Friday, September 27, 2013

Modern Dads and Challenging Stereotypes

Women, by default based on their gender have typically been assumed to occupy the caretaking and nurturing role within the family setting consequently enabling men to hold the almighty breadwinning position. A family hierarchy of this nature has been established throughout history continuously reinforcing the idea that androgynous tasks which have the potential to be performed by any person are tethered to, and inherent of a specific gender. “Gender roles are the product of the interactions between individuals and their environments, and they give individuals cues about what sort of behavior is believed to be appropriate for what sex (Blackstone, 2003).” Television has had to ability to perpetuate the idea that a male figure should naturally situate themselves as the head of the household. However, with the increasing number of women entering professional positions, Modern Dads an A&E television reality series invites viewers to experience the lifestyle of an atypical representation of a conventional family structure. Modern Dads presents a gendered role reversal depicting the daily lives of four stay at home dads fulfilling the maternal duties of play dates, child care, and grocery shopping while their wives and girlfriends are hard at work tending to their highly paid occupations in order to support their families. It’s evident throughout the series that the women are fully capable of taking on a male dominant role of supporting a family by presenting themselves in a professional fashion. Whereas consequently, the comedy lies within the men’s’ inability to grasp the concept of functional and organized child care resulting in a lot of dude to dude collaboration between the dads about the best way to baby proof a house or throw a princess birthday party.

Although the show challenges dominant gender roles, it does so in a way that also challenges the viewer to determine who is truly the butt of the joke; enabling various interpretations to be derived from the context. For example, Rick dubbed as the ‘veteran’ dad, attempts to show Nate (the new dad) how to child proof a house stating that “It’s not rocket science”. This lesson consisted of utilizing duck-tape to cover electrical outlets, foam pool noodles wrapped around the sharp edges of furniture, all followed by the advice that more toys scattered around the house will distract the children from anything dangerous (A&E). This could potentially be read as evidence leading to the interpretation that men are not capable of taking into consideration the dangers that common house hold items can pose to children indicating that they are not cut out for the child care position that women are accustomed to holding. This interpretation therefore frames men as inadequate nurturers insinuating that women should fulfill this role.

Contrary to this interpretation, another scene depicts Sean (the stepdad) attempting to construct a wooden prop in the backyard. When his skills of being a handy man reveal to be less than desirable, Rachel takes over and constructs the wooden prop in an efficient and effective manner (A&E). This scene indicates that women have the ability to do constructive labor that would typically be expectant of a man. The clip provides further evidence that within the household she holds the position of power, not only financially but also when it comes to taking care of manual labor, enabling the audience to interpret Sean as less of a man being overplayed by the abilities of his girlfriend. Additionally, another episode features Sean’s attempt to ‘sound proof’ the couple’s bedroom. The purpose for this endeavor (which consisted of buying upwards of fifteen mattress pads that he planned to line the bedroom walls with) was because Sean was becoming increasingly antsy that the couple could only engage in their sexual escapades while the children were asleep. This excerpt of the episodes plays off of the stereotype that men think about sex every other second, feeding into the inadequacy of his parenting skills placing his needs before his children.

So what exactly should the viewer derive from these skewed and transparent gender roles being exhibited throughout the show? It effectively grasps the interpretation that women have the ability to be the breadwinner within the household; yet even though this is considered a positive point for the advancement of women in the workforce this idea is kicked down a peg by harnessing the dysfunctional home life that is positioned as inevitable if children are to be raised by a stay at home dad as opposed to a stay at home mom. According to Mitovich, editor at TVLine.com “This trend seems to perpetuate the dusty stereotype — and lazy joke — that the women of the household are expected to hold things together and properly parent kids, while the fathers are hapless man-children, all thumbs when it comes to folding Huggies and lax at exacting discipline.” Regardless of the evidence of inadequacy that can be derived from the ideologically abnormal gender roles within these households, Modern Dads in a quirky, comical, and fun-loving way portrays the men as immature and dumbfounded when it comes to child care; but most importantly they get the job done. At the end of the day, after betting on baby wrestling and being manipulated by their children everyone is happy and content with their positions in the household proving that fathers enjoy spending time with their children and can be emotionally connected as much as any mother can regardless of what conventional gender roles assume.





Works Cited

Blackstone, M. Amy. (2003). Gender Roles in Society [Abstract]. Human Ecology: An Encyclopedia of Children, Families, Communities, and Environment, 335-338.
Harris, Will. (2013, Aug 22). Daddy Dreariest: Modern Dads plays to Insulting Stereotypes. Retrieved from: http://www.nbcnews.com/entertainment/daddy-dreariest-modern-dads-plays-insulting-stereotypes-6C10962828.


America Loves I Love Lucy: Dear Feminists, What’s Not To Love?


By Hillary Miller – TV Criticism 2013  




During the 1920's, the advent of first wave feminism was in full force. Women's right to vote became an important historical moment that generated a hurdling snowball effect: initiating change for women’s rights and motivating future generations to continually fight. However, second wave feminism did not reach full momentum until the 1970's. So then what happened in the time in between? What did society think of women during this time? With this generational shift of the post-industrial period and the exposition of new technology such as television and new appliances, new outlooks shifted new ways of living. [4] Yet, because of the pressures of stability and domestic life values constantly being reinforced after the war, the 1950's left women still subordinate to their male counterparts. And, one medium in particular, television, displayed and reflected this identity of women. Further establishing their norms and expectations during the 1950's to Americans through the coming of age of sitcom comedies. For that reason, analyzing a show such as I Love Lucy, helps explain what representations were enabling and/or restraining to women during the 1950's; and, how these female representations effected the second wave feminist movement in the 1970's and for future family comedy sitcoms.  

To introduce, I Love Lucy stars Lucille Ball as Lucy Ricardo and Desi Arnaz as Ricky Ricardo; and they portray a typical 1950's married couple. Lucy stays at home attending to housewife duties while Ricky leaves to work as a successful bandleader (And they were actually a married couple in real life when the show was airing. Talk about stressful!) The show also stars Vivian Vance as Ethel Mertz and William Frawley as Fred Mertz, both Lucy and Ricky’s married landlords and friends. The basic storyline for every episode follows the life of Lucy wanting to be more fulfilled by her trapped domestic housewife duties and dreaming to one day to be in showbiz, like Ricky. Yet, Ricky tries to stop Lucy from her dreams at all possible and at the conclusion of each episode, Ricky, Ethel, and Fred stop her failed attempts. From this, each resolution concludes that Lucy is merely fit for domestic life and show business is not for her, a restraining factor to her independent dreams. However, on the surface of the show, Ricky’s identity is the major patriarchal authoritative figure disciplining Lucy by controlling her money, her time, and her decisions, while Lucy’s identity remains a reiteration of the obedient housewife. And there are many striking examples that illustrate how Ricky disciplines Lucy when she gets into trouble. [5] Even in one episode, “The Black Wig,” where Ricky even goes as far as explaining why Lucy cannot get an “Italian haircut” (short hairstyle on a woman). Ricky explains and says, “All people in the world are divided into two groups…men and women.” Lucy laughs and he explains further, “Now, men have short hair, and women have long hair. That’s the difference between them […] I don’t want my son to be confused, he should know whether he should call you mother or father.” She then walks away and exclaims back, “Oh men…you make me sick!” [5] By this, Lucy is simply allowing the offensive line against a woman to get through, because Ricky says what he thinks and there is no changing that. Although, Lucy is not a woman to let Ricky get to her so she has the last line to anything he says and makes that distinctly apparent.  

       Essentially, underneath the surface level of Lucy's identity remains a very complex character. She positions herself on (and off) the show as a fighting woman going against the patriarchal patterns set before her by her predecessors. It is strongly apparent she is different and wants to be different than the other housewives during this era, such as Jean Cleaver in Leave it to Beaver (1957-1963). As explained by Feminist Andrea Press, “[…] in pre-feminist television women were rarely shown to be mature, independent individuals, yet some characters, such as Lucy Ricardo on I Love Lucy, offered a subtext of resistance.”[1] And there are episodes that show these progressive attempts and Lucy's acts of resistance that should be taken into consideration. Especially with the scriptwriting, because it was known that the writers would famously ask “What does Lucy want this week? What does she want to do and who’s going to keep her from it getting it and what’s she going to get into?”[2] Which led to famous episodes, such as the one that took on a feminist viewpoint of why couldn’t a woman do a man’s job? Thus, the episode “Job Switching” aired where Lucy and Ethel try to prove a point to Ricky and Fred after Ricky states, “There’s two different kinds of people in this world, they are the earners and the spenders, formerly known as husbands and wives.” [5] While Ricky is merely depreciating Lucy and Ethel’s positions, they both offer to go job-hunting while Ricky and Fred stay home and cook dinner. An innovative idea Lucy wanted and a potential enabling factor to show that women can do a man’s job and vice versa. But, as a situation comedy would have it, both end disastrously. Lucy and Ethel are fired from a chocolate candy factory job for being too slow and Ricky and Fred make over four pounds of rice and spill it all over the kitchen floor. From this episode’s resolution, the meaning-making process is that both husbands and wives are not typically meant for their spouses’ jobs and remain dependent on each other’s gendered roles in order to get through life together. However, the mere fact that Lucy fought to try to prove her point is enabling factor on its own and should be recognized.
       
     Yet, one striking question that is continually asked remains: if they have a typical 1950's marriage and traditional patriarchal relationship, what makes this sitcom still funny to this day? Likewise, how are viewers still laughing at the storylines in modern times, where we are more advanced in equality among the sexes? (Supposedly…) To answer briefly, a universal situation comedy allows Lucy to be the frontrunner where she is given some agency in her antics and mishaps without offending too many viewers on politically sensitive subjects. Basically, the humor derived from the situation comedy is when, “the comedian, and all of his or her kind…provide a situation which allows each of us a bit of transcendence; [that is] designed to make sport of those situations, events, and taboos that lie heaviest upon us…”[1] Lucy is the transcendence factor; she is the funny one getting into mishaps and tough situations, while Ricky remains the stern character and the one getting her out of them. With Lucy, her personal agency is conflicted with Ricky’s own motives to keep Lucy at home. However, she still has the power to fight back with Ricky and tries to prove her points by always taking the situations in her own hands. This is how Lucy maintains her enabling representation throughout the show. For Lucy, it becomes impossible for her to get anywhere in the end since she has to be saved by Ricky for the resolution to occur. Which, nevertheless, places Lucy back in her subordinate position she had at the beginning. However, the humor is derivative from Lucy’s opposing actions of how an obedient housewife should act. And for Lucy, negating the obedient housewife image bestows her more power to take part in the jokes and create jokes for herself; So Lucy is laughing at herself, while we are laughing with her. (All the more power to you, Lucy!)  

Without a doubt, the I Love Lucy series is one of the first ever situation comedies that took over American households. In the beginning, the show received recognition by Life magazine by making the cover as “TV’s First Family.” [3] Then fast forward to the show’s six-year season span, it won five out of its twenty-three Emmy award nominations. And, had a Nielsen rating of number one for four out of its six seasons. [4] It’s safe to say millions of families could not wait to watch segments of Lucy, Ricky, Ethel and Fred. And, it is not hard to understand why I Love Lucy was so successful. Keeping a safe distance from political and controversial topics, and continuing with the situation comedy let Americans enjoy the era they were living in; even though equality over men and women was more of a joke to be laughed at. However, Lucy showed that females could take power in producing their own jokes by not following the rules of patriarchy so stringently. (Progressive, right?) Then with the turn of the feminist movements throughout the 1970's sitcoms, with shows airing such as All in the Family (1971-1979) were slowly progressing towards recognizing the female voice. These shows started addressing the issues of women’s rights and feminism that I Love Lucy paved the way for by fighting against patriarchal views. Even though Lucy and television women to follow were still pinned as the joke, they were still making progress in fighting to make their voice heard. Yet, the idea of television is that as many shows have tried, “Television [merely] allows for the expression of a feminist critique, but represses feminisms’ potential for radical social change.”[1] And, by knowing that social change takes more than a television sitcom, I Love Lucy was still successful for pushing limitations placed before its time. Ultimately, Lucy was entertaining, charming, and fought against patriarchal views in order to prove she could be different in her own right. And for that, we thank you, Lucy. 

            References: 
[1] Spangler, Lynn C. (2003). "Chapter 1: Life with Television." Television Women from Lucy to Friends: Fifty Years of Sitcoms and Feminism. Westport, CT: Praeger.
[2] Stempel, T. (1992). Storytellers to the Nation. New York, NY: Continuum.
[3] “TV’s First Family,” (1953). Life magazine, April 6, 1953. Cover. New York: Time, Inc.,
[4] “Creation of the Television Code of 1952.” History Matters. http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6558/
            [5] Extra Clips:
“Job Switching” I Love Lucy. Season 2. Episode 1. 9-15-52.
“The Black Wig” I Love Lucy. Season 3. Episode 26. 4-19-54.
Ricky disciplining Lucy  
(Warning: not the best quality)


Scrutinizing Scandal



The ABC hit TV show Scandal is a political drama that surrounds Olivia Pope, a self-proclaimed “fixer” and her entourage as she takes on the toughest in Washington DC and tries to fix the problems they undergo.  Side note.  Olivia is sleeping with the (married) President of the United States and the show also centers around their relationship ups and downs, mainly how they can someday, somehow end up together.   Scandal is everyone’s guilty pleasure and its high stakes and fast pace is what I love about it.  How can you not love a steamy love triangle involving the President of the United States in the midst of assassination attempts and the like? 

Shonda Rimes, the producer of Scandal, has quite the way of making the leading women in her TV series’ seem almighty and all powerful unlike the portrayal of women in other popular television series.   Meredith Grey in Grey’s Anatomy is the show’s leading character that always does what she believes is right.  Addison Montgomery, lead character of Private Practice, is one of the most prominent neonatal surgeons in the world and although these women always have their fair share of love life drama, they are never shy to take control of any situation and throw the “passive” gender stereotype out the window.  Furthermore, her leading ladies are always surrounded by an entourage that is varied in gender and race with Kerry Washington, playing Olivia Pope, becoming the first African American female lead in a network drama in over 40 years (Vega).   It is something to be said that these leading ladies who fail to fulfill the “typical” female gender stereotype, are the ladies the rest of America loves to live through week after week, season after season.  

What is interesting to me is that Olivia is a hard headed, determined woman who represents more of, shall I say a “typical” male role on television.  She’s bad.  She can’t be touched.  She never shows emotion.  She can’t be a woman?  She is madly in love with the President of the United States, but is sure to throw herself into many other story lines.  Obviously, the show centers on her.  Kelsey Bain of Feminspire applauds the way that Olivia Pope’s character was written because it was done so with the same thought and intent as all of the white male characters on TV.  Olivia has multiple facets to her personality, rather than just one, just like a real woman (Bain)!  Olivia Pope is a woman of class and a woman of color and Scandal stands out because that dynamic is so rarely represented on television today.   She is in theory “running” a man’s world and she’s doing a damn good job of it.  Olivia is tangible and her character has flaws and perfections.  She’s someone who as a woman, other women can aspire to be without having to consider being a doormat first.  

On the other hand, Fitzgerald Grant, or Fitz plays the somewhat feminine President of the United States.   He plays the typical TV President.  Sexy, charming, a man that all the women in America want to be with.  Far from the realistic President who people want absolutely nothing to do with.  The focus is on his looks and the power he holds rather than the person he truly is, which is an outlook that is typically centered on women.  His story line is solely to choose between Olivia and his wife and First Lady of the United States, Mellie.  And just like a damsel in distress and unlike most men we know, he is willing to risk the second term of his presidency in order to be with Olivia and not have to hide their secret affair anymore.  There is a dimension to these characters that is so unique but then again so worldly and realistic, viewers can’t help but be drawn into the show.  And how will these reverse gender roles impact their relationship in the future?  I think in the coming season’s Olivia will be forced to pick between Fitz and her own job and in Olivia Pope, untraditional ladylike fashion, she will always choose work over love.  

What’s great about Scandal as a television drama is that although it has a range of genders and ethnicities presented in it, it’s not about either of those.  Scandal is about power, integrity, work ethic, strength, and the character’s ability to exert all of these when the going gets tough (Stewart).  In an interview, Kerry Washington herself stated, “The show put pressure on the audience’s rather than the cast and crew.  The question was: Are audiences ready to have the stories that we tell on television to be more inclusive? Are we ready for our protagonists to represent people of all different genders and ethnicities?” (Vega).   I think audiences are ready and are more than willing to embrace shows where gender and race stereotypes are completely thrown out the window and what’s more, ready to embrace a time where gender and race “norms” go unnoticed not only on television but also in everyday life.  

The NY Times said, “Scandal is about seeing the show where black women and other women are represented less about race and more about who they are” (Vega). Olivia Pope is amazing but Shonda Rimes, the amazingly talented woman who created Pope is even more intriguing to me.  As an African American woman herself, she has dreamed up amazing characters that, as a TV viewer, I can’t wait to live through week to week no matter their age, profession, gender or race.  


Works Cited
Bain, Kelsey. “What Makes ABC’s Scandal Such a Great Show for Women?”  Feminspire.  Web. 25
                September 2013.
Stewart, Dodi.  “ABC: Yes, Black People Are Part of Scandal’s Success, No, We Don’t Want to Talk About
                It.” Jezebel.  18 January 2013. Web.  25 September 2013.
 “Oliver Pope and Geraldine Grant: Gender Roles in Scandal.”  Fresh Feed. Web.  25 September 2013.
Vega, Tanzina.  “A Show Makes History and Friends.” The New York Times. 17 January 2013. Web.  25
                September 2013.  

Orange Gives Way to a New Agenda


Orange is the New Black, a new hit series on Netflix created by Jenji Kohan, creator of Weeds, has received enormous amounts of feedback, both good and bad. The show follows the story of a character by the name of Piper Chapman (Taylor Schilling) and her time in prison – with her experimental past landing her in there. From her post-lesbian life with a fellow inmate, to her newly-engaged, cookie-cutter straight life, the show has inspired many to watch it out of either love or hate. The negative reviews can be seen right on the Netflix page, where the show first debuted. Those that have a problem with the show, largely in part have a problem with lesbian and bisexual relationships. The analysis of Orange is the New Black is pertinent in today’s society because it challenges stereotypes of lesbians and brings light to those experimenting with their own sexuality, it provides a non-stereotypical representation of lesbianism, and it gives a voice to lesbians as well as bisexuals and the right to choose one’s own sexuality.
When the audience first sees the present-day Piper Chapman, she is having one last supper as a free woman with her pregnant, married best friend as well as her own fiancé. Throughout the series, the audience is shown flashbacks of her former life and what inevitably landed her in prison. In her former life, fifteen years prior, Chapman identifies as a lesbian in a loving relationship with Alex Vause, played by Laura Prepon. Throughout the series, lesbian women are represented in such a way that challenges stereotypes. Orange is the New Black is a series unlike many others in that sense. Not many shows shed light on straight women who identified as lesbian many years before. As a media text, it resists the stereotyping of lesbians. Stereotypes as “lesbians just haven’t met the right guy yet,” or “in every lesbian relationship, one has to be the man.” The lesbian relationship between Chapman and Vause is much more complex and filled with emotion than one might believe at first. One viewer of the show had a positive remark, as many remarks have been in praise for the series:
“The show is unafraid of sexuality, queerness and race. Its humor is crass and unapologetic, but Orange is the New Black takes its characters seriously and sympathetically. The women make for compelling characters and believable human beings”(Liss-Shultz).
            The thing that makes the show so entertaining to the general public is that it is not about the fact that there are lesbian relationships, or bisexuals, or transgender human beings. In fact, the decoding of the show seems to be in light of the encoding. Kohan, the creator of the show states:
"I'm always looking for those places where you can slam really disparate people up against one another, and they have to deal with each other. There are very few crossroads anymore. We talk about this country as this big melting pot, but it's a mosaic. There are all these pieces, they're next to each other, they're not necessarily mixing. And I'm looking for those spaces where people actually do mix — and prison just happens to be a terrific one”(Kohan, NPR).
            The controversy of the show itself is not about the lesbian relationships of these women, it is about the relationships they create as a whole – lesbian or not. In that sense, it is hard to stereotype these women who identify as lesbians without identifying them as human beings first.
            The reproduction of the encoded meaning of Orange is the New Black has given a voice to lesbians and bisexuals in a mostly positive way. It is possible, but it is also difficult to find reprimanding and controversial arguments against the lesbian relationships that take place throughout the show. If there happens to be negative feedback, it more often than not, has to do with the language or the nudity that is portrayed – not the lesbianism. That is not to say that there is nothing at stake for these groups of people. However, it is uplifting to see that, at this point in time, the controversy does not lie in the nontraditional relationships. Jenji Kohan’s brilliant way of encoding her messages throughout the show really give lesbians and bisexuals a voice as human beings with agendas, rather than a group of people that are clumped together representing one thing: their sexuality. 
            The representation that Orange is the New Black stands for is important to analyze because it is refreshing to the medium that is television in the sense that it can represent lesbians and at the same time, represent something much more than a human’s sexuality. Kohan gives these women a voice, resists stereotyping these women, and challenges all other representations of lesbian and bisexual relationships through her messages depicted in Orange is the New Black


Bib.

Liss-Shultz, Claudia. "“Orange Is The New Black”: Taking Privilege to Task." Ms Magazine Blog. N.p., 17 July 2013. Web. 27 Sept. 2013.
( http://msmagazine.com/blog/2013/07/17/orange-is-the-new-black-taking-privilege-to-task/ ) 
NPR. "'Orange' Creator Jenji Kohan: "Piper Was My Trojan Horse"" Www.npr.org. N.p., 13 Aug. 2013. Web.
( http://www.npr.org/2013/08/13/211639989/orange-creator-jenji-kohan-piper-was-my-trojan-horse )


Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica & Women


Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica & Women

Besides being my all-time favorite television show, The Office has been recognized time and time again for its outstanding characters and comedic writing. The Office is extremely satirical in the way the script is written, which sometimes impacts the way it’s viewed. An issue that has been recognized is that it can be very offensive to certain audiences and things written in the script can be stereotypical. The past few years that I’ve been watching the show, I haven’t ever personally been offended by anyone’s actions. I take everything as a joke (as its meant to be of course) and ignore Michael when he makes his usual absurd remarks. I decided to pretend this wasn’t my favorite show in the universe (I’m a diehard fan, this was virtually impossible to do) and look at The Office from an outsiders’ point of view to see if I could pick up on anything.

When looking at it from a more critical standpoint, and without understanding the characters, it can be seen as a pretty sexist show. Over Steve Carells’ six years spent on the show, his character Michael Scott managed to offend every gender, race, class and sexual orientation that he possibly could. There’s two ways that The Office can be taken, both containing very conflicting points of view. If you watch it at face value you will be offended and taken aback by the remarks made by Michael Scott. But if you view it as a satirical comedy you will see the irony in all the situations and manage to laugh at them.

One of the most beneficial things about television is that it fosters discussion. Television as a cultural forum tries to reflect different ideologies and viewpoints in order to attract a large amount of viewers. The women in the show are all given pretty different roles in order to represent many populations watching. Although many of the women are a bit crazy, most of us can find humor in the situations they are put in. One thing that I didn’t make a point to recognize earlier is that none of the females have strong leads. Their characters seem to be weak and at times broken. “It's no secret that women are underrepresented in TV and other media. The women portrayed on the small screen seldom appear in roles of leadership and are routinely exploited in the workplace, the study says” (Justine Constanza). The one time a woman is put in charge of the office, chaos ensues. It’s unfortunate that The Office never made an effort to show the success of a woman on the show.  In one particular episode titled “Women’s Appreciation” Phyllis falls victim of a flasher outside the office. The women of the office are very upset about the flashing and Michael tells them that the office is too much of a masculine environment and he wants to take them somewhere where they feel comfortable. So he takes them to the mall. Not only is he demeaning in telling them that the office is a masculine environment, but he buys them all Victoria’s Secret panties because he assumes that will make them feel better. The only example of a non-gender stereotype was when Pam changed the tire instead of Michael. But if you’re familiar with the show you know that’s of no surprise due to Michael’s lack of incompetence in most of the things he does. To top the episode off, the very last words said in the episode were Michael re-capping his day spent with the women of the office and what he got out of it. He said, “How can I be so illogical, flighty, unpredictable and emotional? Well maybe I learned something from the women after all.” This being the last sentence said makes it very difficult to think that they were trying to teach the audience anything. The negative gender stereotypes were reinforced by the end of the episode instead of being resisted in order to leave a more positive message.

Another problem that many seem to have with The Office is that none of the women ever seem to have any great successes. One of the main characters Pam is only interesting because of her relationship with Jim. Pam is a receptionist in the office, while also seeming to have an interest in the art world. She attempts to go after her dreams during season four, but eventually ends up flunking out of art school. Angela is also portrayed in a similar light in that she’s only of any interest when it’s relating to her husband or secret lover. In an article I read on the show, it was stated “Basically, I’m noticing an unwelcome pattern with all the women: they are one-notes, without depth, defined only as they relate to males” (Sarah Rulu). There is never a time in the show when a woman has a great success and goes after her dream. The men in the show have these epiphanies but there are no examples of strong female characters. Unfortunately this only supports the ideology that men are more successful than women, instead of resisting the dominant stereotype.

In light of all the stereotypes reinforced throughout the episodic series, I did come to one conclusion in favor of The Office and their antics. Most of the inappropriate and stereotypical comments are made by the extremely ignorant boss Michael Scott. Throughout the entire series Michael is constantly making remarks that are extremely offensive and stereotypical and not supported by the rest of the characters. The fact that these stereotypical comments are made by such a character show that only a moronic individual who has no sense of self-awareness could think these things. A meaningful message that can be taken from The Office is that you have to be an extremely ignorant person to believe in the negative stereotypes Michael Scott put forth.


Works Cited 

Costanza, Justine A. "Sexist Portrayals of Women Still Dominate Prime Time TV."International Business (2012): n. pag. Web.

Rulu, Sarah. "Thanks for the Somewhat Sexist Memories." The Happenings of an American in Germany. N.p., 14 May 2013. Web.