The Bettie article that we read for this week made me realize why the fan base to the show Roseanne had such a following. The author explains that this show is relatable to many people due one aspect of the show, the social class of the workingman, or "blue collar". In which case, she further explains that it's the "pink collar" comedy and storyline that really draw people in.
The term "pink collar" kind of seems hilarious to me being that the social class of "blue-collar" is further broken down into "pink-collar" which includes gender stereotyping. The work of a blue-collared male is explained to be hands on and labor intensive such as a job as a mechanic or a construction worker. The work of a pink-collared female are jobs such as a hair shampooer at a beauty saloon or a waitress. There is no fair comparison between the two working class sectors, the only comparison that can be made is that the sole purpose of working these hands on jobs are to provide the means necessary in which they need to survive.
Survival I think is another key theme that Bettie touches on in the article. She pulls an excerpt from an episode of Roseanne that deals with the situation that Dan, Roseanne's husband, buys new shoes but her daughter, Becky, also need to buy a new dress, instead of telling Becky she can't buy that dress because they can't afford it, she makes Dan return the shoes he bought so that Becky can buy the dress. This is an example of surviving within one's impoverished means. This theme rings all too familiar for the working class. And even in today's society appeals to so many people, who despite all of their efforts, can not make it to the top to obtain "The American Dream".
DQ: Why is it quite often the case in our society that we always root for the underdog? Is the underdog position the most realistic adaptation of "how life really is."?