[the larger context to the posting below is that i had gotten into an argument over this subject on, of all places, the live chat room on coachella's website, and then continued the debate on facebook with my friend T. included below is just my response to T., who favors The Family Guy.]
i find the animated tv sitcom, the family guy to be sexist. just like the simpson's was and is. both endeavor to reflect the typical american family, which is still sexist in many ways, and to make other various social commentary, of course. the simpson's, being the first of its kind at the time, seemed much more tolerable to me because such a candid assessment of familial patterns had never been portrayed in prime-time cartoon format before. it was plucky and hilarious to realize what buffoons we all are through this great show.
however, after awhile culture needs to not just reflect society but understand that it shapes it, too. after two decades such a commentary then becomes the very force that is continuing to propel those stereotypes. a single generation's worth is one thing (simpson's), but several generations of depicting an apathetic, infantile father figure linked to a passive, repressed, unambitious wife and mother who's always begrudgingly tolerant of a family which doesn't support her as a strong, productive individual gets old.
so in essence, for me, the issue isn't about which is funnier or better written,* it is about the role both shows have in the environment they're portraying. and both of them follow a similar model. my argument is that in light of the simpson's, king of the hill, futurama, and south park - family guy, whose name itself indicates a male-centered perspective - would really be offering something noteworthy if it didn't render the same low-impact, supportive female characters that they rest of them do and did something more than simply remind us how fucked up we all are. i mean, a society always needs biting satire - i'm not suggesting we lose that - but i'd like to see conscious influence as well as mere reflection. (btw, i thought futurama's leela was a little more ballsy and independent, but she'd still easily fall into the responsible-mother cliche, keeping everyone together while the male characters got to be zany.)
*granted, family guy does have *many* hilarious jokes and they have perfected the art of the tangent, though IMO the biggest reason family guy is more topical than the simpson's is because it's simply a newer show, the writers and cast are more fresh, tuned in, etc. i feel the simpon's in their prime, was just as tuned in as family guy is now, if not more so because the simpson's were the first to recognize the american nuclear family *needed* to be satired with ruthless precision and thus, created an entirely new genre - whereas the family guy just continues to do the job already invented by the simpson's, only with a newer sheen and sharper claws. but you def. gave props to the simpson's on the point of ingenuity. :)
i super enjoyed your post as you can tell, T., and feel your points are excellent and infinitely more eloquently executed (say that five times fast!) than the 20 something year old i had the misfortune of talking to in the chat room the other day (no slam meant against my 20 something friends) - this guy could only respond with expletives and repetitive questions regarding my sanity. he kept assuming i could not appreciate family guy's sense of humor, while i continued to remind him it wasn't about the sense of humor or which one was funnier for me - it was about historical timing and the role of culture in society.
© 2009 Copyright by Paola Lopez
i find the animated tv sitcom, the family guy to be sexist. just like the simpson's was and is. both endeavor to reflect the typical american family, which is still sexist in many ways, and to make other various social commentary, of course. the simpson's, being the first of its kind at the time, seemed much more tolerable to me because such a candid assessment of familial patterns had never been portrayed in prime-time cartoon format before. it was plucky and hilarious to realize what buffoons we all are through this great show.
however, after awhile culture needs to not just reflect society but understand that it shapes it, too. after two decades such a commentary then becomes the very force that is continuing to propel those stereotypes. a single generation's worth is one thing (simpson's), but several generations of depicting an apathetic, infantile father figure linked to a passive, repressed, unambitious wife and mother who's always begrudgingly tolerant of a family which doesn't support her as a strong, productive individual gets old.
so in essence, for me, the issue isn't about which is funnier or better written,* it is about the role both shows have in the environment they're portraying. and both of them follow a similar model. my argument is that in light of the simpson's, king of the hill, futurama, and south park - family guy, whose name itself indicates a male-centered perspective - would really be offering something noteworthy if it didn't render the same low-impact, supportive female characters that they rest of them do and did something more than simply remind us how fucked up we all are. i mean, a society always needs biting satire - i'm not suggesting we lose that - but i'd like to see conscious influence as well as mere reflection. (btw, i thought futurama's leela was a little more ballsy and independent, but she'd still easily fall into the responsible-mother cliche, keeping everyone together while the male characters got to be zany.)
*granted, family guy does have *many* hilarious jokes and they have perfected the art of the tangent, though IMO the biggest reason family guy is more topical than the simpson's is because it's simply a newer show, the writers and cast are more fresh, tuned in, etc. i feel the simpon's in their prime, was just as tuned in as family guy is now, if not more so because the simpson's were the first to recognize the american nuclear family *needed* to be satired with ruthless precision and thus, created an entirely new genre - whereas the family guy just continues to do the job already invented by the simpson's, only with a newer sheen and sharper claws. but you def. gave props to the simpson's on the point of ingenuity. :)
i super enjoyed your post as you can tell, T., and feel your points are excellent and infinitely more eloquently executed (say that five times fast!) than the 20 something year old i had the misfortune of talking to in the chat room the other day (no slam meant against my 20 something friends) - this guy could only respond with expletives and repetitive questions regarding my sanity. he kept assuming i could not appreciate family guy's sense of humor, while i continued to remind him it wasn't about the sense of humor or which one was funnier for me - it was about historical timing and the role of culture in society.
© 2009 Copyright by Paola Lopez
No comments:
Post a Comment