The Purloined Household

you mean.. the same sort of man that wrote the bible that is so often spouted as truth?
--- merged: Nov 8, 2011 8:34 PM ---
as a side note, since this is my thread, I'd really like to leave all of the WTF? shit behind and get back to the issue of media impact on shifts in gender roles and/or social environments. It's funny as shit to read all that stuff, but this shit has derailed far enough.

 

It's your move

 

I suppose you could consider it as such, but the new one doesn't attempt to hide or apologize for two openly gay men raising a child (immorality anyone? hardy har har..wait..sorry..we're leaving that shit behind) where-as, even if My Two Dads was a same sex marriage it was certainly not an open scenario. If it's seen in this sense then Three's Company could be considered bold as well since Jack was straight but went to great lengths to convince the landlord he was gay..

 

There are always going to be arguments surrounding "bold" television..I'm sure we can both agree on that. I think when I meant "open" I meant they weren't shown in gay activities or loudly proclaiming their sexual preference. I will admit that I'm not up to speed on that show, so my basis could be completely off.

If Modern Family is early.. what about Big Love? A man, married to 3 women, in the same house with children. That certainly seems progressive unless you were with Warren Jeffs.

 

Modern Family is "bold" and "ahead of its time", and yet I just got an email from the business manager of the Catholic school where 2 of my kids go. He's been with his partner for at least 20 years, and they have 3 kids. And when I get home, I'll probably pass my middle one's friend, Leo, on his way to his "Mom's" house since she broke up with "Mama" about a year ago. They're sharing custody and live about 3 blocks apart.

Cam and Mitchell seem incredibly normal to me. But maybe my "normal" is different than the rest of America's.

 

Our human fallibility makes us unable to determine truth on our own, I agree with that. However I also believe in a perfect creator who determines what is true.

You are really tap dancing around a direct response to my point. The definition of work is irrelevant. I asked another member to point me out 3 other cultures that promote the woman leaving the home/tent/shelter and leaving her children so that she can work(labor for food/supplies) while the man stays home with the children. None of the cultures you offered promoted that lifestyle. The women were always with the children, they were always having children, they were constantly involved with raising the children. The men hunted and the men formed the military. It's always been that way.
--- merged: Nov 8, 2011 9:55 PM ---

The feminist movement is a cultural movement. So yes, consistent with what I've said.

 

Move on Eddie. If you want to discuss these particulars, start another thread and PM a staffer to copy specific posts over there.

 

No prob. I was just responding to you guys.

 

Appreciate it. That said, I'd like to continue that discussion, just not here.

 

I've found it interesting watching the way TV and media has adapted to social acceptance or non-acceptance over the years. I've rarely seen a TV program that has been truly ground-breaking, where the content was not a part of an already on-going debate in the public forum. Much in the same way advertisers and marketers are adept at gauging the attitudes of consumers, I think the media has become just as adept, most likely in response to advertiser's acceptance or rejection of certain content.

If advertisers paying for spots on the Ellen show did not feel an adequate number of it's viewers would accept Ellen "coming out" on the program, the TV execs would has quashed the idea.

Modern Family has a viewing audience they've determined is wholly accepting of the ideas addressed in the show. Advertisers reap the reward.

It may not be as simple as that, but maybe it is.

HBO and the like would obviously have more freedom. I've seen plenty of ground-breaking stuff going on. Big Love is a really good example, Glory. A great series that I feel has introduced the discussion about polygamy to the public rather than responded to it.

 

Money is the sole purpose behind the network, creativity and (hopefully) character development are behind the creators and writers. Granted, when a network makes money, the creators and writers make money as well, but most of the time we're a creative bunch that just want to tell a story. Creativity will almost always have a basis in some sort of reality so naturally, we're influenced by the things around us. It can be shocking for mainstream or it can be fluff that is gobbled up by the mainstream. So while yes, it's almost as simple as that, the two sides do have their differences and agendas.

Some writers/producers/editors set out to push boundaries of traditional thought, while others merely have characters in place that they want to develop and relate to America. The rarest air is when these two are combined and it speaks to some greater movement/cause/event that is taking place in current affairs. Sometimes "bold" becomes confused with ground-breaking, but either way, if it's "bold" and on a mainstream (not HBO.. Baraka_Guru ) network, chances are the jaded public is going to at least try and perceive everyday life in a new way, even if they don't realize it immediately.
--- merged: Nov 8, 2011 10:36 PM ---
Eddie - I didn't mind you stating what you did, however I feel that it took the discussion into a place I didn't intend or want. It's obviously a controversial and popular subject so I'm looking forward to your thread.

 

TV, as a mass medium aimed at making money, will never be truly ahead of the societal curve. It will always tells stories that reflect something that is happening in culture as a whole. While in cases like Modern Family, it may appear to push the boundaries, the only boundaries it is pushing are the boundaries of television (or mass media) itself.

The whole point of television is to capture eyeballs and deliver them to advertisers. If you stray too far from popular trends you run the risk of alienating your potential audience. Television broadcasters are a relatively conservative (not talking politics here, just attitude) and don't take undue risks.

As for men and women's roles in the house, I really don't give a rat's ass about what happened in the past. From my experience, in both my house and watching other families, the idea that men and women have proscribed roles and should stick to them is utter bullshit.

Are families better with two parents? Sure. Sharing the load is always beneficial. Is it necessary? No. I was raised by a single mom. My wife was raised by a single mom. I have many friends who've been raised with single moms/dads. And while it was not easy, it was also not impossible to raise good kids.

As for Mom staying home with the kids being some sort of natural order of things... fuck you. If it was economically possible to live off one salary, sure, it's great to have a parent that is home for the kids. But let's face it, it's not always economically feasible, nor is it always necessary. Even when one parent stays home, there is no reason to suppose it must be a woman's fate to be the one relegated to home care.

To be clear, I am not dumping on anyone's choice to stay home. Rather, I am suggesting that there are no proscribed rules/laws that tell us what constitutes a family or how that family should choose to manage itself. To suggest otherwise is myopic.

 

I feel I've been a very successful, working, single mom, even while I was still married to my children's father. If anything, I was a better mother and provider once I dumped the 45 year male sucking the life out of me.

I have great kids (now young adults) who are proof that children are resilient and adaptable. Showing children love and giving them the right amount of guidance doesn't require 2 parents or parents with strictly defined roles.

 

You are really not getting the depth of differences in past cultures at all. The 'traditional' family you propose existed forever, is fairly recent. The last couple of hundred years really. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stay-at-home_dad ( for fun mainly )

I can't name an ancient culture that the duties you assume were women's work, are not shared by all. Not only that, but everyone worked, the children were often left to their own devices, or with people to old to work, until the children were big enough to help out. Women did hunt, men did gather.
--- merged: Nov 9, 2011 3:27 PM ---

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

So your bare assertions are truth. Nice. No need to debate her fellas. This one is a dogma machine.

 

I haven't seen an episode of Modern Family yet but I am curious as to whether or not it shows the two Dad's being physically affectionate or even intimate with each other? (this may have been pointed out in an earlier thread, but I haven't seen it)

Or is it still at a sort of Level 1 stage, similar to the shows of the late 50's where heterosexual TV couples were assigned twin beds and only allowed a quick peck on the cheek or lips? Like the The Dick Van Dyke Show and I Love Lucy, to name a couple.

I would personally consider it welcome but also very bold. Though American heterosexual society is well on it's way to a full acceptance of same sex lifestyles, I don't believe it's ready to view it's intimate nature on mainstream television.