A SITCOM SOCIETY

Grant Kerner, Amanda Kastner,Rob Hudson

Sean Ireton, Tyler Jewel, Paula Jewell

Clint Khoury, Beep Iams, Sheree Klausner

INTRODUCTION

Plato once, prophetically, posed a question that hints at the very core of this project. In philosophizing on the issue of entertainment and its various, sometimes questionable, sources he asked his fellow citizens to consider the following

“Shall we just carelessly allow our children to hear casual tales which may be devised by casual persons, and to receive into their minds ideas for the most part the very opposite of those which we should wish them to have when they are grown up?”

Shall we indeed? It is an ongoing debate. Plato obviously recognized the power stories have to shape who and what we are, and although some may be reluctant to admit to how much influence TV has on their character and behaviors, the evidence is difficult to refute.

First we must all acknowledge that what we, as members of a society, choose to watch on TV affects us, as we are not simply passive receivers of the messages we encounter on our TV screens; television viewing is not simply a spectator sport. We may feel like mindless drones as we sink ever deeper into our couches and let ourselves be entertained by sitcoms, but when we finally pull ourselves up and off the couch, we do not simply leave the images and messages behind. They are now a part of us; all that we have seen and heard becomes a part of our memories and shapes our perceptions of reality, to what extent is arguable. We are constantly interpreting what we see and hear, even subconsciously, and the sitcoms that have steadily infiltrated our daily lives contribute to a shared version of reality. A culture is based upon these shared meanings, and provides us with a lens for understanding the world we live in.

It is our belief that TV has helped shape a distorted and inaccurate reality, but one that is commonly agreed upon. The work of communication theorist and professor, Stuart Hall, confirms that meanings are not inherently in people; rather they are derived from external sources, one primary source being the mass media to which we are repeatedly exposed; in our homes, in our cars, and on the job. Hall asserts " the media serves the myth of democratic pluralism-the pretense that society is held together by common norms, including equal opportunity, respect for diversity, individual rights.."(Griffin 2000). TV sitcoms may not be intended to mirror our society, but they are perceived as such and the resulting ideology is a culture that at some level accepts what's being handed to them without examining the messages within. This newsletter is an attempt to examine these messages on a deeper, more critical level.

OUTLINE

Race Portrayal and Sitcoms

Gender Issues

Stereotypes

TV Families

Television Violence

Religion in Contemporary Sitcoms

Religion in The Simpsons

Pop Culture and The Simpsons

Race Portrayal on Sitcoms

By Grant Kerner

In today’s society, it is safe to say that everyone has seen at least one sitcom in his or her life. The sitcom is simply a show about day-to-day life, with funny situations and problems and obstacles that must be overcome. People can relate to sitcoms because the characters are just average families and average people with average jobs. Sitcoms are essentially tapping at the root of American Humanism; drawing people’s interest about something to which they relate. Some people think that sitcoms are an accurate portrayal of real life. Are they? I would argue not. While the situations may be similar to what transpires in the real world, the racial relations and ratios of race in the sitcoms are not realistic.

On television today most popular sitcoms consist of a predominantly, if not all, white cast of characters. This is not only inaccurate but it could be considered offensive to African Americans, as well as other races. In a recent editorial from the University of South Florida’s student newspaper, The Oracle, an editorialist wrote,

“Take NBC's sitcom ‘Friends,’ for example. How many black people have appeared on that show? Three, at last count. Is it possible that none of the characters work with people of other races? Could they all live in apartment buildings with only white people? In the middle of New York City, that's not likely” (2002).

This is just one of the sitcoms, among hundreds, where race is not accurately portrayed. More recently, particularly on the UPN network, there have been numerous shows created with all black casts. While this creates equality between all black and all white casts, there is still the issue of the relative reality of the sitcom concerning the surrounding environment. It is highly unlikely that even in a predominately black neighborhood there wouldn’t be a single white person. However, seeing this portrayal on TV of what is supposed to be a realistic situation can influence how the audience perceives the real world. In her article “Diversity in Prime Time: Mixed News”, Donna Petrozzello quotes Karen Narasaki, chairwoman of the Multi-Ethnic Media Coalition, who said, "Shows that have an all-white or an all-black cast fail to model the racial and ethnic interaction that is a reality for a growing number of Americans" (Petrozzello 2002). The effect is even stronger when dealing with the younger generation: “Viewers, particularly children, who watch sitcoms more than any other type of prime-time show, get a skewed sense of the world” (Petrozzello 2002). The question remains, why do all 5 or 6 characters have to be of a specific race? Why can’t a character from another race be added, or two or three? White and black people encounter the same wacky adventures, comic mischief, family and social problems on a daily basis. Clearly, these sitcoms about our society are very unrepresentative of our society.

WB Entertainment President Jordan Levin said “Most family sitcoms comprise five or six main characters of a single ethnic or racial group, with diversity coming into play when friends or neighbors are added to the mix” (Petrozzello 2002). Why can’t a character from another race be added? Levin said, "Oftentimes, that's perceived as tokenism, and that's something that nobody thinks is particularly the best way to go" (Petrozzello 2002). He is correct, in part. A lot of sitcoms do have “the token black guy”, or the “silly white neighbor”, however this cannot impair the show. Having these characters is an excellent way to promote equality; the next step would be to have the character be removed from a stereotypical role and placed into a more accurate one.

Accurately depicting race in sitcoms will always be a challenge and a perfect level of equality may never be attained. Some initiative taken and some changes made would not only improve race issues and relations, but it would create a much more believable and realistic depiction of the real world for the younger generations. It is our job as “consumers” of this media to critically evaluate what message this medium may be sending to us. An excellent question to ask ourselves when we encounter these sorts of “race-restricted environments” is to say, “Does this sitcom accurately portray the reality it is trying to convey?” If not, let us take care to realize that this sitcom is simply entertainment, not reality. If we all took this sort of action, perhaps we would more clearly understand and interpret the messages being sent to us about race in our society.

Perhaps the same can be said of stereotypes.

Stereotypes on TV

By Paula Jewell and Tyler Jewel

Aren't we all familiar with the bowing and intelligent Chinese man speaking broken English and standing behind his small shop counter, warily eyeing his customers? How about the violent black man, whose pants hang down low enough to show his boxers, wielding a gun and threatening the drug dealer who has been stealing his crack profits? Or how about the ignorant hillbilly, dressed in overalls and missing teeth, from some Appalachian locale -who can't figure out what's wrong with dating his cousin? These images often strike a humorous note with us, they allow us to laugh along with our favorite sitcoms and take our minds off of our problems. They create easily identifiable characters, so it is easy to understand why screen -writers would use these stereotypes when writing scripts for sitcoms that are condensed into half-hour formats. Similarly, it is all too easy for us, the audience, to simply absorb these disturbing images at their face value. We accept them for what they are and move on with the plot, but we do not leave the stereotypes behind when the channel is turned. We do not critically think about the message being sent to us. Authors Joe Chidley and Showwei Chu make a valid statement when they assert “People learn to pattern their behavior after stereotypes the see on TV, often with disturbing results” (Chidley and Chu 1996).

While it may be genuinely true that there is some level of accuracy to every stereotype, these truths may actually represent only a very small portion of the total picture. Character traits cannot be generalized to entire races or a specific ethnicity. Perhaps many Appalachian people are ignorant, maybe many black men are violent, and a it's possible that a great deal of Asians are intelligent; however, these overgeneralizations do not hold true to the majority of those being depicted by them and as such can not be applicable to all persons within those groups. Furthermore, stereotypes are most often utilized to portray members of marginalized groups and these false depictions only contribute to their oppressed status in society. As written in an extensive and thorough article on the topic, "Although token efforts toward diversity and inclusion have been made, for the fall 1999 television lineup, Hollywood produced shows that nearly excluded African Americans, Asian Americans, Latino/Latinas, and Native Americans in new dramas and comedies”(Patton 2001). These so-called “token efforts” are rarely more than stereotyped roles meant to placate activists and gain minority ratings.

The practice of utilizing stereotyping in television sitcoms isn't entirely negative; there is something positive to be gained from these inaccurate and unfair representations; recognition. It is somewhat better to see minorities being portrayed in a typified manner than to simply not see them at all. The presence of minorities on TV at all is a big victory in the war for equality. And of course, stereotypes are not always used; there are some dynamic minority characters on TV sitcoms. Yet, as stated by author Tracy Patton in a recent article, "True parity in representation will remain elusive so long as white cultural ideology--glorifying white norms, mores, and values--works to maintain a status quo for blacks [and other ethnic minority groups] as second class citizens"(Patton 2001).

We, the audience, are in a powerful position to rebel and question the offensive nature of these faulty characterizations in our revered sitcoms. They may seem funny or even true to our own experiences, but that is how the dominant ideology of a culture manifests itself into our everyday lives. It becomes natural to perceive Asians as driven and intelligent, because that is what we see of them. We should reject these messages on the basis of their ability to further divide us as global citizens. We must always remember that it is most imperative that we understand what information is being fed to our cognition when we tune into these sitcoms. We want to be understanding enough to have the ability to wonder if characters being portrayed on sitcoms are accurate to life. This is a valuable skill when looking at families in the American sitcom as well.

Family Portrayal in Sitcoms

By Amanda Kastner

No matter how we define the term, everyone has a family. Having a family could mean living with or without your parent, stepparent, child, sibling, grandparent, aunt, uncle, cousin, or even close friends. Keeping that idea in mind, doesn’t it seem that more and more television families are developing into this type of nontraditional living arrangement? This question, in turn, raises other questions such as; do sitcoms accurately portray real life families and if so, do sitcoms of the past or present give a better portrayal? In order to answer these probing questions we must look to some popular sitcoms, with a focus on families, from around the 1950s to the present.

According to the author of one recent news article, “All sitcoms revolve around a recurring group of characters with established relationships to one another, and who turn to each other for support and nurturing” (Bell 2002). This author’s statement describes all sitcoms, but more specifically family based sitcoms. Some good examples of nontraditional family structures, still true to Bell’s description, are "Full House", "My Two Dads", and "Friends". "Full House’s" family consisted of a dad, his three daughters, an uncle and his wife, their two sons, and a close friend. "My Two Dads" focused on a teenage girl and two father figures raising her. "Friends" is comprised of six friends living with, or in close proximity to, each other. Also, two of the friends are now married and two others have a child together. All three of these examples are highly probable in our contemporary society, both on and off screen. While it may seem that sitcoms are good mirrors of real families there are other elements than the physical make up of families to be considered.

When comparing TV families and real families, it is important to consider the situations with which they are dealing. Some real life problems that families deal with are kids taking their parent’s car and cheating on tests. More serious ones, for example, could be anorexia. To relate these problems to a sitcom family, on "Home Improvement" one of the characters, Brad, takes his dad’s car without permission and gets in an accident. On "Boy Meets World" the main character, Cory, is faced with the issue of cheating in school. The more serious issue of anorexia takes us back to "Full House" when one of the daughters, DJ, wants to lose weight for a party she is going to. After discussing what makes up a family and what families have to deal with, and then comparing them to sitcoms, it seems that they really are a pretty accurate portrayal of real life.

The sitcoms that we have analyzed really do not date back very far, so now it is time to investigate whether or not prior family sitcoms encompassed a more accurate portrayal than the ones in recent years. People now have a tendency to say that shows such as "The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet", "Leave it to Beaver", and The Brady Bunch are not accurate depictions of a family. Some may also assert that these families of the past lived in a utopian dream that never truly existed. Andy Grossman of Daily Variety makes an interesting observation when he notes that “in 1969, fans of ABC’s “The Brady Bunch” watched Greg, Marcia and the rest of the siblings preening in the bathroom with one important element missing: a toilet” (Grossman 2001). Grossman’s statement seems to illustrate minor disagreements between real life and TV, leaving skeptics to wonder if these antiquated sitcoms were even close to accurate. On the other hand, it is feasible that perhaps in the 50's, 60's, and 70's, when these shows were popular, that they were accurate. One thing is certain, our modern society maintains altogether different norms and values today than those widely held during the time period when the aforementioned shows were filmed and aired. In considering these points, the families on television in comparison to real life families may or may not be considered accurate portrayals, dependent upon subjectivity. After all, it's all "relative". The important aspect is that we as viewers of these “family sitcoms” be able to recognize these “relative” portrayals or family life, from the realistic to the not so realistic, and everywhere in between. We don’t want TV sitcoms jading our view on what a “real” family is, do we?

We wouldn’t ask that of religion, either.

Religion in today’s sitcoms

By Robert Hudson

The popularity of television is undeniable and unstoppable. There are more channels, shows, and specials every year. Americans provide the fuel for the growth of television by spending ever-increasing amounts of time in front of their TV’s. For example, researchers estimate that children at (or about) the first grade level spend approximately three school years of their lives watching television (Minnow 1995). Such faithful and devout viewing habits might reasonably lead some to believe that television has become America’s new religion. Our culture worships and heaps praise on TV stars, and devotedly follows the stories in our favorite sitcoms. We are a nation preoccupied with our sitcoms, scheduling our daily habits around prime time and programming our VCR’s so we won’t miss a thing. It seems fair to wonder why we should even bother looking to religion for answers or guidance, when it is so much easier to live in accordance to those godlike stars we idolize on our TV's? After all, they are much more accessible than any distant God. They are always there for us. Life always works out for them, and they don't require anything of us other than ratings.

However, TV as a form of religion hasn’t really caught on with the majority of Americans. Many still find themselves wanting/needing to be religious in some way. Research on the topic states that 86.2% of Americans are Christians, 4.2% claim 'other' religions, and 44% of Americans claim to regularly attend church -which is higher than any other western industrialized country except Italy and Ireland (Bowler 2001). What statistics appear to illustrate is that Americans love both religion and television. The question is whether or not American TV sitcoms portray this acceptance of religion, and its ideals.

When most people think or religion on television, they think of formatted religion programs, the programs we see airing early in the day whereby Evangelists try to reach out to the general public (Bowler 2001). And, as the regular purveyors of TV know, very rarely do any of these "holy-roller" shows run on the major networks. They are also omitted from prime time television. Instead, sitcoms rule the television during prime time, and they are missing a religious component in the majority of episodes. To illustrate, shows such as "Friends", "Ally McBeal", "Home Improvement", and "That 70’s show” (amazingly enough) have never shown the characters going to church or discussing religion of any kind (Bowler 2001). This is also true for the majority of all television sitcoms, but not all of them, some. "The Simpsons" is a prime time sitcom that consistently acknowledges religion. The Simpson’s family is seen going to church weekly, discussing their Christian beliefs, and even the beliefs of other religions such as: Judaism, Catholicism, Hinduism, and Hare Krishna (Bowler, 2001).

Even though “The Simpsons” is one of the only sitcoms that address religion more directly, all sitcoms indirectly, on deeper levels, do deal with religious beliefs. This is due to the fact that almost all sitcoms convey morality, a very real religious value. The morals of the shows are usually ones that are universal in nature, not specific to any one religion, but rather to a much broader range. Professor of Philosophy, Jay Newman notes that, “TV is often moralistic, even in the sitcoms and the soaps. And its' moral foundation is largely derived from Judeo-Christian ethics.”(Boyd). One example of this is "The Bernie Mac Show" on Fox, which deals with many aspects of morality. In this show we see Bernie deliberating over topics such as respect, good manners, and concern for others (Tucker 2002) topics connected with almost all religions.

Religion in television today seems to be almost gone, but in all actuality it is still deeply rooted within plots and characters of the shows. This reflection of religious values apparent upon closer inspection of these sitcoms may or not be accurate to Christianity, or the other religions they portray. It is important for us as the watchers of these sitcoms to notice these value preferences within the sitcoms, and note that they may be tied to our beliefs as a religious community. To note this is to be an informed member of the media experience, and a critical thinker of the values involved.

Now, let’s take a closer look into a sitcom with intense religious influence.

Religion in The Simpsons

By Clint Khoury

Television is a most effective medium for getting a message across. Be it a direct message, subliminal message, or otherwise, TV has a very potent way of conveying an intended view of the way things are. One such show constantly capitalizes on TV’s ability to do so. The Simpsons is that show. For twelve seasons, The Simpsons have been on the air, and show no signs of quitting. Creator, writer, and cartoonist Matt Groening and producer Mike Scully are the masterminds behind this phenomenal animated show. In each episode, Groening conveys a message to his audience. Most of the time the messages contain stereotypes of how our world is, in all aspects of life. From government, to religion, to family life, to peer situations, Groening lets people know how he feels about the world in which we live. In every episode, Groening lets the audience know how he pictures our world by using outrageous characters, sarcastic comments, and outlandish situations. A prominent view that Groening and Scully enjoy have recur in the show is the view of religion in our society, and in particular the Christian religion (although it is not limited to Christianity in the show). “We try to represent people’s honest attitudes about religion,” producer Scully says. So, in multiple shows, they paint a hilarious yet bare truth about how this religion is seen and treated by our society in everyday life. Mark Pinsky, author of The Gospel According to the Simpsons, and longtime journalist for the Orlando Sentinel, says that he finds “God, faith and spirituality abundant in The Simpsons. Christians and Christianity are more a part of The Simpsons than of any other prime time network sitcom or drama” save shows specifically devoted to religion (Touched by an Angel, 7^th Heaven).

The central focus of satirical portrayal of Christianity in our society is seen from the nuclear family that the show is about; The Simpsons. The family’s actions as a whole are typical of that of a Christian family on a daily level. Scully explains that they want the Simpsons to reflect through its characters the fact that faith played a substantial part in many families’ lives in our society, and boy do they ever. They attend church on Sundays, they say grace before meals, they pray to God for help when they are in need. On an individual level, the family members of the Simpsons express their stereotypical faith as well. Homer, the father, plays the role of a careless Christian, but incorporates his faith when he needs it, as he does when he prays to God to get tickets to a football game (played on a Sunday, the Lord’s day, ironically). Marge, his wife, is the longsuffering believer, whose faith is very much an integral part of her character. She is such a devout Christian, and she provides comic relief in the story when she points out that she has a hard time being any better of a Christian, despite her overwhelming desire to do so. Marge and Homer trump each other in many ways, providing comedy in the clash of their views of religion. Then there’s Bart, who despite being a Dennis the Menace reincarnation, never fails to let his Christian values shine through. Bart has been known to pray for good grades, feel sorrow and remorse deep down for his sins (killing little animals, cheating a family member), but in the end always manages to set his wrongs right. “Evil is often, if not always, punished with consequences (a very Christian value),” says Robert Knight, director of cultural studies at the Family Research Council in Washington D.C. There’s also the 8-year-old girl Lisa, who is the little spiritual beacon of light in the family, is always striving to do the morally right thing.

Other characters in the show definitely portray Christian values as well. Take the Flanders family, the next-door neighbors to the Simpsons. They are the quintessential Christian family for our society. There’s Ned the absolute extreme Christian role model. Ned just does no wrong whatsoever. He attends mass three times a week, with seven mini-sermons to boot. He constantly prays, volunteers, and quite simply puts is just the stereotypical, boring devout Christian. Pinsky puts it best when he notes that Ned Flanders plays the role of enforcing the all too familiar event of forced theological ideas in our society. Ned constantly flaunts his Christian values, and it accurately portrays stereotypes in our society. Ned’s family follows suit nicely. Ned’s wife Maude is a devout, stay at home mom, who constantly has a sunny disposition and a pleasant smile. Rodd and Todd, the younger boys of the family, are these extremely well mannered, super naïve boys. They are ignorant of the real world, and are totally immersed in their religion. They love to play Christian games involving bible quiz games and “clothe the leper.” As Mark Pinsky puts it, “There’s an element of unconditional love in their lives that accurately portrays Christianity.”

We also have Reverend Timothy Lovejoy, the lackluster, lost his faith pastor of the Springfield Church. All of these characters in the show the Simpsons depict stereotypical Christian views and practices, and despite that over exaggeration and the obvious humor intended and aimed at the religion, it’s obvious the Christian values and elements shine through in The Simpsons.

All in all, it’s obvious that the Simpsons reflect the values and religious beliefs of our society. John Heeren of California State University found that nearly 70 percent of all Simpsons’ episodes contained some reference to religious content, and in 10 percent, the plot revolved around a religious theme. Of course we realize that the values portrayed come at some cost, considering that the show must have humor; that is the show’s main focus. That is realized. However, considering all the sitcoms on TV, the Simpsons have introduced the most prayer and religions belief in comparison to all sitcoms.

The Simpsons is a popular culture phenomenon that has, according to Glodo, of Reformed Theological Seminary, “a very functional view of religion,” which it is why it is so appealing. As the creators of the Simpsons said, and put it best, “Without a doubt, we’re just aiming to depict what we saw as reality.”

Now that we have noted that we have the ability to critically find and note religious values and beliefs rooted in a specific sitcom, let’s see what else we can critically discover and evaluate about our popular culture from a specific sitcom on television.

Pop Culture & The Simpson's

By Beep Iams
Many successful sitcoms and other types of television shows throughout the past 50 years have all reflected the basic elements of that time period’s popular culture. From the generation of the baby boomers growing up on “I Love Lucy”, to M*A*S*H during the Vietnam War, shows based on normal life have become a sort of time capsule for each generation in America. But one show in particular, Fox’s “The Simpsons” has seemed to capture all elements of popular culture from the past, present and future. Not only does “The Simpsons” explain mainstream popular culture, but the show also takes a look at underground and less-known trends in society. Due to the popularity of the sitcom cartoon, the hit-show has made itself a form of popular culture in the process.

The major premise of the “Simpsons” is to satirize real life concepts. Not only can people relate to the characters, they can also sympathize and laugh with (or at) them. The characters on the show endure through the same scenarios, problems, hopes, and daily ruts that the majority of middle-class Americans experience. With the dry, and somewhat painful, perspective on everyday life the series embraces the perspective that life is full of comedy. Americans, young and old, can relate to each other through the honest, and sometimes bitter truth. Because the characters and plots accurately imitate real life situations and people, the show offers a humbling and hilarious view of our Westernized culture.

“The Simpsons” has become an every day occurrence in modern day pop-culture. In fact, “Simpsons” catch phrases are almost considered a genuine addition to the English language. One-liners and imitating characters to describe situations or to relate to people is used throughout the nation everyday. Chris Turner, writer for Shift Magazine, describes the applicability of “Simpsons” scripts when he states,

“ (The scripts) would become, for example, the primary metaphor I would use in conversations with most of my close friends and colleagues. And I know I'm not alone in this. There's a tendency, when attempting to discuss the broad strokes of a pop-cultural era, to lapse into a royal we -- to invent a mass phenomenon out of one's own passion for the subject.”(Turner 2002).

The writers of The Simpsons provide a vast array of pop-culture terms and historical allusions throughout each 30-minute episode. While watching, one who does not understand a reference will usually be able to decipher the saying by referring to the proceeding scenes. However, if one cannot, he/she can ask someone else and therefore, bring a sense of community to understanding the joke.

The overall success of “The Simpsons” is not necessarily reflected in the sales of merchandise; rather, the reality based cartoon-series successes are measurable in how culturally internalized and ubiquitous the show and its characters have become. Some might even suggest that the past ten years could be called the generation of “The Simpsons” as practically everyone represents a part of The Simpsons; the show represents our culture. It says to the world, Hey we do have a sense of humor over here in the states and we admit to being fallible, imperfect, inherently flawed human beings. After all, isn’t there a “D’oh!” somewhere inside of us all? We can recognize the “D’oh” in all of us now. Now we can critically understand that The Simpsons represent our culture, in their characters and their plots.
Now that we have taken a closer look at a specific sitcom in our society, what other aspects would be

valuable to be able to critically evaluate and understand in our popular sitcoms? Violence may be one.

Violence on TV

By Sean Ireton

Does violence on TV contribute to violence in society today? Well, before the age of eighteen, it is estimated that the average American teen will be exposed to roughly eighteen thousand simulated murders on TV alone (Fanning 1995). Graphic portrayals and allusions to violence are everywhere we turn and especially on television. This seems unnecessary and ironic in light of surveys that prove 72 percent of Americans view TV as too violent (Violence Prevention).

Violence appears in sitcoms, wrestling, cartoons, sports, and even in commercials. The simple fact that these graphic and chilling images are everywhere makes it hard to refute the idea that constant observation does impact our thoughts and actions. Yet, no matter how many times activists attempt to filter it out, it remains a staple of TV programming; a way to hook viewers and ultimately get ratings. . Violence on TV is a fact; during the show commercials often interrupt the most violent scenes just as the violence is about to climax in order to ensure that viewers stay tuned (Szaflik 2002). In 1980, the most violent television shows had 15 to 20 violent incidents per hour. By 1992, twenty-five percent of the prime-time shows were categorized as "very violent" and multiple programs were showing 40 or more violent incidents per hour (“Violence Prevention”).

Network stations may seem to employ too much violence, but they pale in comparison to basic cable programs. Cable shows may contain upwards of 59% violent content, and channels such as HBO offer programming which are 85% violent (Szaflik 2002). Even channels such as MTV, reputed for their music videos, show a lot of violent scenes. And according to one informative article, there is more violence on MTV than all of the three major networks combined. More than 60 percent of the videos contain violent or suggestive scenes (“Violence Prevention”). These numbers may be staggering but as long as the channels get profit from it, I doubt that we will see a drastic change in violence on TV.
Numerous studies have conducted the relationship between violence and its effect on children. One such study, led by George Gerbner, PH.D. At the University of Pennsylvania, concluded that children who engage in excessive TV viewing, including even moderate amounts of violence, are prone to thinking that the world is a more dangerous place. Children often behave differently after they have been watching violent television programs. He examined one hundred preschoolers both before and after they viewed violent programs. (Some watched cartoons with a lot of violence in them and others watched shows with no violence at all.) He noticed enormous discrepancies between the group that watched the violent shows and the ones that didn't. The ones that watched violent shows were more likely to hit their classmates and disobey class rules than the ones that watched non-violent shows (“Violence on TV”). The aforementioned study, and others like it, illustrate that violence on TV does affect children’s patterns of aggressive behavior and their overall dispositions. As suggested in an edition of Macleans “Anyone who spends too much time watching TV will begin to develop a perception of the world which is not real” (Chidley and Chu 1996). We all make decisions, to some degree, based upon our perceptions. The perception that the world is predominantly violent is quite unnerving, and something our television-watching society needs to realize is not necessarily the case. Simply because TV shows violence, does not mean that it is an aspect of our society that is true to life. We must realize this. Finally, what of gender in our modern sitcoms? Do these sitcoms we watch in popular television accurately portray what really is in our society? Let’s find out.

Gendered Sitcoms
By Sheree Klausner

Personalities are multifaceted and unique to each individual; however, some characteristics may be attributed to and or associated primarily with gender. This holds true not only in reality, but also on the sitcoms that mirror our society. The question then, is just how accurate are these gender-based attributes? There are several shows one could use to exemplify the answers to this, for example the popular TV sitcom "Friends". This situation comedy centers on a close-knit and loveable group of friends, which consists of three males and three females, who reside in New York. Joey and Phoebe are the free-spirited counterparts, Ross and Rachel are the modern thinkers, and Chandler and Monica are the controlling couple. An analysis of the two most definitively gendered characters, Rachel and Joey, is highly representative of how a great deal of people view gender today.

At first Rachel represented the typical dependent, very feminine, superficial woman- supported by her Father’s money. Any feminist would have analyzed her character as typical and repressed, yet as the show progressed her character surprisingly evolved into a much more realistic and admirable one. She grew from a helpless ditz into a professional businesswoman in the fashion industry. This type of change more accurately reflects a modern consensus among women and men alike, as it is more widely accepted that women can be a part of the American work force while maintaining attractive and "softer" qualities. While some women stubbornly cling to that long ago romanticized version of femininity, the majority has become more dimensional in their thoughts and actions. Rachel is an idealized version of today's woman, successfully independent, yet beautiful and easily forgiven for her mistakes. She evokes a strong sense of connection with most female audience members. The character Joey is exceedingly macho at times, yet surprisingly sensitive. He loves sports, red meat, and worships the female body-yet also proclaims his needs and feelings, sheds tears, and enjoys his platonic friendships. Again, we see in this sitcom evidence of gender duality, as our society moves ever closer to accepting people on the basis of their individuality than on gender alone. Looking at these gender portrayals, we can see whether these characters are true to life.

Another favorite sitcom, "South Park" is structured around four preadolescent boys. This show does not include the female perspective and in fact, the only stable females represented are the boy's mothers and teachers. Although the show does not stress the subservience of women, which was a big problem of past sitcoms in our society, they do consistently portray most of the older women characters, with the exception of the town mayor, in traditional female roles. For the most part, women and their issues are simply not given a voice on this show. This exclusion is problematic, only in that a large number of younger people religiously watch "South Park" and some of these are inevitably female. And while the cartoon world these characters live in is only fictional, it may be worthwhile to point out the omission of females in the show. Author Michael Freeman, writing for Media Week notes that "Although women represent 52 percent of the general U.S. population, the SDSU study found that the total number of female cast regulars (341 characters) represented only 38 percent of the total series roles" (Freeman 1999). In order to achieve true equality between the sexes, there should be equal representation in the majority of prime time shows.

The "Simpson's" puts a sarcastic spin on the nuclear family, with the married parents and 2.3 children living in a Springfield suburb. The show includes: Homer as the moronic boob and breadwinner of the family, Marge is the sensible housewife who keeps her family glued together with hard work and morals, Bart is the rambunctious rebel, Lisa is the vegetarian honor roll student, and Maggie the baby who never grows. The show portrays the women of the family to be bright, sharp, and intelligent, and the men to be dumb, ignoramus troublemakers, it even had an entire episode on the genetics of the intelligence that run through the Simpson's DNA. During that episode it was pointed out that all male Simpson's are simple-minded and the females of the family are brainy and have successful occupations. Is this an accurate portrayal of gender in our society? By asking this question, I think we are one step closer realizing that gender isn’t constructed on television sitcoms.

In conclusion, although there are some shows which continue to display women as objects and airheads, others, such as Friends and the Simpson's are making strides towards the entire gender issue. As one author points out, "There are just so few sitcoms or dramas today that offer women in three-dimensional roles as responsible career women or working moms juggling the bills and the kids"(Freeman 1999). In an ideal world, there would be no such thing as the social construction of gender, and we would all be held accountable only as individuals. Unfortunately, we aren't quite there yet.

Regardless, it would still be fair to state that TV sitcoms seem to be holding performing up to par, when it comes to keeping up with our ever-changing society. Noting if sitcoms are doing so or not is a good step in being able to critically evaluate the worth of gender portrayals in our modern TV sitcoms.

Works Cited

1.Bell, G.B. (October 26, 2002). TV sitcom families have rarely been happier; Happy

Families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way. The Hamilton Spectator: B2.

2.Bowler, Gerry. God and The Simpsons. The Spirituality of Springfield.

Available online: http://www.dare-connexions.org/simpsons.html

(accessed November 8, 2002)

3.Boyd, Margaret. Philosopher explores cultural relations of television

Religion. Available online: http://www.uoguelph.atguelph/96-12- 11/newman.html. (accessed November 8, 2002)

4.Chidley, Joe, & Chu, Sowwei. (1996 June 17). Toxic TV. Maclean’s, 36-42.

5.Fanning, David. Frontline/Does TV Kill? 15 Jan. 1995. 31 Oct. 2002. Available online: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/teach/tvkillguide.html (accessed November 8, 2002)

6.Freeman, Michael. (1999, October 25). The Gender Dilemma. Media Week, 7-9.

7.Griffin, Em. (2000). Cultural Studies of Stuart Hall. A First Look at Communication Theory (Eds.5). (p. 366-376). New York, New York: McGraw Hill.

8.Grossman, A. (August 31, 2001). Happy end to the happy endings. Daily Variety, special section, A36.

9.John Mark Ministries (2001) Report: God and man, and the Simpson’s. 2001. Available Online: http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/abss/abss0225.htm (accessed September 27, 2002)

10.Journal of Social Issues (1999). Report: Television and Prejudice Reduction: When Does Television as a Vicarious Experience Make a Difference? 1999. Available online: http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0341/4_55/62521564/p1/article.jhtml

(accessed September 27, 2002)

11.Minnow. Television Statistics. Available online: http://www.chc-zone.com/time/stats.htm.

(accessed November 8, 2002)

12.Patton, Tracey Owens. (2001, November). Ally Mcbeal and her Homies. Journal of

B lack Studies, 229-261.

13.Shift Magazine (2001). Excerpt from: The Simpsons Generation.

14.September 3. Available online: http://www.shift.com/content/10.3/397/1.html

(accessed September 25, 2002)

15.Szaflik, Kevin. “Violence on TV: The Desensitizing Of America” 3 May 2002. 30 Oct. 2002. <http://www.ridgenet.org/szaflik/tvrating.htm>.

16.Taflinger, Richard. Comedy in the Sitcom. Available online:
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~taflinge/comcrit.html (accessed September 27, 2002)

17.The Cosby Show (2002) The Cosby Show Changes the Way Blacks are Viewed. September 2002. Available Online: http://www.engl.virginia.edu/~enwr1016/public_html/amc2d/cosby.html
(accessed September 27, 2002)

18.The Globe and Mail (2001). The Sad, Cruel World of The Simpsons.
Available online: http://www.snpp.com/other/articles/sadcruel.html
(accessed September 25, 2002)

19.Violence on Television. Available Online: http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/violence.html(accessed October 31, 2002)

20.Violence Prevention. Available Online: http://www.violence- prevention.com/violenceAndTV.asp (accessed October 30, 2002)

21.Tucker, Ken. The Bernie Mac Show. Available Online: http://www.ew.com/ew/article/ review/tv/0,6115,183488~3~0~berniemacshow,00.html

(accessed November 8, 2002)