a peculiar representation of
men. Fathers and husbands in situation
comedies often play by different rules
than men on other kinds of television
shows. For example, Muriel Cantor
writes, “The dominating, authoritative
male, so common in other genres, is
rarely found in domestic comedies”
(276). According to her, domestic
comedies do not feature “macho men”
because the major theme of domestic
comedies since the 1950s has been “the
myth of female dominance and breakdown
of male authority” (283).

That's why I think you linked to something you didn't mean to. Your claim that there's been a "recent growth of stereotyping male partners as dumb and incompetent" simply isn't supported by the paper. We see it more in a certain specific subset, family sitcoms (since anything more than 0 equals growth, and we've identified a couple which aren't obvious satires), but I'm sure you had a different and very persuasive source in mind to prove that men are being portrayed as stupid and incompetent in media.

The paper has very little to say about things that are not sitcoms.

But surely, you were trying to make a point about the portrayal of negative men in media. You're not still only focusing on sitcoms as if you can't find the trend in other media, are you?

It shows dramatic growth of the "dumb dad" - inept and stupid (and unattractive, adds the paper). It quotes one person as saying that there's something unusual about the depiction of men in sitcoms, in particular in lacking a type of male character.

"Dramatic growth" leading to 4 sitcoms the last two decades? Well, as I said, more than 0 can be seen as dramatic growth.

The paper does not say - not even in quoting others - that the role of men onscreen outside of sitcoms has not changed.

Well.......?

The anticipation is killing me. Just provide your evidence for that already!

Note that the paper goes as far as to not only provide a contradictory view to Cantor's statement, but that "these findings contradict Cantor's observation" - in referring to the authors' own claims.

My base claim is that there has been a recent growth of stereotyping of men as dumb and incompetent. This is visible in television (the base claim does not have to do with television, but television at the least tends to reflect extant stereotyping), and in particular in sitcoms. If no change whatsoever occurred in other genres in the depiction of men, then growth of stereotyping of men in only one genre would be net growth of stereotyping of men on television, and evidence for the growth in negative stereotyping of men.

Absolutely true, since we've established that simply adding flaws to male characters equals negative stereotyping. Moving away from the perfect "father knows best" type character is a horrible thing.

Hey, you mentioned action movies, maybe that's the paper you were looking for? You should post that. For the ladies and gentleman. Not me. I'm absolutely convinced already.

I'm not quite done hand-holding you through this paper yet. It takes a long time to step you through the most basic evidence. To wit, you asked for specific examples out of a list of TV shows; I provided you with specific examples.

Not examples, but incorrect speculation. You found two examples: Family Guy (a satire) and Simpsons. That should be all you need, 2 out of 30 is enough to show the dramatic growth.

I linked you to TV Tropes articles.

Yeah, the less said about that fiasco the better.

I cited academic papers. And still you keep issuing what appear to be sarcastic denials without providing any evidence of your own that in any way contradicts my base claim that there is a growth of negative stereotyping of men.

Oh yes, if only the burden of proof was on me and I hadn't shot down your earlier effort at speculating about shows you hadn't even seen.

(Your angry attacks on Homer Simpson and Peter Griffin actually support my base claim of a rise in negative stereotyping of men; those are very popular long-running TV shows.)

I agree. 2 shows is a dramatic growth from 0, 4 shows the last 30 years even more so!

I'll be using your standard in the future, where the normative ideal of good fatherhood

No, that's me trying to figure out what your standard of a good father is.

My standard, when it comes to examples from pop culture, would be Castle. YOU claim that Castle is a good father in the same ways that an abusive, violent drunk is a good father. That's you setting a standard for what a good father is.

I haven't expressed a single positive normative ideal about what a good father is in this episode; I've just roundly disapproved of the depiction of fathers on TV. Including Peter Griffin and Homer Simpson.

But you've called them loving and caring, and you've lumped them in with Castle, since he doesn't understand his teenage daughter (which is a normal thing for any parent) and is confused a lot (which he isn't).

See, having the least clue of what one is doing wasn't on your list of virtues, but it was in fact what I was talking about. Which makes me think that as far as you're concerned, it's not important for a father to have the slightest bit of competence. He just has to mean well. "Loving" and "caring" are commonly viewed as emotional states. The only active part of your description was "doing whatever it takes to protect" (also a statement about willingness rather than competence or effect).

That means that in this particular episode, Peter Griffin is by your standards a good dad starting when he swears to be a good dad. Even if he displays the same gross ineptitude typical of his character and takes "overprotective" to a new level.

But that's OK, because:

He's loving and caring, doing whatever it takes to keep his daughter safe.

Loving? Check. Caring? Check. Doing whatever it takes to keep his daughter safe? Checkety checkiest check, down to stalking through the bushes!

That picture is from the episode. Loving and caring? Trying to keep his daughter safe? Contrary to Peter's claims, he objectively does none of those things, not even when he agrees to date his own daughter and then decides to give her a lapdance. (Note: This is not the episode where he molests her.)

[Tahar Joblis]

But surely, you were trying to make a point about the portrayal of negative men in media.

Well.......?

The anticipation is killing me. Just provide your evidence for that already!

No. I'm making a point about an increase in negative stereotyping of men. An increase in negative portrayal of men in a particular medium is an example of that phenomenon. The rise of a moral panic surrounding pedophilia - driven in large part by feminists, and focused on men as perpetrators in particular - is another example of that phenomenon. (I've discussed that very extensively before in discussing the recent flight of men from primary school teaching as a profession.)

If I haven't made that clear to you yet, nothing I prove to you on the lower levels of specific examples will mean anything to you, because you don't understand where it fits in the big picture. The portrayal of men as stupid and inept on sitcoms either reflects or propagates negative stereotypes about men. (IMO, in a free market system, television more reflects stereotyping than it shapes stereotyping, though it does have a normative effect; but it stands as a relevant piece of evidence in either case).

You're not still only focusing on sitcoms as if you can't find the trend in other media, are you?

One thing at a time, Knask. Are you conceding the point on sitcoms yet? Because you still seem to be arguing it (below).

"Dramatic growth" leading to 4 sitcoms the last two decades?

There are more than 4 sitcoms discussed in that paper... which doesn't even touch on Peter Griffin and Homer Simpson.

I've provided quite a dramatic preponderance of evidence showing that the standard portrayal of fathers as characters on television (with the sitcom being, in fact, the primary venue in which families are portrayed qua families onscreen) has shifted dramatically. You've produced nothing. Are you ready to cede the point yet? Because you still seem to be trying to argue against the claim that the "dumb dad" is the current, but not past, norm for portrayal of male partners on television.

Absolutely true, since we've established that simply adding flaws to male characters equals negative stereotyping.

No. Adding the same flaw to numerous male characters, and failing to provide female characters with similar flaws, reflects and/or promotes stereotyping of men as having that negative characteristic.

Moving away from the perfect "father knows best" type character is a horrible thing.

Depends on what you're moving to. If you move towards portraying men in the same way as you portray women, great.

If you just move all the old "dumb ditzy woman" sexist trash jokes to be about men instead, then that's pretty sexist and shitty.

Not examples, but incorrect speculation. You found two examples

I found more than two examples. That you continue to think HIMYM isn't an example of dramatic incompetence and stupidity out of a male character is you being seriously wrong.

Yeah, the less said about that fiasco the better.

The TVTropes article is quite correct on the change over time.

Oh yes, if only the burden of proof was on me

I have met a very high burden of proof. We're at the point where I have cited and quoted multiple papers from academic experts in order to back up my contentions, and you have... posted isolated screenshots from an animated TV series. I've provided as much evidence for my specific claims as you seem to think other people should find convincing when you make positive claims yourself.

My standard, when it comes to examples from pop culture, would be Castle

And in defining that, you said that loving, caring, and being willing to do whatever it takes to protect someone defines Castle as a good father.

My original point on Castle was not that he's a "bad father," per se. It is that he does not display competence or even really intelligence as a father. Not necessarily unrealistically; but the fact that he doesn't understand his daughter, whereas the [childless] woman he's dating does, well, that's exactly in line with the standard portrayal of men vs women as regards the family setting.

Your point on Castle was to say that he was a good father, and then you provided a list of reasons that had nothing to do with competence or intelligence, which I see as proving that you yourself have norms of what defines a good father which are in line with the "dumb dad" stereotype.

He's loving and caring, doing whatever it takes to keep his daughter safe.

Loving? Check. Caring? Check. Doing whatever it takes to keep his daughter safe? Checkety checkiest check, down to stalking through the bushes!

That picture is from the episode.

And is part of the flashback sequence where Peter is reviewing how he's been a bad dad while looking at Meg in a coma. You know, before he decides he's going to try to be a good dad.

Loving and caring? Trying to keep his daughter safe? Contrary to Peter's claims, he objectively does none of those things

He doesn't succeed in helping her or making her feel safe. He does, however, try. Which is all your list of reasons that Castle is a good dad requires, really.

So. Which is it? Is that episode an example of Peter being a good dad temporarily (for that guilt-ridden period) or was your explanation for why you thought Castle was a good father an incomplete one? You seem not to like the idea that Peter is being a good dad during that episode, but you haven't really provided a good revision of how you define a good father.

[Page]

But surely, you were trying to make a point about the portrayal of negative men in media.

Well.......?

The anticipation is killing me. Just provide your evidence for that already!

No. I'm making a point about an increase in negative stereotyping of men. An increase in negative portrayal of men in a particular medium is an example of that phenomenon. The rise of a moral panic surrounding pedophilia - driven in large part by feminists, and focused on men as perpetrators in particular - is another example of that phenomenon. (I've discussed that very extensively before in discussing the recent flight of men from primary school teaching as a profession.)

If I haven't made that clear to you yet, nothing I prove to you on the lower levels of specific examples will mean anything to you, because you don't understand where it fits in the big picture. The portrayal of men as stupid and inept on sitcoms either reflects or propagates negative stereotypes about men. (IMO, in a free market system, television more reflects stereotyping than it shapes stereotyping, though it does have a normative effect; but it stands as a relevant piece of evidence in either case).

You're not still only focusing on sitcoms as if you can't find the trend in other media, are you?

One thing at a time, Knask. Are you conceding the point on sitcoms yet? Because you still seem to be arguing it (below).

"Dramatic growth" leading to 4 sitcoms the last two decades?

There are more than 4 sitcoms discussed in that paper... which doesn't even touch on Peter Griffin and Homer Simpson.

I've provided quite a dramatic preponderance of evidence showing that the standard portrayal of fathers as characters on television (with the sitcom being, in fact, the primary venue in which families are portrayed qua families onscreen) has shifted dramatically. You've produced nothing. Are you ready to cede the point yet? Because you still seem to be trying to argue against the claim that the "dumb dad" is the current, but not past, norm for portrayal of male partners on television.

Absolutely true, since we've established that simply adding flaws to male characters equals negative stereotyping.

No. Adding the same flaw to numerous male characters, and failing to provide female characters with similar flaws, reflects and/or promotes stereotyping of men as having that negative characteristic.

Moving away from the perfect "father knows best" type character is a horrible thing.

Depends on what you're moving to. If you move towards portraying men in the same way as you portray women, great.

If you just move all the old "dumb ditzy woman" sexist trash jokes to be about men instead, then that's pretty sexist and shitty.

Not examples, but incorrect speculation. You found two examples

I found more than two examples. That you continue to think HIMYM isn't an example of dramatic incompetence and stupidity out of a male character is you being seriously wrong.

Yeah, the less said about that fiasco the better.

The TVTropes article is quite correct on the change over time.

Oh yes, if only the burden of proof was on me

I have met a very high burden of proof. We're at the point where I have cited and quoted multiple papers from academic experts in order to back up my contentions, and you have... posted isolated screenshots from an animated TV series. I've provided as much evidence for my specific claims as you seem to think other people should find convincing when you make positive claims yourself.

My standard, when it comes to examples from pop culture, would be Castle

And in defining that, you said that loving, caring, and being willing to do whatever it takes to protect someone defines Castle as a good father.

My original point on Castle was not that he's a "bad father," per se. It is that he does not display competence or even really intelligence as a father. Not necessarily unrealistically; but the fact that he doesn't understand his daughter, whereas the [childless] woman he's dating does, well, that's exactly in line with the standard portrayal of men vs women as regards the family setting.

Your point on Castle was to say that he was a good father, and then you provided a list of reasons that had nothing to do with competence or intelligence, which I see as proving that you yourself have norms of what defines a good father which are in line with the "dumb dad" stereotype.

He's loving and caring, doing whatever it takes to keep his daughter safe.

Loving? Check. Caring? Check. Doing whatever it takes to keep his daughter safe? Checkety checkiest check, down to stalking through the bushes!

That picture is from the episode.

And is part of the flashback sequence where Peter is reviewing how he's been a bad dad while looking at Meg in a coma. You know, before he decides he's going to try to be a good dad.

Loving and caring? Trying to keep his daughter safe? Contrary to Peter's claims, he objectively does none of those things

He doesn't succeed in helping her or making her feel safe. He does, however, try. Which is all your list of reasons that Castle is a good dad requires, really.

So. Which is it? Is that episode an example of Peter being a good dad temporarily (for that guilt-ridden period) or was your explanation for why you thought Castle was a good father an incomplete one? You seem not to like the idea that Peter is being a good dad during that episode, but you haven't really provided a good revision of how you define a good father.

Sitcoms portray the dad as a bumbling idiot and the mom as an uptight bitch. And every gay character is a gay stereotype and so on, why is this is a uniquely male problem?

[Snafturi]

Sitcoms portray the dad as a bumbling idiot and the mom as an uptight bitch. And every gay character is a gay stereotype and so on, why is this is a uniquely male problem?

Because an increase from zero to four is alarming. Oh, and it's all the feminists fault, despite the fact that these shows were created by men, that they had to fight to keep the show as they envisioned them and get them on the air in the first place, and that the notable thing about the viewership with these shows is the increase in male viewership.

Also, Richard Castle is comparable to Peter Griffin because Castle's daughter likes talking to someone who's not her parent and sometimes he doesn't understand her. Because that's totally the same as sexual and physical abuse.

Heavens knows, it's in no way accurate to portray a teenage girl as difficult to understand or not wanting to talk to her parents at times.