Vote 0 Votes


Also: I include "tags" for these posts so if you scroll down on the right side you will see "DQs" as one of the tags. Instead of scrolling through the blog to find these posts, just click on that and it will take you to the most recent blog posts with the "DQs" tag. Same goes for the blog prompts. Should make it easier for you to navigate this thing!


| Leave a comment

Why do characters in many entertainment television shows, not get promoted and always stick around the same job (or in Roseanne's case similar pink-collar jobs)?
Because getting promoted means more money and the possibility of raising the character's social class.

Professor Julie Bettie said in her article, "Class Dismissed....?" that class inflation typifies the world as seen on Television.After reading that article,I have not stopped wondering: How is class determined? Is social construction of class identical to that of race and gender?
It's Semantics

In the article by Richard Butsch, the author talked a lot about a new era of sitcoms being aired on broadcast network television that had family structures of lower-middle class blue collar workers. One thing that stood out about these sitcoms was that the father figured was typically characterized as a “baffoon”. Relating to this, will the future of hegemonic ideology portray “normal” families as having reversed roles, where the mother is the person in power, and the father is a “baffoon”? Or is this symbolizing something deeper, where men can actually act idiotic and still be more powerful than women in the work force?

In Butsch's article about the white male working-class buffoon he states that this image's popularity arise because its earlier success in film and television. He also states that producers of these shows do not understand the working-class because most of them come from middle class families. Recently I have been seeing lots of sitcoms, comedies of middle class males acting like buffoons as well. An example would be, "The League" a show about a group of working middle class men who are obsessed with fantasy football. What do you guys think about this evolution? Do you think that middle class men are becoming influenced by the media's portraying of the working class buffoon?

Reading Butsch's article, I guess i would just wonder if the television programs they talk about with the working class and middle class families do so well on TV because the people watching relate to what is going on and are comfortable seeing it. It wonder if the people watching see these shows and think to themselves "oh my life is like that too, I must not be so different." Because having a "buffoon" for a husband doesn't sound like something a woman would really want, but if she sees it on TV consistently, then she may feel better about herself?

It interesting when you consider what the appeal is of these types of television shows with the "buffoon" male figure. Its also interesting because for the most part they are used as objects not to laugh with, but rather to laugh at. So why is the male figure the one to be laughed at? Is it easier? Is there a common thought that people relate with in that the male figure is a buffoon? Or is laughing at the male figure a "safer" route to go in that it cant be as easily argued to be sexist, racist, ect. when the male figure is typically a generic white dude? Or in some cases yellow.

Are these shows portraying white middle class males as "bufoons" for us as viewers to find commonground with, or more for our own entertainment?

I find complete validity in what you are saying about how males are always portrayed as the "bufoons" and not the women. It would be very controversial if television producers were to make the female of the household the dumb and lazy one because I think many people would think that would be sexist. People watching the show would probably start to think that women are regressing instead of progressing in equal rights among men. On the other hand, it's not fair that men are always the ones being portrayed as the "bufoons"

From the readings, it seems like hegemony is the reason for depicting the middle class families as struggling and powerless, in a sense. How does this boost hegemony? Also, would Roseanne be considered a counter-hegemonic show because of her role as the matriarch?

On pg. 582 of Butsch article, He states what you would see in most types of shows with certain types of families. Alcoholism, spouse abuse, children abandonment and such were the main topics in 1990's. Has that changed now days? I would say yes to a point but there are still shows like Shameless on HBO, Weeds, The middle etc. Do you feel this norm has changed through the last decade?

The article states that there is a lack of working class representations on TV sitcoms. Predominantly we see middle class or upper class families on sit coms? If we think about television content as merely a filler between commercial advertisements, why do you think that this type of content is less appealing to advertisers?

Leave a comment

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Melody published on September 27, 2011 8:37 PM.

Link to Tough Guise was the previous entry in this blog.

Manly Men is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.