Analysis of Upper & Working Class Television Shows

Today in class we were discussing the different types of television shows that are of the working/middle class and those that were of the upper class and comparing the way that men were portrayed in both of these types of shows.

For example, (type A) a working class show would be considered Reba, According to Jim, Two and a Half Men or Still Standing. Most of the working class shows portrayed the main male characters as "buffoons," being stupid and mostly for comic relief. And although the men were portrayed this way, they still were presented as above their wives in the grand scheme of things.

An upper class show (type B) would be considered something like any of the CSI shows, Law & Order (Special Victims Unit and Criminal Intent), or Without a Trace. In almost every one of these shows listed, the main male characters do not show much interaction with their wife/family (if they have one), but the male characters do still seem to have more power than the female characters in the show.

After thinking about it, I thought it was quite interesting to compare the different relationships that the men had with their significant others in either types of the shows. Obviously type A is focused more so on comedy, as opposed to type B which is focused more towards drama and thrill with a little bit of comedic relief here and there. Recognizing this point, I could SORT OF see how the men would be presented MORE as buffoons in type A than type B, but I still do also believe that it does have an unconcious meaning behind it about keeping up with the status quo and distinguishing the two classes -- putting working/middle class down.

I also think it is interesting to compare the relationships and interaction with their wife/family/significant other during the time frame of the show on both types of shows.

For example, on Reba, there is always some type of interaction with Reba's family no matter what the episode is about. Sometimes more than others, but there is never an episode that does not involve more than two members of her family in the direct plot. Most of the time this interaction is a positive one. Or, if it is negative, it is resolved by the end of the show.

In Without a Trace, we do see Jack Malone interact with his family in a few of the shows, particularly at the end of last season (I think?). We see his family eventually falling apart with he and his wife being separated, etc. Also, in Law & Order: SVU, there is interaction shown between Elliot and his wife and kids quite a bit. Starting off positive, the relationship eventually goes downhill. Elliot and his wife become separated and his relationship with his children suffers because of his stressful and constant job with the special victims unit. In both of these type B shows the negative interaction between the main characters and their families is not resolved by the end of the show (in contrast with Reba).

I think I am going to stop rambling now, but if anyone else has any other ideas I would love to hear them. Because I am sure I have not seen EVERY single episode of any of the television series that I just listed...

Except for maybe Law & Order: SVU because I definitely have an obsession there. =]

<3

Oh & here are a few pictures of the shows just in case you aren't totally familiar...

"A Serving of Sexism, with a Side Order of Ageism, Anyone?"

I was doing my weekly browse through feministing and the title of an article made me not want to leave the website without seeing what it was about...

The article was a woman in her "lower to mid-twenties" who was hanging out with a few of her friends (around the same age) at a local coffee shop discussing an issue happening on wall street at the time, politics, their opinions, etc. They weren't speaking too loudly, but, either the tables were close enough that they were speaking just loud ENOUGH or this man was just outwardly rude and decided to eavesdrop on their conversation. And not only did he eavesdrop, but he also decided that he needed to put his "two sense" into their private conversation.

On top of all that, referring to the group of women as "young girls" was offensive, and then he decided to throw in some sexism while he was at it. The fact that he thought that it was absurd that they were so "upset about any of it" is one thing, but to come over and actually say something to them about it is another. He showed his male chauvinistic attitude by saying that they will "obviously" get married, have kids, and have their husbands take care of them. So why worry about it? What a JERK.

My opinion is that if you want to have that type of attitude towards women and that entire subject in general, that is just fine by me. But do NOT come over into a conversation of women that you have no idea who they are, where they come from, what they believe, etc. and tell them what you think without them asking you first. If we wanted your opinion, we would have asked you, now wouldn't have we? He obviously had no regards for their feelings or views and decided that his were much superior which is why he needed to share them. Grant it, I was not present when the particular situation happened, therefore I do not know the attitude with which he presented his opinion. Either way, even if he had said his side of the story with the best of intentions, I still believe it was rude and uncalled for.

The women in the coffee shop did not know how to respond to such a situation, and I do not blame them. I am one of the worst people to deal with confrontation, especially with people I have never met before (most of the time O=]). I have no idea how I would have reacted, but I know that if that ever happens to me (or them, again) I will now have a response ready for it! haha

I do believe that it was great that this group of women were getting together and discussing politics and the issues of the wall street (whatever that was). I am trying to get more involved with all of that myself and become more educated with what is going on in politics. Especially now that I am getting older and it is, in my opinion, my responsibility to know about it.

I think we need to ignore sexist men who believe that women should not care about anything but how to cook them good food and take care of the children, and take a stand for what we believe in to be the sassy, independent women that we are! :]

We need to ignore the so-called "pink collar" cattegories and sexist approaches and just do what we want to do, no matter what the "social norm" is or is expected of us.


Any feedback on this ridiculous story? What would you have done?


<3

The Dove Self-Esteem Fund

I was watching television the other day and a commercial came on that immediately caught my attention. It was a commercial sponsored by Dove for the Self-Esteem Fund, encouraging girls of all ages, around the world to be confident in their own skin and proud of their true beauty. In the commercial, there is a little girl who is bombarded by hundreds of images of women in advertisements, commercials, etc. It also points out the affects that it has/could have on girls and why the Self-Esteem Fund is so important. The commercial seriously touched my heart in so many ways and almost made me cry, that I need to share it with others, just in case you haven't seen it yet.



Just before the self-esteem fund, Dove also did a commercial they called Evolution , which showed the "evolution" of a middle-aged woman with no make up on and her hair not "done" transformed into a woman for an advertisement. First, her appearance was changed by make up artists and hair stylists, then technology kicked in. Computers were used to change her face to make it more "beautiful" and "perfect" in an advertiser's eyes. "No wonder our pereception of beauty is distorted," was quoted at the end of the Dove Film. We have become so naturalized by these billions of images that we see all day every day, that we need this subject to be brought to our attention.

I think both of these commercials make extremely important points about beauty image today and the affects and pressures it puts on young women that MUST be recognized by more and more people. Even though the self-esteem fund seems to focus on young girls during the commercial, in my opinion, Dove has always been a great supporter of ALL women and their TRUE beauty. Their commercials have been targeted towards encouraging and inspiring women around the world to be themselves and to realize their own beauty as oposed to trying to be like the impossible images of women that they view every day.

Not only is this a great, positive way to advertise their product, but Dove is showing that they truly care about women today and that they are working towards crushing the ideology of beauty images that have been imbedded into our minds.

I applaud Dove for starting this great Self-Esteem Fund. And, lucky for them, it makes me even more inclined to buy/support their product. :] Now THAT'S what I call good advertising. ;]

Are you "Sex-Positive" or "Sex-Negative"?

Hey all! My name's Lyndsey and, to be honest, I am pretty new at this whole "blogging" thing. I think I used to have one of those xanga live journals a long lonnggg time ago (which was probably a total of like... five entries) and that's about the extent of my blog experiences. So forgive me if I seem like a little bit of an ammature. :]



I was going to write about the whole Sarah Palin "issue" that we discussed today, but since we talked about it so much in class, I figured I should probably pick a different topic. So I tried browsing through feministing.com and came across an interesting article that talks about the new terms "sex-positive" and "sex-negative" that are being used to describe what seems to me their views on sex in the media and just in general.

Even though I am not completely positive that I grasped the entire idea of the article since, after all, I am new to these terms that I never knew existed, I do think that the woman who wrote the article makes a valid point. Just because someone does not advertise their sexual history, or even lack-there-of, they should not be associated with a negative connotation in their stance towards sex. The terms "negative" and "positive" infer that one MUST be in COMPLETE support of pornography, sexual images of women in the media, careers in the sex industry, etc. in order to be associated with the "positive" connotation. Which is not how it should be. After reading one of the comments beneath the article, I had a better understanding of what the terms were supposedly meant for.

According to nightingale:

Sex-positives = "about supporting women's sexuality and our right to use our sexuality as we want."

Sex-negatives = "non-feminists. IE the people who go around saying sex is just for procreation, that most women only have sex to please their male partners, etc."

No matter what your viewpoint is, you shouldn't be put down because of it, that includes the feminists, non-feminists, the "sex-positives," the "sex-negatives". Just don't put other people's beliefs down or try to push your beliefs onto them. :]


<3 Lyndsey