Why does popular culture enjoy portraying powerful women humiliating weaker men?

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by lepustimidus, Jul 30, 2008.

  1. lepustimidus Banned Banned

    Messages:
    979
    I was just watching that series 'Two and a half men', and I was struck by the misandry. All of the humour in the show essentially revolves around an obsequious, snivelling (but harmless and nerdlike) divorced man being humiliated, dominated, and fucked over (both financially and emotionally) by his ex-wife (now ex-wives).

    So I'm just curious as to who here actually finds this show amusing. And why is it seen as appropriate by society to tear men down for laughs, yet it is seen as villianous to do likewise to women?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
    The one ex wife is seen as a controlling bitch and the other as a brainless bombshell. The main character's Mom is a trampy loveless controlling drunk. The maid is an ex biker chick with whores for daughters. The neighbor lady is a stalker.

    I don't think the women come off looking that well either. But I suppose you see what you want to see.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Most popular television shows have characters that are abnormal. Monk, Psycho, Burn Notice, Desperate Housewives, Law and Order. Its cool to be far from the norm.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Simon Anders Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,535
    I have to say I had the same reaction as Orleander. Sure the men are mocked, but we are supposed to identify mostly with them. I did not get the impression we are supposed to like that ex+wife. I thought we were supposed to think bitch.

    Also you are generalizing from one instance. I donät watch a lot of TV, thank god. But I do see a good deal of films. From what I can see men are still the main heroes, they still rescue women. There are still a good number of the misunderstood by wife cops. Films are still centered in men more than women. There have been shifts, but the majority of the interesting roles are for the men who tend to have more complicated characters. If there are bimboes they tend to be women more than men.
     
  8. lepustimidus Banned Banned

    Messages:
    979
    Orleander:
    I agree that the women don't come off looking great (they come off a damn sight better than the men, IMHO), but their flaws aren't treated as joke. The humiliation of the nerdy guy by all the women in his life is treated as joke, and that's what I find odd. If the genders were reversed, the humiliation would no longer be considered humourous.

    For comparison, imagine a show where the humour consisted primarily of a dominant man slapping around and humiliating his wife. Sure, he'd come off as asshole, but I'd certainly find the humour tasteless. I'd also wonder to myself why women getting abused by men is considered a joke by society, which is what I asked originally.
     
  9. lepustimidus Banned Banned

    Messages:
    979
    Simon:
    I disagree. To me, there is a clear trend towards shows where women are not only dominant, but the humour or thrill consists of them getting the better of a man.

    "The best way to catch a man is with a woman" comes to mind.
     
  10. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    Well ... because it's pop culture

    There are a few points worth considering. First and foremost, it's hard for me to see that the "villainy" of misogyny is taken seriously, given that it persists and even flourishes in American culture.

    Secondly, we might consider history and social prejudice. Women have long been second-class citizens in societies around the world; part of our vigilance against misogyny derives from this process. To the other, though, to consider Orleander's point from another topic, "Men, for some odd reason," often see such complaints as indicative of "being a weenie".

    Third, we should pause for a moment to think about ideological transitions. Such flux is typical and to be found throughout history, though modernity brings an increase in the frequency and magnitude of the shifts. For instance, at least into the 1990s, it was an insult to call a woman a slut, and while calling a man a slut was considered insulting, it was the feminization of the man that was the insult, not the suggestion that he is somehow wrong for getting his rocks off when he can.

    Perhaps should some era come in which men are truly oppressed by women, sex and gender perspectives might transform more dramatically. In the meantime, it's slow progress.

    Yet even if we set all that aside, a persuasive element to answer the question is found in your own post:

    While one might chuckle at your summary of the show, the fact that the question derives from Two and a Half Men speaks much toward the answer. American network sitcoms are among our most intellectually flaccid dregs of art. Good sitcoms over the years are pretty rare in this country. After M*A*S*H and Taxi, things have been in steady decline. We'll say the same thing about cartoon series in a few years.

    Bottom line is that you're referring to Two and a Half Men. Charlie Sheen is one of the stars, for heaven's sake. That it is highly-enough rated to gain local syndication says nothing; so was Charles in Charge. That it is highly-enough rated to get cable syndication (FX) says nothing; so was Spin City. That it is highly-enough rated to survive the WGA strike and get a sixth season says nothing to its credit; it is an American sitcom in the twenty-first century. You might as well say that it's a good show because it's better than Dharma & Greg.

    All of which suggests that in worrying about the audience of Two and a Half Men means you're worrying about pop culture idiots; the show is intended to appeal to a lesser intellectual state.
     
  11. kenworth dude...**** it,lets go bowling Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,034
    you are obsessed with gender
     
  12. Cazzo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,031
    Careful, non-politically correct threads like this might just get erased.
    I just wrote a thread about Hollywood's feminist fantasies (like in GI Jane), and the thread was completely erased within 2 days. A thread somewhat similar to this, about women kicking guys asses in films.
    I wonder if this server's based in the speech police State of Communist China.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
    Yeah, The Honeymooners (where Ralph always threatened to hit her), Gracie Allen as a world class idiot, and who could forget Edith Bunker.
     
  14. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    You mean this thread?

    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=83562

    It was moved to another subforum. Did you miss the re-direct that was there for a day after it was moved? What can I say.. lrn2subscribetoyourownthreads.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. Cazzo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,031
    Yea, I missed the re-direct. My bad.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. Simon Anders Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,535
    Well, I don't watch much TV. I don't see it in films, but maybe you are right about TV.
     
  17. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Actually you're incorrect. Most of the show is about the "obsequious, snivelling (but harmless and nerdlike) divorced man being humiliated, dominated, and fucked over" by his own brother. And the brother's treatment of women.. the 'fuck 'em and leave them' type.

    The women in the show are basically in the peripheral.. the main gist of the show is the relationship between the two brothers and the young son. That is what the show actually centers on.. Hence the name.. "Two and a half men"..

    And yes, I do find it amusing whenever I get the chance to watch it (which puts me in the "lesser intellectual state bracket apparently), which these days, is quite rare.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2008
  18. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    I'd suggest that you contact the moderator of the forum in question (being me in this instance since it was first posted in Human Science) by PM before you make accusations of thread deletion to fulfill some kind of political correctness agenda.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. lepustimidus Banned Banned

    Messages:
    979
    Bells:
    I disagree. Also note that the nerdlike guy is forced to live with his brother precisely because of his first ex-wife winning big in the divorce settlement, and him having to pay alimony to her. And even when she re-marries, guess what... the nerd guy need to pay alimony to a second ex-wife, so the situation remains the same. His humiliating circumstances are due to women, and a court system biased in favour of women. Hahaha...

    Point? The fact still remains that most of the humour in the show is derived from the nerdlike guy getting humiliated by more powerful women. It may just be that the episodes I have seen focus on the nerd guy and his relationships with his ex-wive/s, but I doubt it.

    The fact of the matter is that the show portrays a weak snivelling man constantly getting humiliated by more powerful (but bitchy) women. It also portrays him get a royal fucking over by the legal system in regards to child custody, alimony, etc.

    And again, just in case anyone here has forgotten, I'm not asking why TV likes to portray men in a negative light (given that both the nerds brother Charlie? and his two ex-wives are portrayed in a negative light), but why the audience is expected to derive humour from the humiliation of a weak man from more powerful women. This question has yet to be addressed by anyone on the thread. People have denied that this occurs (which is bullshit, since most of the humour in the show derives from nerd guy getting cut down at the knees), or have answered irrelevant questions, but they have yet to answer the question.

    Orleander:
    Never seen them. But just enlighten me: Are the female characters in these shows forced to live with family members because of their ex-husband winning a disproportionate amount of the assets when the property was divided up? Are they humiliated in court by inept lawyers? Does their ex-husband manipulate them constantly, by feigning love, or denying them access to their children? Is most of the humour on the show derived from their suffering and humiliation?

    I doubt it. But even then, I'm willing to bet that these shows are in a minority. There is a distinct trend in Western pop culture where we are expected to obtain humour from the suffering and humiliation of men. Yet if the same occurred to women, there would be incredible discomfort.

    kenworth:
    If you have nothing of worth to add to my thread, get the fuck out, troll.
     
  20. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    You've never really watched this show, have you?

    The show is literally based on a man who moves in with his older brother after his marriage breaks down. Yes, she got to keep the house (which is the primary residence of their son) and he has to pay her alimony and child support. No, she does not re-marry (I remember one episode where he was ecstatic that she might re-marry and he wouldn't have to keep paying alimony, but she never did re-marry) and no, he does not have to keep paying her alimony if she did re-marry. The whole basis of the show is how the two brothers interact and how the little boy getting thrown into the equation makes them both act. The women in the show remain on the sidelines. The few lines here and there where they might belittle either brothers basically points to one or both brothers acting like idiots and this fact being pointed out to them. Is it the woman's fault if the younger brother keeps getting married to the wrong woman or is, in short, an idiot? No.

    Honestly, you're grasping at straws here MH. The show centers on the relationship between Charlie and Allen and how Allen is anal and Charlie is an alcoholic who only wants to have a good time and in the process, sets his brother up constantly or reminds his brother of his weaknesses.

    No. Most of the humour comes from the relationship between the two brothers... Charlie constantly belittling and humiliating Allen for his anal attitudes and Allen constantly lecturing and trying to teach his brother that his way of living is bad. Charlie gets the biggest share of insults since it is his show at the end of the day.

    Seriously, what part of the title of the show do you not get?:bugeye:

    Refer to above about the show and its portrayal of Allen and his relationship with women. Also, one central basis of the show is that he and his exwife share custody of their son and half the time, they are trying to offload him on each other because well, the child is dumb (to put it mildly).

    Good timing and scripting I guess. What? Do you think women around the world sit there and laugh and rejoice at one man who keeps getting screwed over by the supposed system?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    If I were to take this show to another level, which you appear to have done, I'd be prompt to point out that the other central male figure in the show, instead of supporting and helping his brother, does all he can to further humiliate and belittle him, both in front of his son, but also in front of everyone else as well. Why should the audience find that amusing? After all, that is the central basis of the whole show..

    Dont you get it? He gets cut down at the knees by his brother. In one episode I saw recently, the younger brother was dating two women and asked his brother to lie to each one in turn to cover his own behaviour. So the brother told one that he was out shopping for a diamond necklace for her (because he found it amusing that his brother could not afford to buy her a diamond necklace and would be then forced to do so) and told the other woman that the brother volunteered at homeless shelters but then later on, told her that he also bonks the children he supposedly helps.

    The question has been addressed. The show itself is based on the fact that the younger brother can't seem to get a break and his older brother constantly humiliates him. It's not about women in society. But a fictional show about the relationship between two brothers.
     
  21. lepustimidus Banned Banned

    Messages:
    979
    Bells:
    I've watched about eight episodes. What makes you think that I haven't watched the show?

    You are aware that you're simply helping my case here, right?

    Yes she does. She gets remarried to a doctor. You've never really watched this show, have you?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    That's what I said earlier. Just when you're thinking "Hey, Alan is off the hook, he doesn't have to pay alimony to a controlling woman!", guess what, the script writers make it so that he has to pay alimony to his second wife. Haha, let's all laugh at the dumbfuck man. Slick.

    Not from the episodes I've watched.

    Several of the episodes which stick in my mind include:

    - Where Charlie mentions something mysogynist in front of the kid, and the kid blurts it out in front of Alan's ex-wife's woman's meeting. As a result, she denies him custody of his son, and the rest of the episode revolves around the two brothers trying to get custody back (through pleading and trickery).

    - When his first ex-wife remarries to the doctor, and his ex-wife wants the kid to call his stepfather 'dad', guess what advice Alan gives to his son? "Call him Dad." I've always found the concept of a stepfather usurping the role of 'fatherhood' a real laugh.

    - When Alan wants custody of his dog, who is in the hands of his second ex-wife. He goes to his first ex-wife to ask her for her lawyer, but guess what... she's already given that lawyer to his second ex-wife. Why? For kicks. Don't forget the scripted laughter that plays when the revelation is made.

    - Alan thinks his first ex-wife still has feelings for him, until the revelation is made that she's just exploiting him to do her menial chores. Good stuff.

    God, you're obtuse. But chew on this: Should we find it humourous that an obsequious man continually remarries women who abuse and exploit him? Would you find it humourous if the genders were reversed? Would you find it funny if a dumbfuck woman continued having relationships with abusive men? I certainly wouldn't. Quite the contrary, I'd find it incredibly uncomfortable to watch.

    Again, you're missing the clue train. Re-read my posts. This time, pay attention.

    Hint: I never said, or even implied, that: "women around the world sit there and laugh and rejoice at one man who keeps getting screwed over by the supposed system."

    I'd argue that the show also explores the love-hate relationship between the two brothers. While there is sibling rivalry between Charlie and Alan. While most of the humour is derived from Alan getting humiliated at the hands of women. Charlie is an amateur when it comes to cutting down Alan.
     
  22. Simon Anders Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,535
    You know what, guys.
    The thread title implies that there is a general trend in popular culture. Arguing back and forth about this one show will not prove very much.

    I don't believe the trend is happening in movies. I think there probably is more of what is L is complaining about, but this is still outnumbered by the amount of bimbo women, the amount of movies with male leads we root for who are the heroes and save women and so on.

    But perhaps this is happening on TV.

    There must be more TV shows than this one to justify the thread title.

    What are they?
     
  23. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Errr because of the fact you can't seem to grasp what the show is really about.

    What? That when you get divorced, have a child with the woman and are the primary income earner while the wife stayed home with the child, you might, just might have to pay alimony?

    No sweety. She gets engaged to the doctor, something that appeared to distress her ex-husband somewhat, until it dawned on him that he would no longer have to pay her alimony. Unfortunately for him, his ex-wife broke up with the doctor before they could get married.

    From what I understand, he gets married three times in the show.. at least twice. The last marriage is to a stupid woman with the mind of a child.. a marriage he gets into when both are drunk. So ya.. "laugh at the dumbfuck" who keeps getting himself into such a situation when the scriptwriters make it funny.

    We have obviously not watched the same episodes. The one where she wants the son to call the doctor "Dad" is when they get engaged, I believe. Something the son is happy to do when he realises "Dad" has a pool, a boat and was going to take him scuba-diving. He is angry at his mother when the relationship ends because he sees it as an end to his good times.

    Of course we shouldn't find it funny if it happened in real life. That's what you aren't grasping here. You are basing your argument on a comedy show, something completely fictional. If it were real life, no one would be laughing. And you call me obtuse?

    And what you keep missing is that the whole show is a fictional detail of the relationship between two brothers. Both slightly insane, both a bit idiotic and both with severe personal issues.

    No. Most of the show is about the older brother constantly cutting down his younger brother, because his brother is the total opposite to him, both in personality and outlook on life. Women, again, are on the outside of their relationship. The younger brother appears to be seemingly obsessed with getting 'laid', while the older brother gets to have sex with whatever woman he chooses to. The show is about the older brother constantly amusing himself at his younger brother's mistakes.. by not only perpetuating those mistakes so that his brother continues to suffer, but also by reminding him of the tricks he subjected him to from their childhood... The younger brother is gullible and the older brother takes advantage of that on a constant basis.

    Had you commented on their relationship with their mother, then yes, you might have had a point. The mother belittles both of them and loves them, but is unloving towards them.. from their childhood. So the constant bickering between the brothers stems, in part, to their childhood being brought up by a woman who is, by all intents and purposes, a black widow (something they allude to in one episode).
     

Share This Page