Sexism On Television? (moral, myth, experience, sex, moral)

[Fluffy]

I would like to start this post with a short introduction from an article in the Radio Times (an English television guide publication which features articles on various programmes as well as the listings themselves) by Alison Graham.

Originally Posted by Alison Graham

Imagine a programme called Bring Your Wife to Heel. Imagine that programme being transmitted during a prime evening slot on BBC2. Imagine the content of that programme - husbands being encouraged to use dog-training techniques to bring their lazy or untidy wives into line. They'd be given experience first on making dogs do their bidding, before being let loose on their partners. Their beloveds would have no idea that they were being subjected to this kind of subtle training - their reactions would be filmed by hidden cameras dotted around their homes. All would eventually be revealed when the wife was shown the footage and realised that she was being trained as if she were a dog.

What is your immediate reaction to such a programme?

The above programme is entirely mythical. However, it is based on a certain amount of fact since the actual programme, "Bring Your Husband to Heel" is accurately described in the above paragraph as long as the various gender specific nouns are swapped. More importantly, this latter programme does exist and was aired yesterday. Unfortunately, I missed the episode but I will be sure to catch the next one if I can.

My concern with such a programme is threefold. Firstly, and most obviously, it is pandering to a stereotype, one which gives a derrogatory view of the male sex, which could easily be described as misandry (I'll leave that open to opinion, however). I'm not for a moment suggesting that the programme should not have been aired, is morally wrong or should be made illegal although I could sympathise, to varying degrees, with anyone who held one of those opinions.

Secondly, it is the fact that this is a blatant display of sexual double standards; the show would never have aired if it had been as described in the quoted passage. If sexism is wrong then I expect such a standard to be applied equally and fairly. Additionally, I do not wish such an expectation to carry any less weight because I am male, rather than female, as I have come to find wherever I express it.

Lastly, and what concerns me the most, is that, in my experience, sexism towards women is tolerated far less than sexism towards men. Can anyone honestly say that they would not have been more offended (if any offense was given) by Bring Your Wife to Heel over Bring Your Husband to Heel? I, myself, cannot claim to answer such a question in the negative and this worries me a great deal. I'll give you another example of what I mean: How many people who read this post were familiar with the term misogyny? I would be willing to bet good money that there were a good deal more than were even aware of the term misandry.

Fluffy

P.S. I'm sorry I haven't posted in a few days. I've been very busy lately but I hope to get back into regular posting soon. I just saw this and had to say something about it and where better than on here . See all of you guys and gals soon!

[Sunstone]

Anyone who wants to manipulate their spouse like they would a dog probably doesn't deserve to have a spouse.

[Terrywoodenpic]

I didn't see it either, but it is not what I like to watch. I never watch soaps either.
But from the sound of it it fits the pattern of what people seem to like.
Nastiness sells.

Terry
_______
Amen! Truly I say to you: Gather in my name. I am with you.

[Feathers in Hair]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

Anyone who wants to manipulate their spouse like they would a dog probably doesn't deserve to have a spouse.

Well said, Sunstone.

I really wouldn't want to watch this program, no matter which gender was being depicted as what.

[michel]

I saw it -

My wife was determined to do so, because she knew that it related to the way in which dogs are trained - and she has been teaching me how to train dogs for more years than I can remember.

basically, the programme was tongue in cheek; it was more about the fact that bringing up children would be far more efficient if dealt with in the same way as training dogs'- and yes, women tend to be more naturally suited to that method than men do.

In other words, don't shout at children, do not use violence. Reward good behaviour, and ignore bad behaviour. We men tend to have shorter fuses - and often are guilty of shouting at kids...........

It made the point quite well - I didn't find it in the least offensive though.

[Crystal Red]

The idea seems hilarious, then when you think about it I realised it does sound quite cruel. It's the old thing, this is so funny because it's not happening to me, I can't imagine I'd be too pleased if subjected to that, but although I probably wouldn't watch it the idea sounds funny, but that's probably my quirky, Discordian-influenced sense of humour.

[Fluffy]

It made the point quite well - I didn't find it in the least offensive though.[img]images/smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

I agree kinda. It is not just the offensive side that gets to me, however, Michel. Its the fact that I could easily see an uproar over a programme where the female sex was being treated as if they were dogs, tongue in cheek or not, and yet the same thing will not happen because it is happening to the male sex. It is this double standard that I find offensive and not the content of the programme as such.

Additionally, it is spreading misinformation about a given topic. Even though it is tongue in cheek, this will have an affect on people's views towards the male and female sexes even if it is only subconcious. In this way it will damage the male stereotype. People often ignore this factor, dismissing it as if it is nothing. I say that the only reason that women were in a subordinate position to men throughout most of history was because of this factor, a self perpetuating, negative stereotype.

[michel]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

I agree kinda. It is not just the offensive side that gets to me, however, Michel. Its the fact that I could easily see an uproar over a programme where the female sex was being treated as if they were dogs, tongue in cheek or not, and yet the same thing will not happen because it is happening to the male sex. It is this double standard that I find offensive and not the content of the programme as such.

Additionally, it is spreading misinformation about a given topic. Even though it is tongue in cheek, this will have an affect on people's views towards the male and female sexes even if it is only subconcious. In this way it will damage the male stereotype. People often ignore this factor, dismissing it as if it is nothing. I say that the only reason that women were in a subordinate position to men throughout most of history was because of this factor, a self perpetuating, negative stereotype.

Ah well, that is where I am lucky; I don't get hyped up about issues like that. I am happy being who I am, married to my wife who is happy with her role. I like being a Gentleman, and she a lady - if that's 'quirky', we're not harming anyone......

[Original Freak]

That doesn't sound too bad to me because I think the title is simply to get people's attention. I have noticed though that males do tend to take a beating in commercials and movies because people get less offended though, and it really does bug me. I get upset about so few things I don't know why this gets to me so bad.

The one that really gets me is the JC Penny commercials (It's a store like sears I suppose). There's a man/husband/father looking after their own child (if you can call it looking after