Portrayal of Men in Society? Bad for XYs?

[squirrel boy]

the world is changing, men are becoming lazy fat(black ops anyone?), stay at home husbands while the wife has a choice of leaving and working, or staying and working and occasionally getting some form of love. i think sexism like profesco said, it really comes down to whats in your pants :/
i mean you would think after God-knows-how-long we would realize that women and men are just as capable of doing things, and i mean why should a human that literally can keep the population going be put down? it makes no sense to me

 

[GhostAnime]

the world is changing, men are becoming lazy fat(black ops anyone?), stay at home husbands while the wife has a choice of leaving and working, or staying and working and occasionally getting some form of love.

You totally came into this topic unbiased.

 

[squirrel boy]

the truth hurts.




i guess you could say that......
but i mean theres more women graduating colleges than men every single year, more women working= less jobs for men. sure a man should sit around and play video games all day. they should be looking for a job.

 

[GaZsTiC]

the truth hurts.




i guess you could say that......
but i mean theres more women graduating colleges than men every single year, more women working= less jobs for men. sure a man should sit around and play video games all day. they should be looking for a job.

Present evidence please. Then we may discuss how we are in a worldwide recession and women, by law, can be paid less than men, so large companies will obviously go for the cheaper option. Also, that view is very backwards considering that unemployment rates have never been higher; "looking for a job" is no longer an option for many regardless of gender.

 

[meteor64]

the truth hurts.

What truth? Yet again, people are walking into the topic with a sweeping generalisation. Not only have you incinuated that every man upon the planet plays Call Of Duty all day non-stop, but you imply that we're all fat and lazy.
Please come back when you have the intelligence to make a well thought out post.

I'd also like to point out that there are more overweight women than men.

 

[GhostAnime]

the truth hurts.




i guess you could say that......
but i mean theres more women graduating colleges than men every single year, more women working= less jobs for men. sure a man should sit around and play video games all day. they should be looking for a job.

So, why are men making more money? Why are there more scientists as men, construction workers as men, and tons of other occupations as mostly men?

Please provide constructive opinions in this topic.

 

[Trillian]

it doesn't work to have a reverse sexist complaint when those roles are reversed. One depiction can be sexist; they can't both be.

I respectfully disagree, and perhaps it is based on my own personal dislike of certain archetypes. Each character archetype (in the sense of a characterisation that is used repeatedly) promotes certain stereotypes, and has a certain aspect of sexism with it. Take your example of role-reversal of the genders - women could complain that they're being portrayed as clueless airheads and men could complain that they're being portrayed as dull and humourless. In the OP, the poster mentions that he feels men are portrayed as slobs. I mentioned that the female characters come across as serious and unlikeable, at least in comparison to male protagonist (who gets to make mistakes, learn from them and still come off in a good light, whereas the woman has to be good-looking [or at least better-looking than the guy], gets much less character development and puts up with the protagonist's antics because she's a good wife etc etc and I'll stop now). Again, that's how I see it. I know other people don't, or they see these things differently from me, and that's fine. My point is, however, no matter how you portray men and women, there's a certain aspect of sexism individual to that specific character archetype; this is because an archetype is, in essence, a character composition that is copied and used repeatedly, which drums certain stereotypes into the viewer.

Depending on how defensive someone is, they can find a way to file complaints about any depiction of a gender (or other demographic). It's not fair or reasonable to cry sexism no matter which depiction is used.

I know that's a general statement but I thought I'd respond to it. What I've described is not something I'd feel warranted official complaint to the company that make the shows, it's just that I find it irritating that they constantly use characters that have been seen many times before and don't try to flesh them out and make them a bit more balanced. I still believe there's sexism in any over-used character type, as certain traits are actively reinforced simply by the repeated use of that type of character.

It's not sexism or gender inequality if it's done by both genders. It's pure and simple objectification. A form of degradation uninhibited by the contents of your underwear. =P

Fair enough, I used the wrong vocabulary and you're right to point that out. I was trying to emphasise the concept of judging someone on looks; not as sexism, but rather something that everyone naturally does. It doesn't justify the action, but it isn't sexist, as you've rightly pointed out!

And believe me, the male-oriented terms may be ironic, but once you study a language where half of job titles don't have a female linguistic equivalent (in a language where all nouns are gendered) the English language seems very tame in comparison!

 

[Aquanova]

I really dont know what to think of this topic but here goes:

I dont think the media is a good judge of Men's or Women's characters and things like that. Remember that these people seen on TV are acting, they are told to behave a certain way because that is how the character is written. Just because you see a man act like an Idiot on a TV show, dosent mean all men in real life are like that.

Honestly I dont know why the media would want to portray men or women in a negative manner, but they do sometimes. I suppose I ought to pay more attention to the behavioral patterns and stereotypes of either gender on Television and Movies. Neither gender is without their flaws, though

 

[Profesco]

I respectfully disagree, and perhaps it is based on my own personal dislike of certain archetypes.

My point is, however, no matter how you portray men and women, there's a certain aspect of sexism individual to that specific character archetype; this is because an archetype is, in essence, a character composition that is copied and used repeatedly, which drums certain stereotypes into the viewer.

I respectfully disagree with your respectful disagreement. ;P

Yes, and that's the hitch in your description right there: the archetypes used in comedy acts are stereotypes. It doesn't matter whether it's a man or a woman, the archetype is a comic lambast of the character trait, not the person. I'm not arguing that there's no sterotyping or discrimination; there is, as there is in most forms of comedy. I'm arguing that it's not specifically sexist if it's done to both genders, by both genders, and regardless of the archetypal role that character is playing. "Sexist" means specifically denigrating to one gender (usually to the benefit of the other).

If the traits of "dumb and flaky" are denigrating to a woman (or a man), then the traits of "not-dumb and not-flaky" cannot, by definition, be equally denigrating. So, it's not sexism - it's plain old stereotyping of character traits, neutral as far as gender is concerned.

 

[Trillian]

I respectfully disagree with your respectful disagreement. ;P

Then we may have to agree to disagree on this one!

If the traits of "dumb and flaky" are denigrating to a woman (or a man), then the traits of "not-dumb and not-flaky" cannot, by definition, be equally denigrating. So, it's not sexism - it's plain old stereotyping of character traits, neutral as far as gender is concerned.

But my argument is not like-for-like comparison of stereotypes, as you've described (flaky vs. not flaky), because in that respect you're right.

But say we have two scenarios: scenario A and scenario B. In scenario A, we have the male protagonist Bob and female protagonist Alice. Both work for the same company, but Bob is outgoing and has lots of friends while Alice is quite reserved. The writers of this show, based on these archetypes, make Alice painfully shy and a stickler for her work, whereas Bob is a flirt and gets away with practically everything because he's charismatic. And together, they fight crime!

Now in scenario B, it's the other way around: Alice is the outgoing and popular one and Bob is the reserved type. In this case, the writers make Alice loud and obnoxious and a bit of an air-head, while Bob is clumsy and spends most of his free time in front of his Xbox.

Doing a like-for-like comparison would give the results you describe: Alice A, who is shy vs. Alice B, who isn't. Alice B, who is a 'bimbo' vs. Alice A, who isn't. However, stereotypes emerge from the archetypes on which the characters are built, so while over-use of Alice A in a tv show could insinuate that any female in real life like her would be impossible to socialise with and anal about their work, the use of Alice B in popular media would mean a female like Alice B in real life wouldn't have the negative stereotypes of Alice A (and you could call these stereotypes sexist, as in this hypothetical situation Bob B's stereotypes are different) but would have their own negative connotations based on Alice B's character.

Clear as mud? If you can make sense out of it, that's the reason why I don't believe character role reversal cannot be sexist; each archetype presents its own unique stereotypes, and they're often gender-based. I know that the hypothetical situation I've just written is completely fabricated, but to a lot of writers the archetype of, say, nerdy best friend (female) has its own female-exclusive negative connotations that nerdy best friend (male) does not, and as such can be seen as sexist.

 

[Profesco]

Clear as mud? If you can make sense out of it, that's the reason why I don't believe character role reversal cannot be sexist; each archetype presents its own unique stereotypes, and they're often gender-based. I know that the hypothetical situation I've just written is completely fabricated, but to a lot of writers the archetype of, say, nerdy best friend (female) has its own female-exclusive negative connotations that nerdy best friend (male) does not, and as such can be seen as sexist.

Clear as very dilute mud.

All of the responses I can think of would involve creative reframing to fit my thesis rather than explaining outward from the thesis itself, which means I've no honest counter. You've explained your argument well, and I can agree with you. ^_^

 

[Trillian]

Clear as very dilute mud.

All of the responses I can think of would involve creative reframing to fit my thesis rather than explaining outward from the thesis itself, which means I've no honest counter. You've explained your argument well, and I can agree with you. ^_^

Thank you, as have you! You've brought up some great points and you've also pointed out holes in my argument that I'm going to have to investigate in more detail. All in the name of some good old-fashioned debate!