Does True Feminism Exist Anymore?

[Greater Femocracy]

All!
Sorry you didn't read carefully.
The last line of the breed of two men:
"so the embryos created from the two men will have to be implanted into a surrogate mother to deliver the baby."

We will find a way, you will become obsolete

Obvious.
But the point is: starting with this situation, who will become obsolete first?
The answer is also obvious...

[Ashmoria]

which is fine until we are suggesting that tax money go to your family because you don't trust nannies.

and of course it depends on how many children you have. taking care of babies is boring but after 3-4 years the kid goes to school and you have time that you could be devoting to working at something a tad more interesting.

Yea, I would not go as far as to incentivize a tax to go to the family because they don't trust nannies in actuality thinking about it a bit better.

And yes, it does depend on how many children you have. However, in general, I was thinking of the first 3 or 4 years of life, when the child is 24/7 at home. So that becomes almost a full-time job in and of itself taking care of a child, in my opinion.

it seems sensible that one parent spending full time taking care of kids would end up with "better" kids. but the evidence is that it doesn't make better kids -- nor worse kids. so its best to do what that parents are most comfortable with.

[Kyuji]

We will find a way, you will become obsolete

Obvious.
But the point is: starting with this situation, who will become obsolete first?
The answer is also obvious...

Women.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

I'm either 18 or 20.

Given how I already saw your hand once, you are 1. taking into account the more tanned parts of your body 2. how reddish your skin is, rather than merely melanin-derived dark

[Tahar Joblis]

I'll help you get started: I'll list the top 30 most popular TV shows today as listed by TV.com, you show me how these shows portray men as stupid and incompetent:

How about I tell you how they portray men negatively?

Not every show must portray men as bumbling idiots in order for the negative stereotype to be promoted by TV. Not every housewife in TV sitcoms in the 50s-70s was a ditzy airhead, either, but enough of them in the period from Lucy of I Love Lucy and Jeannie of I Dream of Jeannie were seriously inept.

The distribution of inept and stupid characters has shifted. The female ones have nearly vanished, and in some cases (particularly the family sitcom) been replaced by new inept stupid male characters.

- Game of Thrones

From the feminist reviews, I'm under the impression this portrays men as rapist pedophiles, and that all or almost all the characters are evil (men or women).

- The Big Bang Theory

This one you get the "incompetent" side of male stereotyping. The guys on the show are supposed to be smart, right? They are also incredibly and comically inept in a range of ways.

- How I Met Your Mother

In spite of being in a profession that would suggest he's highly intelligent, Ted is a blithering idiot who makes a long series of personal and professional dumbass mistakes. He fails as an architect both working for someone else and working freelance, and only gets a position teaching architecture because a guy who one of his girlfriends left him for (at the altar) felt bad for him and had the connections to get it for him.

Barney is, of course, not even nominally intelligent.

- Grey's Anatomy

Haven't seen any of this for a long time. It's still going? Suggest you look at, out of the entire cast, which ones fail (e.g., at intern tests) and which ones keep making mistakes. Except maybe O'Malley, though, you're not going to find particularly prominent male incompetence so much as female competence. Fact of the matter is, Grey's Anatomy is not about the male characters at all, and their function in the show primarily is to serve as foils for the female characters to interact with. (Compare with House for a medical drama centered on a very smart - though flawed - male character).

- The Simpsons
- Family Guy

These are horribly easy. Peter Griffin and Homer Simpson.

- NCIS

This one is also very easy. You have three characters who appear in every episode: Abby, who's smart as a whip and shows it at every opportunity, and two male cops, who have what is generously described on Wikipedia as "limited patience for the scientific method and technical terms."

- The Vampire Diaries
- Hannibal

Not sure about these, but I can immediately point to the fact that both of these are pretty much named for pre-existing evil male characters.

- Grimm

Grimm has a generally competent male lead. He's a little Sherlocky.

In this, however, we do have a pattern of irredeemable villains (who aren't typically very Moriarty) being male more often than female. Look at the Wesen who get killed.

- Castle

In the episodes of this that I've seen, the titular male character of this series is regularly outwitted by the female lead and displays numerous areas of ineptitude outside of his singular talent for figuring out criminal motives. When he's right, it seems more like an artifact of deranged magical luck than by virtue of intelligence on his part. Maybe I just haven't seen a characteristic selection of episodes, but in spite of the premise of the series being that this man has gotten involved with the NYPD as a consultant by virtue of an unusual talent, I really didn't see much competence out of him.

Can't speak to every TV show. Most of the rest I'm not familiar enough with to point out where they do or do not underline negative male stereotypes; I've already provided a preponderance of evidence.

[Dyakovo]

And, of course, you can back you that claim...

Welcome to Tumblr and if you search long enough you will find feminists who want to castrate men, fascists who believe My Little Pony promotes white nationalism, and people who are aroused by blood and gore. The problem is how popular some of the castration feminists are. They can get a couple thousand reblogs for some of their posts.

So, That's a "no, I can't, so I'll keep making claims."

[Tahar Joblis]

Indeed. Stay at home dads can sometimes be of help. ESPECIALLY if the woman is the one with the higher income. If both don't need to work to maintain a good standard of living then in my opinion one should relegate more time to the house and what goes on in it, independently of whether this is the man or the woman in the relationship.

And the stigma of stay-at-home dads stem from the fact that it seems effeminate to stay at home and take care of things. I can cook and clean the house same as a woman as well as learn how to take care of a child, so I feel there shouldn't be a huge deal about a male wanting to do a woman's work or a woman doing a man's work. Then again, I also grew up in a family where women do manly things like be aggressive/assertive and can use power tools so

The government should really set up economic policies so that middle class families, and even poor families, can live with one income. We were able to do it 50 to 60 years and even less time ago, there is no reason why we can't do it now, especially with the increase in technology and productivity. Simply put, the money is not going to the people it should be. Additionally, to be frank, women in the workforce makes it easier to lower everyone's salary.

It is actually easier to live on the "one income" model than you think. It's just not obvious (many costs associated with a second income are hidden), and it never really was a one-income model, more of a 1.5 income model (with the non-working spouse entering the workforce in times when cash is short via emergency).

The traditional one-income model is not predicated on only one person doing work, outside of the upper classes; it's predicated on a significant amount of household labor. Cooking and preparing everything from scratch, for example, means that you can feed a family of four on a food budget that would barely suffice for one with pre-prepared meals. It also requires a significant investment in skill and/or equipment up front, and a constant investment in labor. The one-income model is not very easily accessible if you're barely getting by.

The clincher is, household labor is not taxed, and a one-income family can make more favorable use of tax deductions. So a one-income family doesn't actually have to gross much more money than the higher-earning partner of a two-income family to catch up. I recommend this book as reading whenever the topic comes up. Specialization makes a lot of sense economically; it's just not obvious, it's hard to win the real-estate bidding war for good school districts as a one-income couple, and the skills that are useful for the stay-at-home spouse (traditional "home economics" fields as well as plumbing, carpentry, electrical work, and other skills you expect from a general contractor) are not really emphasized.

TBH, with as easy as it is to learn cooking over time (which is one of the big money-savers out of the traditional home ec skillset), I would think that if you were looking for a stay-at-home spouse, them having the "general contractor" type skills would be more important than the traditional home economics skills in terms of how well they function in that economic role.

[Tahar Joblis]

And, of course, you can back you that claim...

Welcome to Tumblr and if you search long enough you will find feminists who want to castrate men, fascists who believe My Little Pony promotes white nationalism, and people who are aroused by blood and gore. The problem is how popular some of the castration feminists are. They can get a couple thousand reblogs for some of their posts.

So you shouldn't have any trouble providing a link. Come on, let's have a discussion with evidence and such.

So, That's a "no, I can't, so I'll keep making claims."

Pot, kettle, black. Dyakovo, have you done anything to provide evidence of any kind in this thread?

[Tahar Joblis]

I said nothing about them preferring to stay home.

no you did not. and if i assume you didn't mean to suggest that women be forced to stay home i think you need to think this all through some more.

if it is possible for a family to subsist on ONE income it will always do better with 2 incomes thus kinda negating the effect of monkeying with things until it is possible to do well with one income.

Only if the second income provides additional post-tax returns that exceed the net value of the extra household labor.

There's a lot of debate over the net value of household labor, but it's typical to come up with pretty non-trivial figures in terms of the hourly rates.

[Olthar]

I'm either 18 or 20.

Given how I already saw your hand once, you are 1. taking into account the more tanned parts of your body 2. how reddish your skin is, rather than merely melanin-derived dark

Pictures from cheap cameras aren't really the best method of comparison, especially when the flash drowns out the natural color.

[Dyakovo]

Welcome to Tumblr and if you search long enough you will find feminists who want to castrate men, fascists who believe My Little Pony promotes white nationalism, and people who are aroused by blood and gore. The problem is how popular some of the castration feminists are. They can get a couple thousand reblogs for some of their posts.

So you shouldn't have any trouble providing a link. Come on, let's have a discussion with evidence and such.

So, That's a "no, I can't, so I'll keep making claims."

Pot, kettle, black. Dyakovo, have you done anything to provide evidence of any kind in this thread?

Yes, I have. You of course to ignore it. Your avoiding the thread for several days was quite convenient.

[The Serbian Empire]

Welcome to Tumblr and if you search long enough you will find feminists who want to castrate men, fascists who believe My Little Pony promotes white nationalism, and people who are aroused by blood and gore. The problem is how popular some of the castration feminists are. They can get a couple thousand reblogs for some of their posts.

So you shouldn't have any trouble providing a link. Come on, let's have a discussion with evidence and such.

So, That's a "no, I can't, so I'll keep making claims."

Pot, kettle, black. Dyakovo, have you done anything to provide evidence of any kind in this thread?

Why would I provide a link to a site I despise so greatly? I guess I'll do so just to keep the blood a boiling. Alright, here's that link to one of our radfems I so despise on Tumblr with one of the posts having over 1800 notes. Note, this one isn't as bad as some of the more extreme ones which I can't even bear visiting their Tumblrs.

[Tahar Joblis]

So you shouldn't have any trouble providing a link. Come on, let's have a discussion with evidence and such.

Pot, kettle, black. Dyakovo, have you done anything to provide evidence of any kind in this thread?

Yes, I have. You of course to ignore it. Your avoiding the thread for several days was quite convenient.

Wow, you actually did! I'm impressed, you usually don't take that kind of effort. Nicely done.

As far as my being absent for several days, I do have a life and it does get busy at times. If you'd like me to address your post further, I will; but you should note my position is somewhat different from the one Ostoeuropa implied was theirs with that challenge (and therefore the position you were objecting to), as I am already familiar with the fact that feminists and feminist organizations have gotten involved with cases involving male plaintiffs.

The distinction I have made is that the feminist movement collectively acts in what it perceives to be women's interests; which sometimes benefits men, and sometimes does not benefit men. (You can expand your list of cases involving male plaintiffs further, some major precedent-setting sex discrimination cases have involved male plaintiffs. This becomes somewhat narrower when you are dealing with feminist organizations rather than particular feminists.)

[Ashmoria]

no you did not. and if i assume you didn't mean to suggest that women be forced to stay home i think you need to think this all through some more.

if it is possible for a family to subsist on ONE income it will always do better with 2 incomes thus kinda negating the effect of monkeying with things until it is possible to do well with one income.

Only if the second income provides additional post-tax returns that exceed the net value of the extra household labor.

There's a lot of debate over the net value of household labor, but it's typical to come up with pretty non-trivial figures in terms of the hourly rates.

aside from cooking, stuff either gets done by both partners or they stop doing it. cooking gets done by, as you mentioned before, eating out, boxed food or takeout.

and, of course, working has its own costs--transportation, clothing, child care where appropriate, that kind of thing.

but that STILL doesn't address the notion of "forcing" someone to stay home who might otherwise want to be building a career--very important in an age where so many marriages end in divorce. the stay at home partner is taking a huge risk of eventual poverty by not working their way up in a paying career. and even without that factor it turns out that housewifery is not as interesting a job as it might seem to be from the outside. women (and men) aren't breaking down the doors to get back into the house.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Only if the second income provides additional post-tax returns that exceed the net value of the extra household labor.

There's a lot of debate over the net value of household labor, but it's typical to come up with pretty non-trivial figures in terms of the hourly rates.

aside from cooking, stuff either gets done by both partners or they stop doing it. cooking gets done by, as you mentioned before, eating out, boxed food or takeout.

and, of course, working has its own costs--transportation, clothing, child care where appropriate, that kind of thing.

but that STILL doesn't address the notion of "forcing" someone to stay home who might otherwise want to be building a career--very important in an age where so many marriages end in divorce. the stay at home partner is taking a huge risk of eventual poverty by not working their way up in a paying career. and even without that factor it turns out that housewifery is not as interesting a job as it might seem to be from the outside. women (and men) aren't breaking down the doors to get back into the house.

Oh of course, that's probably one of the many differences in this. That depending on the career path you will be forced to make some concessions. It's not the same being a freelancer/work at home employee than someone who needs to be in an office 8 hours a day and 5 days a week or more.

Also, cooking has become less and less of a chore with those three essentials. However, I still find pleasure in cooking myself. Although I will say that, as everything goes, it's something that both partners have to discuss before doing it. Forcing either person in the relationship to remain at home even though they don't want to seems pretty unfair. It not only entrenches gender roles but also discord in between the couple since they are both capable.

[United Etiamtantum]

Feminism today is communism.

[Knask]

I'll help you get started: I'll list the top 30 most popular TV shows today as listed by TV.com, you show me how these shows portray men as stupid and incompetent:

How about I tell you how they portray men negatively?

No, I'd like to know how these shows portray men as stupid and incompetent. Because.

The fact that characters have both positive and negative sides is simply good television, good storytelling. Both male and female characters in these shows have positive and negative sides. If you have characters with only positive sides it gets boring. That's bad TV, and those shows usually don't last.

Of course, if your contention is that TV shows simply have gotten better at telling stories in recent years...


Some further comments are warranted:

Not every show must portray men as bumbling idiots in order for the negative stereotype to be promoted by TV. Not every housewife in TV sitcoms in the 50s-70s was a ditzy airhead, either, but enough of them in the period from Lucy of I Love Lucy and Jeannie of I Dream of Jeannie were seriously inept.

I listed the top 30 TV shows. We can expand the list if we need, so you can show that men regularly are being portrayed as stupid and incompetent in media.

It would also be interesting to see if women also are being portrayed as stupid and incompetent in those shows.

The distribution of inept and stupid characters has shifted. The female ones have nearly vanished, and in some cases (particularly the family sitcom) been replaced by new inept stupid male characters.

Shouldn't be difficult for you to demonstrate that.

- Game of Thrones

From the feminist reviews, I'm under the impression this portrays men as rapist pedophiles, and that all or almost all the characters are evil (men or women).

What "feminist reviews"? You should watch it yourself, because that's not at all accurate. There are indeed rapists in the show, but all of the characters are horribly flawed. Joffrey is clear-cut evil, but he's also insane. Cersei, his mother, is completely sane, but is the one character responsible for most of the horrors in the show. Mellisandre seems to be totally sane, but burns people alive apparently due to her faith. The two most beloved characters are male: Tyrion (Flawed, but far from evil) and Ned Stark (flawed, but the only truly good character, perhaps apart from his sons).

Men are not shown to be stupid and incompetent, nor do they display more negative sides than the women.

- The Big Bang Theory

This one you get the "incompetent" side of male stereotyping. The guys on the show are supposed to be smart, right? They are also incredibly and comically inept in a range of ways.

They are smart, but they have flaws. The men are just like the women (sometimes identical Sheldon is dating what really is a female version of himself, sometimes mirror images, Leonard is dating the opposite of himself). The men does not stand out as stupid and incompetent.

- How I Met Your Mother

In spite of being in a profession that would suggest he's highly intelligent, Ted is a blithering idiot who makes a long series of personal and professional dumbass mistakes. He fails as an architect both working for someone else and working freelance, and only gets a position teaching architecture because a guy who one of his girlfriends left him for (at the altar) felt bad for him and had the connections to get it for him.

Barney is, of course, not even nominally intelligent.

Not accurate. Ted is a successful architect, and Barney is very intelligent. Both have flaws, however, as does the other main characters - men and women alike. None are portrayed as stupid and incompetent.

- Grey's Anatomy

Haven't seen any of this for a long time. It's still going? Suggest you look at, out of the entire cast, which ones fail (e.g., at intern tests) and which ones keep making mistakes. Except maybe O'Malley, though, you're not going to find particularly prominent male incompetence so much as female competence. Fact of the matter is, Grey's Anatomy is not about the male characters at all, and their function in the show primarily is to serve as foils for the female characters to interact with.

To sum up, the show doesn't support your hypothesis?

I'm not sure, but are you saying that there's an issue with the fact that the show highlights female competence?

- The Simpsons
- Family Guy

These are horribly easy. Peter Griffin and Homer Simpson.

That's two... Though every character on Family Guy is stupid and incompetent, not just the men.

- NCIS

This one is also very easy. You have three characters who appear in every episode: Abby, who's smart as a whip and shows it at every opportunity, and two male cops, who have what is generously described on Wikipedia as "limited patience for the scientific method and technical terms."

I take it that you haven't actually seen the show. Gibbs, DiNozzo and McGee are by no stretch of the imagination stupid and incompetent. They're shown to have flaws however, just like the female characters are.

- The Vampire Diaries
- Hannibal

Not sure about these, but I can immediately point to the fact that both of these are pretty much named for pre-existing evil male characters.

"Vampire" isn't the name for an evil male character, the same way as the collective noun for supernatural creatures isn't Dracula. This show also features the "sexy" sparkly kind of vampires, not the evil scary ones.

No characters on Hannibal are stupid and incompetent. All of them have flaws, some pretty huge ones. By the way, the protagonist is Will Graham, not Hannibal.

- Grimm

Grimm has a generally competent male lead. He's a little Sherlocky.

In this, however, we do have a pattern of irredeemable villains (who aren't typically very Moriarty) being male more often than female. Look at the Wesen who get killed.

Another show which doesn't support your hypothesis?

- Castle

In the episodes of this that I've seen, the titular male character of this series is regularly outwitted by the female lead and displays numerous areas of ineptitude outside of his singular talent for figuring out criminal motives. When he's right, it seems more like an artifact of deranged magical luck than by virtue of intelligence on his part. Maybe I just haven't seen a characteristic selection of episodes, but in spite of the premise of the series being that this man has gotten involved with the NYPD as a consultant by virtue of an unusual talent, I really didn't see much competence out of him.

He's neither stupid nor incompetent. Castle is a very successful writer, and he's helping the police solve murders using his knowledge and talent for creative thinking. He thinks outside the box, often coming up with fantastical (and amusing) theories in the process. The theories are often sound, but very creative. He is not "regularly outwitted by the female lead"; if anything it's the opposite.

The character also has flaws, as does the character of Beckett.

Can't speak to every TV show. Most of the rest I'm not familiar enough with to point out where they do or do not underline negative male stereotypes; I've already provided a preponderance of evidence.

Hardly. You managed to identify two shows out of 30 possible, and one of them portrays all the main characters as stupid and incompetent. Not exactly a damning indictment of masculine media portrayal. The TV tropes articles you linked to, by the way, are both self-defeating (mentioning several TV shows which does not conform to the trope), incorrect (Hal in Malcolm in the Middle was not incompetent or bumbling), and inaccurate.

[Tahar Joblis]

How about I tell you how they portray men negatively?

No, I'd like to know how these shows portray men as stupid and incompetent. Because.

Follow the quote train up. It's on the general subject of negative stereotyping; which is then supported by an increase in the portrayal of men as stupid.

I listed the top 30 TV shows

Which could then be compared to, say, this list.

It would also be interesting to see if women also are being portrayed as stupid and incompetent in those shows.

The comparison is, IMO, more illuminating than the absolutes.

Nearly every main character on NCIS is smarter than nearly every main character on The Simpsons. However, Lisa is portrayed as smarter than Bart, Marge is portrayed as smarter than Homer, and Abby is portrayed as smarter than the men she works with.

Shouldn't be difficult for you to demonstrate that.

Much easier if your list actually focused on domestic sitcoms. I Love Lucy, I Dream of Jeannie, Father Knows Best, Leave it to Beaver, etc can be contrasted to Home Improvement, Married... with children, The Simpsons (the longest-running TV show of the era), etc.

I already pointed quite directly to the TVTropes pages, which point out quite correctly that the dumb dad was originally novel and now has become standard.

What "feminist reviews"?

I can't provide a good listing of the ones I've read, skimmed, or avoided reading that led me to that impression, but I can give you a quick series of links showing you the existence of the sort of angry feminist reviews of GoT that have been so far my main source of specific information on gender role treatment within GoT (there's a slicker for you):

http://tigerbeatdown.com/2011/08/26/ent ... -r-martin/
http://www.thefword.org.uk/reviews/2013 ... ubjugation

There's been a big feminist backlash against Game of Thrones, and it's centered on rape and pedophilia - which are, as far as I can tell, entirely fit within the narrative of evil male perpetrators.

You should watch it yourself, because that's not at all accurate. There are indeed rapists in the show, but all of the characters are horribly flawed. Joffrey is clear-cut evil, but he's also insane. Cersei, his mother, is completely sane, but is the one character responsible for most of the horrors in the show. Mellisandre seems to be totally sane, but burns people alive apparently due to her faith. The two most beloved characters are male: Tyrion (Flawed, but far from evil) and Ned Stark (flawed, but the only truly good character, perhaps apart from his sons).

Men are not shown to be stupid and incompetent, nor do they display more negative sides than the women.

Well, what, then, does that tell me about the people angry about the show?

They are smart, but they have flaws. The men are just like the women (sometimes identical Sheldon is dating what really is a female version of himself, sometimes mirror images, Leonard is dating the opposite of himself). The men does not stand out as stupid and incompetent.

So you say that the women are equally inept outside of their chosen domains?

Not accurate. Ted is a successful architect, and Barney is very intelligent.

"Successful architect"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_King_Clancy : Fired.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosbius_Designs : Tries to make it on his own
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/As_Fast_as_She_Can : Tony offers the teaching position out of pity. Really doesn't want it, still trying to make it as an architect, thinks that's a last resort (not terribly realistic, but there you have it).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Leap_( ... our_Mother) : Gives up on trying to be an architect, takes the teaching position.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition ... our_Mother) : Demonstrates that he is completely unqualified to be hired for the position, which he only got because some really rich connected guy decided to do him a favor.

As far as I can see, the three main methods of getting laughs in this situational comedy show are, in order:

• Ted does something stupid/incompetent on his own.
• Ted is convinced to do something stupid/incompetent on his own.
• Barney does something stupid.

To sum up, the show doesn't support your hypothesis?

To sum up my hypothesis, it isn't your strawman version of my hypothesis.

I'm not sure, but are you saying that there's an issue with the fact that the show highlights female competence?

No.

That's two... Though every character on Family Guy is stupid and incompetent, not just the men.

The male characters are significantly dumber than the female ones.

I take it that you haven't actually seen the show. Gibbs, DiNozzo and McGee are by no stretch of the imagination stupid and incompetent.

Incompetent, no. Non-intellectual and substantially less intelligent, yes.

And whoever that guy is that works in the lab with Abby sometimes, he regularly does really dumb things that Abby corrects.

"Vampire" isn't the name for an evil male character, the same way as the collective noun for supernatural creatures isn't Dracula. This show also features the "sexy" sparkly kind of vampires, not the evil scary ones.

The characters who start off as vampires are men, are they not?

No characters on Hannibal are stupid and incompetent. All of them have flaws, some pretty huge ones. By the way, the protagonist is Will Graham, not Hannibal.

I'm taking your word on it. Is or is not Hannibal an evil male character that the show is named after?

Another show which doesn't support your hypothesis?

See above.

He's neither stupid nor incompetent.

As far as I can tell, he acts that way. It's hard for me to buy the show's premise in observing how he acts. And he is very far from the paragon of fatherly competency when it comes to his daughter.

Castle is a very successful writer, and he's helping the police solve murders using his knowledge and talent for creative thinking. He thinks outside the box, often coming up with fantastical (and amusing) theories in the process. The theories are often sound, but very creative. He is not "regularly outwitted by the female lead"; if anything it's the opposite.

He reminds me of Miss Cleo more than he does of Sherlock Holmes. And that's in spite of the genre difference.

You managed to identify two shows out of 30 possible

As far as I'm concerned, I identified far more than two; and that's with my only commenting on a fraction of those thirty shows; and your list of 30 shows not being particularly tightly concentrated on the genre where we can test the "dumb dad" stereotype.

I can and have provided more than two examples of the "dumb dad," and pointed towards evidence of change over time in the portrayal of male characters.

[Tahar Joblis]

Only if the second income provides additional post-tax returns that exceed the net value of the extra household labor.

There's a lot of debate over the net value of household labor, but it's typical to come up with pretty non-trivial figures in terms of the hourly rates.

aside from cooking, stuff either gets done by both partners or they stop doing it. cooking gets done by, as you mentioned before, eating out, boxed food or takeout.

and, of course, working has its own costs--transportation, clothing, child care where appropriate, that kind of thing.

but that STILL doesn't address the notion of "forcing" someone to stay home who might otherwise want to be building a career--very important in an age where so many marriages end in divorce. the stay at home partner is taking a huge risk of eventual poverty by not working their way up in a paying career. and even without that factor it turns out that housewifery is not as interesting a job as it might seem to be from the outside. women (and men) aren't breaking down the doors to get back into the house.

84% of working women told ForbesWoman and TheBump that staying home to raise children is a financial luxury they aspire to.

What’s more, more than one in three resent their partner for not earning enough to make that dream a reality.

Japan, oddly, doesn't show a higher rate.

Fact of the matter is, there are plenty of women who would prefer to be stay at home types.

And some men, too, would prefer to stay at home, I suspect in rather larger numbers than the ones that actually get to do so, but people just don't really talk much about the desires of men as being important when it comes to these subjects.

[Snafturi]

No, I'd like to know how these shows portray men as stupid and incompetent. Because.

Follow the quote train up. It's on the general subject of negative stereotyping; which is then supported by an increase in the portrayal of men as stupid.

I listed the top 30 TV shows

Which could then be compared to, say, this list.

It would also be interesting to see if women also are being portrayed as stupid and incompetent in those shows.

The comparison is, IMO, more illuminating than the absolutes.

Nearly every main character on NCIS is smarter than nearly every main character on The Simpsons. However, Lisa is portrayed as smarter than Bart, Marge is portrayed as smarter than Homer, and Abby is portrayed as smarter than the men she works with.

Shouldn't be difficult for you to demonstrate that.

Much easier if your list actually focused on domestic sitcoms. I Love Lucy, I Dream of Jeannie, Father Knows Best, Leave it to Beaver, etc can be contrasted to Home Improvement, Married... with children, The Simpsons (the longest-running TV show of the era), etc.

I already pointed quite directly to the TVTropes pages, which point out quite correctly that the dumb dad was originally novel and now has become standard.

What "feminist reviews"?

I can't provide a good listing of the ones I've read, skimmed, or avoided reading that led me to that impression, but I can give you a quick series of links showing you the existence of the sort of angry feminist reviews of GoT that have been so far my main source of specific information on gender role treatment within GoT (there's a slicker for you):

http://tigerbeatdown.com/2011/08/26/ent ... -r-martin/
http://www.thefword.org.uk/reviews/2013 ... ubjugation

There's been a big feminist backlash against Game of Thrones, and it's centered on rape and pedophilia - which are, as far as I can tell, entirely fit within the narrative of evil male perpetrators.

I'll respond more in depth at a later point, but there's no paedophelia in GoT. I'm sure some character has done it somewhere, but it's in no way central to the plot. Yes, people marry young, but that's not at all the same as paedophelia. I think you're confusing this with incest. There's a lot of incest, but it's consensual, and at least in the main incestuous relationship, it was driven by the woman.

While there's a lot of threats of rape, and some that's happended off screen, there's not a lot of actual rape. None of the main characters have been raped. Dany's wedding night was not well fleshed out. It's abundantly clear in the book, however, that Kahl Drogo got her full and non-coerced consent before they had sex. The series does imply it however, with Dany asking one of her handmaids how to get good at sex, and the fact that Kahl Drogo was a really nice guy despite looking scary. Him looking scary is more a commentary on foreigners than men.

From what you've said, I doubt the people reviewing the show have actually seen a lot of it. They certainly haven't read the books.

[Ashmoria]

aside from cooking, stuff either gets done by both partners or they stop doing it. cooking gets done by, as you mentioned before, eating out, boxed food or takeout.

and, of course, working has its own costs--transportation, clothing, child care where appropriate, that kind of thing.

but that STILL doesn't address the notion of "forcing" someone to stay home who might otherwise want to be building a career--very important in an age where so many marriages end in divorce. the stay at home partner is taking a huge risk of eventual poverty by not working their way up in a paying career. and even without that factor it turns out that housewifery is not as interesting a job as it might seem to be from the outside. women (and men) aren't breaking down the doors to get back into the house.

Oh of course, that's probably one of the many differences in this. That depending on the career path you will be forced to make some concessions. It's not the same being a freelancer/work at home employee than someone who needs to be in an office 8 hours a day and 5 days a week or more.

Also, cooking has become less and less of a chore with those three essentials. However, I still find pleasure in cooking myself. Although I will say that, as everything goes, it's something that both partners have to discuss before doing it. Forcing either person in the relationship to remain at home even though they don't want to seems pretty unfair. It not only entrenches gender roles but also discord in between the couple since they are both capable.

you really cant know what you want until you are making the decision with a real life nother person.

[Anubas]

So you shouldn't have any trouble providing a link. Come on, let's have a discussion with evidence and such.

Pot, kettle, black. Dyakovo, have you done anything to provide evidence of any kind in this thread?

Why would I provide a link to a site I despise so greatly? I guess I'll do so just to keep the blood a boiling. Alright, here's that link to one of our radfems I so despise on Tumblr with one of the posts having over 1800 notes. Note, this one isn't as bad as some of the more extreme ones which I can't even bear visiting their Tumblrs.

here is a post with 32000 notes calling that sort of shit out. don't you worry, I have countless other tumblr posts that call out/oppose Radfems.

[The Serbian Empire]

Why would I provide a link to a site I despise so greatly? I guess I'll do so just to keep the blood a boiling. Alright, here's that link to one of our radfems I so despise on Tumblr with one of the posts having over 1800 notes. Note, this one isn't as bad as some of the more extreme ones which I can't even bear visiting their Tumblrs.

here is a post with 32000 notes calling that sort of shit out. don't you worry, I have countless other tumblr posts that call out/oppose Radfems.

Sounds like the Radfems have driven many people mad. I am pleased to see I am not alone.

[Llamalandia]

Why would I provide a link to a site I despise so greatly? I guess I'll do so just to keep the blood a boiling. Alright, here's that link to one of our radfems I so despise on Tumblr with one of the posts having over 1800 notes. Note, this one isn't as bad as some of the more extreme ones which I can't even bear visiting their Tumblrs.

here is a post with 32000 notes calling that sort of shit out. don't you worry, I have countless other tumblr posts that call out/oppose Radfems.

Well that page is awesome, though 32,000 notes only mean that people have either liked adn or reblogged that post, for all we know many of those reblogs could be from pissed off radfems going see here this just confirms my point that anyone opposing us is a hater (or whatever their warped logic considers them I don't know like misogynist collaborators or something).

[Anubas]

here is a post with 32000 notes calling that sort of shit out. don't you worry, I have countless other tumblr posts that call out/oppose Radfems.

Sounds like the Radfems have driven many people mad. I am pleased to see I am not alone.

you never where. what Radfems and other sjws don't seem to comprehend is that their actions hurt the whole movement. who wants to be in a movement represented by bigots? or learn to understand x movement when they'll just be yelled at for their ignorance?

here is a post with 32000 notes calling that sort of shit out. don't you worry, I have countless other tumblr posts that call out/oppose Radfems.

Well that page is awesome, though 32,000 notes only mean that people have either liked adn or reblogged that post, for all we know many of those reblogs could be from pissed off radfems going see here this just confirms my point that anyone opposing us is a hater (or whatever their warped logic considers them I don't know like misogynist collaborators or something).

but couldn't we use the same logic and say that many of the reblogs from Radfem posts are people calling the Radfems out? ;3