The Male Head of Household in Sit-Coms - a target of derision

[sawyerloggingon]

Yes there is because comedy works very well in a family setting and frankly having an idiot father is really funny and provides a basis for almost everything else.

The son is supposed to be the idiot and the father is supposed to be the wise dad that teaches him, Hollywood has turned this on its head. Dennis the Menace and The Beaver were always getting into trouble that was funny and dad always got them out just like IRL.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Damn those hippies who wrote The Honeymooners, I Love Lucy, and The Dick Van Dycke Show!

The Honeymooners was kind of dark comedy, the other two shows you mention were full of love for each other and the kids.

 

[sangha]

The Honeymooners was kind of dark comedy, the other two shows you mention were full of love for each other and the kids.

Dark comedy? :lamo

And the wives love the husbands in the newer sitcoms. Marge loves Homer. Whats her name loves Raymond, etc.....

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Dark comedy? :lamo

And the wives love the husbands in the newer sitcoms. Marge loves Homer. Whats her name loves Raymond, etc.....

When you started this thread you said you would give your opinion after others did.... batter up.

 

[Carjosse]

The son is supposed to be the idiot and the father is supposed to be the wise dad that teaches him, Hollywood has turned this on its head. Dennis the Menace and The Beaver were always getting into trouble that was funny and dad always got them out just like IRL.

Then you would enjoy kids animated sitcoms then because that is what they do.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Good point. I guess I should have specified sitcoms dealing with family life.

No - this is a good thread. "the moment Aunt Spiker realized she live on Pluto"

 

[Paschendale]

The son is supposed to be the idiot and the father is supposed to be the wise dad that teaches him, Hollywood has turned this on its head. Dennis the Menace and The Beaver were always getting into trouble that was funny and dad always got them out just like IRL.

That's the thing. Real life is not always like that. It very often is not. And what you're talking about is pretending that stupid or ineffective fathers don't exist. 50s TV never represented a majority of the lives of real people. In fact, those 50s TV fathers are notoriously unrealistic. The Wards and the Cleavers represented a tiny minority of real families at the time, and even fewer now. You want to rewrite history. You can't do that.

 

[Gathomas88]

I thought that Malcolm in the Middle actually managed to hit a pretty fair balance in this regard without swinging too far in either direction.

The mother and father were both fairly competent, while being flawed in their own ways. The father was sort of aloof and carried something of an immature and self-centered obsessive streak, which would occasionally cause problems, but he never came off as being explicitly oafish. The mother, meanwhile, was basically well meaning and well organized, but also a wildly OCD domineering control freak prone to bouts of stress induced temper when her children got out of line.

In essence, it addressed masculine and feminine stereotypes at the same time, while examining the ups and downsides of both.

It did much the same with the children. There was a "trouble maker," a "prodigal son," an "overachiever" (who was too smart for his own good)," and an "annoying younger sibling."

Basically everyone in the family was flawed or stereotyped in some way or another. The whole point of the program was that they all managed to hang together as a cohesive family unit even in spite of this fact.

It was one of the many things about the show which made it so endearing. It was funny not because it was the opposite of real life, but because people could actually somewhat relate the show's plotlines to their experiences with their own family.

Whats her name loves Raymond, etc.....

I kind of doubt it. The woman basically becomes a raging she-bitch from Hell in the later seasons.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

That's the thing. Real life is not always like that. It very often is not. And what you're talking about is pretending that stupid or ineffective fathers don't exist. 50s TV never represented a majority of the lives of real people. In fact, those 50s TV fathers are notoriously unrealistic. The Wards and the Cleavers represented a tiny minority of real families at the time, and even fewer now. You want to rewrite history. You can't do that.

They represented mine and the majority of my friends.

 

[ttwtt78640]

That's the thing. Real life is not always like that. It very often is not. And what you're talking about is pretending that stupid or ineffective fathers don't exist. 50s TV never represented a majority of the lives of real people. In fact, those 50s TV fathers are notoriously unrealistic. The Wards and the Cleavers represented a tiny minority of real families at the time, and even fewer now. You want to rewrite history. You can't do that.

You, on the other hand, are completely ignoring reality. Were most father's perfect TV role models in the 1950s? No - but far more attempted to play that role.

LifeSiteNews Mobile | The number of US children living in single-parent homes has nearly doubled in 50 years: Census data

Fathers disappear from households across America - Washington Times

 

[Paschendale]

They represented mine and the majority of my friends.

Lucky you for being born into such a comfortable life. A lot of people who were poorer than you were not so fortunate.

You, on the other hand, are completely ignoring reality. Were most father's perfect TV role models in the 1950s? No - but far more attempted to play that role.

LifeSiteNews Mobile | The number of US children living in single-parent homes has nearly doubled in 50 years: Census data

Fathers disappear from households across America - Washington Times

Now we're talking about two different things. You're just talking about two parent homes vs one parent homes. That's just another symptom of the decreasing economic power of the working classes. Most families try to stay together. It's a lot easier when you're not desperate and poor. You want fewer single parent homes? You need those parents not to be living hand to mouth.

Sawyer's issue is the mistaken notions that these fathers were somehow better people than others. I think he just has an idealized view of his own father. The rhetoric that "father knows best" did not withstand the scrutiny applied to it after the 1950s. The emphasis on strict authoritarian controls of the male head of the home diminished once women obtained more agency to control their own lives, and young people became a significant political and economic force during the 1960s. And once everyone stopped assuming that fathers knew best, they realized that fathers are normal people like everyone else. Being male does not lead one to make better decisions, and assuming that it does is the underlying premise of those 50s TV dads. Father doesn't know best. He knows just as much or as little as anyone else. And giving him such authoritarian control over his family made them worse off, not better.

 

[sangha]

My thoughts

First I'd like to address the idea that these shows undermined traditional values. IMO, nothing could be further from the truth. When evaluated objectively, one sees that the moral of the episodes tended to be very supportive of traditional values. When hubby deceives his wife so that he could have a weekend of fun with the boys, instead of going to some boring family affair, his deceit is discovered. The moral being "honesty is the best policy". When he gets involved in some hare-brained get-rich-quick scheme, it fails and the lesson is "There is no free lunch" and "Hard work leads to success", etc.

Now, onto the appeal of this formula. I think the poster who mentioned role reversal hit closest to the point. However, that begs the question of why is this role reversal so funny? Why would any man want to see others representing themselves be portrayed as a bumbling, deceitful, fool?

IMO, it has to do with how we feel about traditional gender roles(TGR). According to TGR, it's a man's job to go out and work and support the family. And when he's not working, he's supposed to lead his family with his wisdom about life. It's a big responsibility, and we all realize that we may not be able to do a perfect job of it.

The sitcom formula allows men to indulge the fantasy of being able to set their responsibilities to the side, and imagine living more like a child. Indulging their impulses, and pursuing pleasure without worrying how it affects others while at the same time encouraging them to think "I may not be perfect, but at least I'm not as bad as that guy"

 

[CRUE CAB]

From the Simpsons, to Everybody Loves Raymond and on and on, sit-coms seem to adhere (for the most part) to a formula where the male head of the household is a childish fool, always getting into some kind of hare-brained scheme requiring his wife or children to pull him out of.

In another thread, some have speculated that this is the result of "librul media's" hostility to white men and support for feminism. However, the "foolish man" formula long predates feminism and liberalisms' supposed "control" of Hollywood. As far back as The Dick Van Dyke Show and The Honeymooners the male head of household has been portrayed as a childish fool in sitcoms.

I have my own theory as to why this formula is so popular, but I will withold it until I hear what some of you think about it.

Two things.
All in the Family were Archie was a ignorant bigot.
That was a vast departure from many of the families portrayed in TV shows before that.
Leave it to Beaver, All MY Sons and so on.
So the second part is people from broken homes were mom really was in control are now in Hollywood writing for shows and they only know about their fathers by what their mothers told them.
So all they know is from mom is your dad is a loser, bum, bigot, no job, cheap bastard.
So they start writting the fathers roles as buffoons.

 

[sangha]

Two things.
All in the Family were Archie was a ignorant bigot.
That was a vast departure from many of the families portrayed in TV shows before that.
Leave it to Beaver, All MY Sons and so on.
So the second part is people from broken homes were mom really was in control are now in Hollywood writing for shows and they only know about their fathers by what their mothers told them.
So all they know is from mom is your dad is a loser, bum, bigot, no job, cheap bastard.
So they start writting the fathers roles as buffoons.

Shows that mocked the male head of households have been around long before the increase in single parent households. The Honeymooners is a good example of this.

And I've seen no evidence that the scripts for sitcoms are being controlled by women who were raised in single parent households.

And even if that were true, it doesn't explain why such shows are popular even amongst men who are the head of households. It doesn't explain why those men seem to enjoy those shows just as much as everyone else.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Shows that mocked the male head of households have been around long before the increase in single parent households. The Honeymooners is a good example of this.

And I've seen no evidence that the scripts for sitcoms are being controlled by women who were raised in single parent households.

And even if that were true, it doesn't explain why such shows are popular even amongst men who are the head of households. It doesn't explain why those men seem to enjoy those shows just as much as everyone else.

Honeymooners were self depreciating comedy that was Jackie Gleasons stock in trade in his stand up. And if I remember right, they were not parents of smart mouthed teen agers.
And he was smart enough to kill the show after one season. Classic comedy, but was not on for so long it was ingrained as almost an indoctrination to what family life is supposed to be.
And right around the same time, offset the daffy side of I Love Lucy.
One more thought, God dang I am getting old.

 

[sangha]

Honeymooners were self depreciating comedy that was Jackie Gleasons stock in trade in his stand up. And if I remember right, they were not parents of smart mouthed teen agers.
And he was smart enough to kill the show after one season. Classic comedy, but was not on for so long it was ingrained as almost an indoctrination to what family life is supposed to be.
And right around the same time, offset the daffy side of I Love Lucy.
One more thought, God dang I am getting old.

Slapping the label "self-deprecating" doesn't change the fact that it portrayed the male head of household as a boob, nor does it change the fact that the Honeymooners was not the only sit com to do this.

It also does not explain why so many viewers who were male head of households enjoyed the show.

In I Love Lucy, Ricky was not particularly boobish but he was clueless and clearly not in control of his family. Not exactly very supportive of traditional gender roles in family life. Also, Fred was a boob.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Slapping the label "self-deprecating" doesn't change the fact that it portrayed the male head of household as a boob, nor does it change the fact that the Honeymooners was not the only sit com to do this.

It also does not explain why so many viewers who were male head of households enjoyed the show.

In I Love Lucy, Ricky was not particularly boobish but he was clueless and clearly not in control of his family. Not exactly very supportive of traditional gender roles in family life. Also, Fred was a boob.

But Ricky was the bread winner, talented and very handsome.
Lucille Ball thought was very accomplished in acting and comedy and the best thing is in all those old shows. No matter who was more together or smarter. They showed great respect towards each other.
Even when Ralph Kramden would say "one of these days Alice", "to the moon!". Her body language and facial expressions were priceless. Like "yea, keep talking fat man".
As far as head of households liking the show, I guess it was because it was funny. Funny is funny.
Ralph Kramdens problems always stemmed from his schemes and plans. At least he was scheming and planning.
The husband on Everybody loves Raymond" for example, is a dolt. A 40 yearold man that has yet to cut the apron strings, yet wants his wife to be the buffer and be miserable just so he can live near mommy and daddy. And daddy is an idiot to.

 

[sangha]

But Ricky was the bread winner, talented and very handsome.

In most of the shows (maybe all?), the male HOH is either the primary breadwinner, or the SOLE breadwinner.

Lucille Ball thought was very accomplished in acting and comedy and the best thing is in all those old shows. No matter who was more together or smarter. They showed great respect towards each other.

Again, in nearly all family based sitcoms, the couple is depicted as loving and respecting each other. Even Marge loves Homer.

Even when Ralph Kramden would say "one of these days Alice", "to the moon!". Her body language and facial expressions were priceless. Like "yea, keep talking fat man".
As far as head of households liking the show, I guess it was because it was funny. Funny is funny.

No, funny is funny does not explain anything, particularly why anyone would enjoy seeing someone in their own situation depicted in a negative way.

Ralph Kramdens problems always stemmed from his schemes and plans. At least he was scheming and planning.
The husband on Everybody loves Raymond" for example, is a dolt. A 40 yearold man that has yet to cut the apron strings, yet wants his wife to be the buffer and be miserable just so he can live near mommy and daddy. And daddy is an idiot to.

Which raises the question "Why would any man enjoy watching the show?", a question you have completely failed to answer. It seems that you haven't even tried (aside from your meaningless "funny is funny")

 

[CRUE CAB]

In most of the shows (maybe all?), the male HOH is either the primary breadwinner, or the SOLE breadwinner.



Again, in nearly all family based sitcoms, the couple is depicted as loving and respecting each other. Even Marge loves Homer.



No, funny is funny does not explain anything, particularly why anyone would enjoy seeing someone in their own situation depicted in a negative way.



Which raises the question "Why would any man enjoy watching the show?", a question you have completely failed to answer. It seems that you haven't even tried (aside from your meaningless "funny is funny")

I dont know why men today watch todays shows. I was talking about old shows like the Honeymooners. They watched it because they like it.
Jackie Gleason was a great actor for one thing.
Ricky Ricardo, was a talented musician and singer.
The OP is not asking if the shows today are funny. Funny is subjective. There things that I find funny that others dont and I dont find shows like The Simpsons funny at all.
Rodney Dangerfield was funny and ALL his humor was directed at himself. Much of Kevin Harts comedy is directed at himself.
Yet most of the people I know that liked either, are men.
Why? Because we can all see ourselves in those situations that are joked about.

 

[sangha]

I dont know why men today watch todays shows. I was talking about old shows like the Honeymooners. They watched it because they like it.
Jackie Gleason was a great actor for one thing.
Ricky Ricardo, was a talented musician and singer.
The OP is not asking if the shows today are funny. Funny is subjective. There things that I find funny that others dont and I dont find shows like The Simpsons funny at all.
Rodney Dangerfield was funny and ALL his humor was directed at himself. Much of Kevin Harts comedy is directed at himself.
Yet most of the people I know that liked either, are men.
Why? Because we can all see ourselves in those situations that are joked about.

I was talking about both new and old shows. As I have made clear throughout the thread, this formula has been used for decades.

I doubt that many people watched ILL in order to see Ricky sing and beat the conga.

The last sentence of your post is the only thing you've said that comes anywhere close to addressing the point. Maybe you could say more about why a man would "see themselves" in a person who being depicted as a childish and foolish boob?

 

[CRUE CAB]

I was talking about both new and old shows. As I have made clear throughout the thread, this formula has been used for decades.

I doubt that many people watched ILL in order to see Ricky sing and beat the conga.

The last sentence of your post is the only thing you've said that comes anywhere close to addressing the point. Maybe you could say more about why a man would "see themselves" in a person who being depicted as a childish and foolish boob?

You have to remember I am looking at it from 50 year old eyes that tell me that todays shows portray the "men" in the home as pretty much losers.
Rosanne, Dan was a in and out of work construction slob that raised smart assed kids. Rosanne ruled the roost and owned a resturant.
King of Queens, wife works at a law firm. Husband is a UPS driver and is a immature idiot.
Raymond, wife has a corporate job, he is a mommas boy and his brother the police man is protrayed as a imbecile.
Homer, the ultimate idiot.
King of the Hill, better but still defered to his wife for everything, psudeo gay son, idiot friends.
Even most commercials protray the males in a dull light.
Why do people watch those shows? I couldnt tell you. I think part of it is the feminization of America. So many men that were raised by mom only and mom did nothing but bad mouth dad.

 

[sangha]

You have to remember I am looking at it from 50 year old eyes that tell me that todays shows portray the "men" in the home as pretty much losers.
Rosanne, Dan was a in and out of work construction slob that raised smart assed kids. Rosanne ruled the roost and owned a resturant.
King of Queens, wife works at a law firm. Husband is a UPS driver and is a immature idiot.
Raymond, wife has a corporate job, he is a mommas boy and his brother the police man is protrayed as a imbecile.
Homer, the ultimate idiot.
King of the Hill, better but still defered to his wife for everything, psudeo gay son, idiot friends.
Even most commercials protray the males in a dull light.
Why do people watch those shows? I couldnt tell you. I think part of it is the feminization of America. So many men that were raised by mom only and mom did nothing but bad mouth dad.

I am also in my 50's. I don't think you have any advantage on that score.

And your descriptions of how modern sitcoms depict the male HOH's in a dull light is accurate. However, as I've made clear, this is not a new phenomena so it can't be ascribed to a desire to feminize america.

 

[CRUE CAB]

I am also in my 50's. I don't think you have any advantage on that score.

And your descriptions of how modern sitcoms depict the male HOH's in a dull light is accurate. However, as I've made clear, this is not a new phenomena so it can't be ascribed to a desire to feminize america.

I guess to me, in my opinion. The older shows just did it better. Or presented it in a different light.
I can also see in my minds eye old movies with Jackie Gleason which to me give his comedy more credibility.

 

[sangha]

I guess to me, in my opinion. The older shows just did it better. Or presented it in a different light.
I can also see in my minds eye old movies with Jackie Gleason which to me give his comedy more credibility.

Everyone is different. I can't blame you for having a preference. It's what makes the world go round.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Lucky you for being born into such a comfortable life. A lot of people who were poorer than you were not so fortunate.



Now we're talking about two different things. You're just talking about two parent homes vs one parent homes. That's just another symptom of the decreasing economic power of the working classes. Most families try to stay together. It's a lot easier when you're not desperate and poor. You want fewer single parent homes? You need those parents not to be living hand to mouth.

Sawyer's issue is the mistaken notions that these fathers were somehow better people than others. I think he just has an idealized view of his own father. The rhetoric that "father knows best" did not withstand the scrutiny applied to it after the 1950s. The emphasis on strict authoritarian controls of the male head of the home diminished once women obtained more agency to control their own lives, and young people became a significant political and economic force during the 1960s. And once everyone stopped assuming that fathers knew best, they realized that fathers are normal people like everyone else. Being male does not lead one to make better decisions, and assuming that it does is the underlying premise of those 50s TV dads. Father doesn't know best. He knows just as much or as little as anyone else. And giving him such authoritarian control over his family made them worse off, not better.

I grew up in a working class family in a working class neighborhood and that is exactly the family situation these sitcoms tend to represent. I honestly don't think it's good for kids these days to be inundated with images of their dad being a buffoon. Hollywood libs hate a strong healthy family because they want to embrace the "it takes a village" socialist philosophy. IMO they purposely denigrate the family unit with the intent of breaking it down.