Here’s the latest comedy/news bit from Bill Maher’s “Real Time,” this one called “New Rule: Make Dads Great Again.” It’s about the misandry shown in many t.v. shows and commercials, in which dads are depicted as bumbling, ignorant oafs while moms are the “smart ones” who keep men on the rails.
Maher recognizes that this is a correction for decades of misogny on t.v., but he suggests it’s time for the correction to end. In his view, this “cringey pandering” is both historically inaccurate (viz., many brutal women rulers) but also makes boys flock to odious “male images” like Andrew Tate, for teenage boys have only two choices of role models, “performative pussyhood or the manosphere,” alternatively “a monster or a doormat.”
At the end, Maher lists a lot of accomplishments of men (e.g., penicillin, the printing press, airplanes, the theory of evolution, etc.), which seems a little heavy-handed because women could have invented these things if they weren’t oppressed. But in the end his point is simply that “men were not completely useless.”
I thank the misandry for causing me to quit watching tv shows entirely. Beyond unfairly bashing a particular demographic, it has made for extremely lazy writing, one dimensional characters, and predictable stories. A woman going up against a man….oh I wonder who is going to win this one.
Unfortunately, women (who are a powerful consumer base) seem to love seeing men portrayed as imbeciles and weaklings, so I actually see this problem getting worse, not better as more men simply stop watching.
Not all women.
It is insulting to my father, husband, and sons, and harmful to society. Male energy is unique and powerful, and needs to be nourished and directed, not suppressed.
My wife expresses the same view, that it’s insulting to anyone’s intelligence to accept such poorly drawn caricatures.
Thanks for this mornings laugh. Always remember a favorite cartoon with two children discussing the holiday. “Fathers day is just like Mothers day, except you buy a cheaper present.”
For what it’s worth, adverts showing men as clueless idiots who can’t work a washing machine are banned in the UK (as are similar sex stereotypes mocking women): https://archive.is/mjfmj
Mahers’ bits don’t always work for me, but this one does. There are of course reasons for this prolonged depiction of men in entertainment. It came from the shift away from earlier depictions when we were the ‘man of the house’. And let’s face it, it is funny. My own life would be a mess without my brilliant wife, to be honest. But I just fixed our phone LAN line this morning. Yeah, me, I did that!
I agree that the current depictions are now very very old, and it is past time to level up in sit-coms.
The misandry is reaching epidemic proportions. Men get denigrated while whatever women do is heroic or brave or celebrated no matter how self-destructive or pathological. Body positivity and banning of fat shaming and creating 300 lb Victoria’s Secret lingerie mannequins while hemorrhaging millions in company loses while men can just be called fat and gross without consequence. No slut shaming while 10% of US girls aged 18-24 are on OnlyFans. I wouldn’t shame them for it but let’s not pretend it’s psychologically innocuous long term to do this. And US colleges are 58% female. Do we still need specific programs and scholarships to promote women in college and the workplace? Perhaps but what about if 70% of colleges become female? Too far? And the campus rape epidemic (untrue) and mansplaining and manspreading and toxic masculinity? I’m not countering misandry with misogyny, just hoping that the battle of the sexes in full swing now disappates because we need each other and to cooperate.
“No slut shaming while 10% of US girls aged 18-24 are on OnlyFans.”
Source?
I think Newsweek but I didn’t check the accuracy of this source. That’s just OF specifically and surely there are more.
https://www.newsweek.com/1-4-million-american-women-onlyfans-1996639
I found this one of Maher’s dumbest New Rules segments. He lists all the wonderful things men have invented over the years. Great, aren’t we guys fantastic! But imagine what could have been accomplished if a) they had spent less time and energy subjugating women, and b) allowed half the population creative, artistic, intellectual freedom. We’d be mining Pluto by now.
Sorry, I’m sick of this man-whinging shit.
I think you missed the point. He’s not saying that men are better than women or that oppression of women did not happen in the past. What he is criticizing is the the cultural zeitgeist in which men are consistently portrayed as not only inferior to women, but completely worthless or the cause of all problems. I for one am sick of that…it’s hypocritical, obnoxious, and actually harms women in the long run, as most women really don’t want to live in a world where men are only doormats, dolts or demons.
I agree. But isn’t it also plausible that many (most?) men would not object to a world where most women were only Barbies, bimbos, or breeders?
Not plausible from what I see among my male friends, who (as do I) value and are attracted to smart independent women.
If you say so. But the danger for the man who marries the smart independent and ambitious woman is that she will, when he has become well-off and she has grown tired of him, no-fault divorce him and take his kids, his house, and most of his wealth and earnings.
I would not object to a world where most women are bimbos and breeders, and faithful baby nurturers. They are a safer economic bet for modern marriage for the same reasons they were a safer bet for old-fashioned marriage. If they get fat after two or three kids, they have less value on the second-time-around market. So no Barbies, Barbara. They are always going to have one eye out for their next Ken.
Sure, men can behave badly too in divorce and abandonment. But we are talking about the wager here from the perspective of a man.
(I see what you did there Leslie. 🙂)
Perhaps since Maher’s career is in the entertainment industry, pop culture/ entertainment culture describes reality for him. I am more interested in who are the senators and president, who are the industry powerhouses, who is still running the world. True, women are going to college in greater percentages, but they are often choosing traditional women’s “helpmate” careers. It is challenging for women to succeed in traditionally male fields- not just careers, but in terms of wielding serious power in the world.
I am disturbed by the rise of manosphere garbage. Young men need help and attention getting their lives on track. Focusing on the economy and opportunity is more important than worrying about pop culture programs and adverts. Stop blaming women as we struggle for our own survival.
Bleakness:
Emily, I think men have figured out that they don’t benefit from having women as CEOs or as national leaders, or even as their own immediate bosses, just because they are women, so they aren’t interested anymore in helping you get there. Having women as colleagues or, worse, as underlings also exposes them to career-ending accusations of sexual misconduct which in the Me Too/Believe all women culture means they can never be cleared by an HR Dept. eager to send the right signals. So the safe thing is to be cordial but warily aloof and stand-offish at work and never fraternize after. Have a witness for all conversations. Whatever you do don’t get close enough to be a mentor. Mentor yourselves, we say. There ought to be enough of you by now. If you don’t want helpmate careers, don’t choose them. If you want to run for high office, go for it, but don’t expect men to support you just because It’s Time for a Woman.
Not sure that corporate programs to identify and promote female talent are a better idea than just letting the talent rise by itself. How are talented men not disadvantaged by doing this, especially when there are so many ambitious Kara Hultgreens seeking a leg up? (And how do you keep the transwomen out? Should we even?)
Parents are teaching their sons to be very careful around women. I don’t know how a young man could ever prove he secured L-FRIES consent for sex if she challenged it after the fact. Nor can he ever be sure she “can’t” get pregnant. Best not to, and Gen Z’s mostly aren’t. Almost need to go back to chaperoned dating. It was never to protect the woman, right? It was always to protect the man. So, sensibly, they are going to carry that wariness into the manosphere.
/bleakness
On the other hand with very few exceptions, men created religions.
Maybe. They surely created the skyfather religions. But there is strong archeological evidence for earthmother religions long before that.
And yet, women are more religious. Atheism is 64% male, 36% female in the US (Pew). Maybe men invented religions but women clamor for them.
You make it sound as if that was a bad thing.
The patriarchy with religiously consecrated and enforced marriage (instead of men disappearing after sex) that paved the way for inheritable agricultural property rights got civilization off the ground.
That seems too simplistic. Natural selection has produced a wide variety of pair-bonding strategies. I expect our species’ strategies owe most to c 20,000 generations as social primates, with very-recent social selection due to agriculture, civilisation, religion, etc. I would welcome cites to credible research findings on this topic.
Get some new material. That critique is literally as old as The Honeymooners.
Bill Maher has likely never watched the Simpsons. Homer, yes, is profoundly stupid, but the crux of the show is that he is ultimately redeemable because of the fundamental love he has for his family. Most episodes show that even through his immense laziness, gluttony, drunkenness etc., he invariably does the right thing because of his commitment to his wife and children. Bad segment. Most sitcoms are done thoughtfully, and any analysis beyond the superficial, will yield similar conclusions.
Married With Children is another show that Maher criticized. Not sure how many episodes he has ever watched, but he was a guest actor on one episode
There is no balance today. There may have been in 1990, when there were still strong, competent, and aspirational men to look up to on tv, and thus a profoundly stupid slob of a man (a literal cartoon character) was not that big of a deal.
Also, as a Simpson’s fan you are probably aware that these cartoons started out as shorts on The Tracey Ulman show, a late 80s comedy/skit show on cable tv. That version of Homer was much less stupid and a bit more sinister. Interesting that they had to dumb him down considerably for mass appeal. The anti-male zeitgeist was just getting going.
Finally, most sitcoms are NOT done thoughtfully…they are the intellectual equivalent of McDonald’s.
Jeff, there has never been a wider variety of options for an audience. You can easily find programming that affirms “traditional masculinity” if you wish. Just subscribe to the Daily Wire or something.
Evidently you didn’t watch a lot of 1950’s TV — bumbling Ozzie to wise Harriet for starters. Bumbling men are nothing new in entertainment. Dagwood goes back further than the 50’s, I don’t mind you arguing the point that comedy uses unfair stereotypes — but it is nothing new. And it is certainly not the product of recent wokeness that Maher beats to death. (wrote comment before reading other comments — many readers making the same point — dog bites man — move on)
Whatever happened to the words “father” and “mother”?