kficanon ([personal profile] kficanon) wrote2012-09-22 10:59 am

part fifteen



• ANONYMOUS COMMENTING ENABLED
• IP OFF
• NO SPAMMING.
NO PICS. Post the links in the subject line instead.


LINKS
kficanon delicious archive
challenge responses
beta advertisement
Meme Long Challenge Prompts
fic comms on livejournal

POSTING THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF USERS IS A SERIOUS TOS VIOLATION. PLEASE DON'T DO IT

stuff
kficanon fic exchange
new round for seouldout (a kpop last fanfic writer standing comm)

(Anonymous) 2012-09-24 06:41 pm (UTC)(link)
no, it's fine. i any day believe Community is superior to Modern Family and 30 Rock and Parks and Rec are goddesses. but anyway, elaborate please on your first point?

(Anonymous) 2012-09-24 06:43 pm (UTC)(link)
the fact it claims to be progressive when the gay characters never show physical affection. sigh.

(Anonymous) 2012-09-24 06:45 pm (UTC)(link)
i don't really mind that. for one, i don't think it's consistent with the characterization of mitch and cam. if they suddenly went touchy-feely to prove a point, that isn't correct either. they have kissed on the show, btw, and i don't know, it's never bothered me especially. cam has always been repressed, gayness notwithstanding, and jay and claire have always been the more sexual of the family.

(Anonymous) 2012-09-24 06:46 pm (UTC)(link)
da but didn't they get over that in season 2 in that big kiss episode? i thought the recent drama was about how they were about "modern families" and yet none of the women had jobs

(Anonymous) 2012-09-24 06:47 pm (UTC)(link)
i stopped paying attention to it so maybe. but are you serious?

(Anonymous) 2012-09-24 06:48 pm (UTC)(link)
ummm about the kiss or the sexism drama? bc i'm serious about both lol

(Anonymous) 2012-09-24 06:48 pm (UTC)(link)
i meant i never realized they didn't have jobs lol. that's really dumb.

(Anonymous) 2012-09-24 06:47 pm (UTC)(link)
so they should have a job just because it's called Modern Family? what are people on these days.

(Anonymous) 2012-09-24 06:48 pm (UTC)(link)
it's a little more subtle than that, anon:

Another notable criticism of Modern Family from various online news sources is that the show reinforces gender roles and sexist stereotypes. One writer at the CS Monitor criticized the show for only casting the women as stay-at-home moms while the husbands on the show have very successful careers: "There is a difference between quirky, flawed characters and ones who are incapable of professional success. And when the latter is reliably female, it makes for sexist television. It also makes for unrealistic television."[72] Other authors reinforce this criticism by pointing out that stay-at-home mothers are no longer the norm in today's society.[73] According to the Department of Labor, 68.9% of married moms are working or looking for work. Thus, it's no surprise that the lack of representation for working moms sparked conversation on Twitter: "Late Night with Jimmy Fallon writer Ali Waller asked her Twitter followers, “If Modern Family is so ‘modern’ then why don’t any of the women have jobs?”[74]
Gender stereotypes occur frequently in the series: "At least one CNET staffer found the storyline to be fairly sexist: 'The wife and daughter are unable to learn how to use the remote and must be taught by the father, while the son is 'good with electronics,' even though he is thought of as the stupidest member of the family.'"[75] In the episode "Game Changer," one of the wives on the show, Gloria, hides her mastery of chess so that her husband will not be upset at losing: "On its own, this moment is at best a sappy quip about compromise in an often heavy-handed series, and at worst, it's a moment in a show with 9.3 million viewers, on a network owned by Disney, which explicitly validates girls and women subduing their intellect."

(Anonymous) 2012-09-24 06:52 pm (UTC)(link)
i can see their point but i really don't see why a domestic comedy would be expected to be game changers. majority of TV shows are sexist. of course Gloria would do something like that for Jay, everybody knows Jay is a chauvinist pig. Claire ran for elections and forcing ambitions on characters isn't a solution. and what husbands have very successful careers besides Jay? i concede the Luke point but i don't find the show offensive at all.

(Anonymous) 2012-09-24 06:49 pm (UTC)(link)
da but well, yeah. the picture of what family is has changed and it includes two working parents these days.

(Anonymous) 2012-09-24 06:53 pm (UTC)(link)
not necessarily? also, how much of that is out of financial need? there's nothing wrong with being a housewife, or being a housewife out of choice.

(Anonymous) 2012-09-24 06:55 pm (UTC)(link)
i'm not saying there is (my mom is a housewife) but i still think it's problematic.

(Anonymous) 2012-09-24 06:56 pm (UTC)(link)
it's two women. they've shown plenty of working women on the show, and i don't get the shade, tbh.

(Anonymous) 2012-09-24 07:00 pm (UTC)(link)
because there's a bunch of other things that add up to a slightly sexist portrayal of female characters

(Anonymous) 2012-09-24 07:01 pm (UTC)(link)
explain to me why these women, based on their upbringing and life experiences, would be feminists.

(Anonymous) 2012-09-24 07:05 pm (UTC)(link)
first off, i don't watch the show but wow i'm not saying the characters themselves have to be feminists but stuff like explicitly validates girls and women subduing their intellect from that anon above is sexist and doesn't have to be a part of those characters to get a realistic portrayal.

(Anonymous) 2012-09-24 06:57 pm (UTC)(link)
da but 67% of american mothers in the final quarter of 2010 were employed fulltime, so statically, the new "average" family consists of two working parents. there's absolutely nothing wrong with being a housewife, by choice or otherwise. house wives/husbands/others are awesome. but that's just what's happening with families now. and modern family tries to promote a very, for lack of a better word, "modern" representation of what a family is, hence the name. but that's not actually the case and i think that's why some people are riled up about it.

(Anonymous) 2012-09-24 06:59 pm (UTC)(link)
exactly. you put it better than i could.

(Anonymous) 2012-09-24 07:00 pm (UTC)(link)
homogenized data is not convincing me, anon. i can see why it might be unrealistic but i don't see it as sexist. realistically, you can't expect them to bring a massively depressing recession arc into a sitcom.

(Anonymous) 2012-09-24 07:08 pm (UTC)(link)
this is just one argument made against modern family. there are many. i don't think it's that far of a stretch for sitcoms to bring 'massively depressing recessions' into their storylines, because it's been done before. in any case, i'm not actually that well versed on modern family so if you're interested in debating this further, i'd recommend going to their forums or ontd! sorry i couldn't give you more information

(Anonymous) 2012-09-24 06:55 pm (UTC)(link)
da and ia. and with the economy being the way it is in the us, more often than not it is necessary for both parents to work. you have very few stay-at-home parents, unless they're out of work or can afford to remain at home.

(Anonymous) 2012-09-24 06:57 pm (UTC)(link)
da and if one working parent is a corporate lawyer and the other is a property agent dealing in fairly prime properties, i can see why money might not be an issue.