Ads do this all the time:
http://www.askmen.com/top_10/entertainment_300/327_top_10_list.html

To me, it's clearly pointing out how ridiculous the double-standard is. There are none of the telltale signs of society's distaste for overweight women, and I think the author did a pretty good job of staying within the lines.

Have to agree with Anon and Patrick -- standard male-bashing occurs all the time and is "accepted", and the cartoon does a good job of showing the almost exact inverse of that standard.

Why not look at the casual assumptions of male intelligence and capability as portrayed in entertainment and advertising? (I realize that this might have been covered at some point, but I don't recall it in the past few weeks being something that came up.) I know that there are more (and more graphic) examples of the denigration of women, but what about the occasional one about how men are shown in a degrading manner? (Or is the depiction of an "oaf" justifiable if he's together with a "hottie"?)

It's funny because I know women who are attracted to guys like Seth Rogan or the husband from King of Queens, and I know men who are attracted to bigger women, so it's actually kind of nice to see realistically portrayed physical standards. If they could do away with the "bumbling oaf" element you might have a fairly progressive premise on your hands.

And yes I recognize the irony that I could easily think of two male examples of bigger/overweight(-ish) men, but couldn't think of a single female corollary off the cuff. Roseanne Barr?

I LOVE this video! I think about this all the time the "blah man + hot wife" equation for many shows like King of Queens, According to Jim, or even the Simpsons! Overweight men are still funny, adorable etc, but god forbid there ever be a fat wife!

lisa, have you ever wondered WHY women tend to be objectified sexually, and men respected for their money or power? It's not a social construct. It's an evolutionary construct. And it's well documented and researched.

If you sociologists would ever get out of your ivory tower to engage with the other sciences and disciplines, you'd really learn something.

Actually, the reason I think this fails as satire is that the title makes the show about the dude. All those oafish husbands are played by an already well-known comedian, in shows tailored to their personas.

Properly the title should be about her, from her POV, not his.

Duran, it's not well-documented and researched in the least. In fact, those premises are based on conjecture by the "evo-psych" crowd, and are rather laughable for anyone who's actually taken a serious look at their research.

Those conclusions are a perfect example of bias intruding into and ruining research

Very cute, although Kaethe makes a good point.

I don't think that the 'male-bashing everywhere' should necessarily be taken for just that. It's primarily comedies that do that. And the assumption of neutral person everywhere--and the privileged gender--is still male. Why would a male audience want to see men get bashed?

I've read that the ancient Greeks had quite a few comedies with brilliant servants and their moronic masters. That's not because they believed as a society that their service personnel were geniuses. It's because comedy is about inverting expectations.

Duran's bringing up pop evo psych as an excuse for sexist double standards?

Oh boy, time to play BINGO!

they kinda had a show like this, it was called married with children. she wasn't fat but she was super useless and always melted al's records and spent food money on animal print latex and begged him for sex and so on

Add in Kaethe's suggestion and something approaching the show already exists in one of Britain's most popular sitcoms, The Vicar of Dibley, where Dawn French's fat, slobby heroine is continually paired up with "unreasonably" attractive and together men. Though as with many of the male comedians picked French's own romantic history suggests this is not entirely unreasonable.

Without further examples I'm not sure how well it can be used to examine the way the gender of the protagonist shapes this particular set-up, but for what it's worth I'll summarize what I think are the significant changes from the formula.

The vicar is single, has all the usual flaws (lack of restraint, foresight or shame) except for stupidity, since the premise of the show is that she is the only sane person in a village of backwards halfwits, and shared (relative) clear-headedness is the basis of her romantic relationships with both the single episode love interests and the permanent cast member who fulfills the "nagging wife" role. The former are usually run off by some misunderstanding arising from her neurotic attempts to cover up her clownishness, while the latter seems to think they should eventually end up together out of mutual respect/friendship, something she disagrees with.

It's an extremely cosy and unsubversive show, but I think it is interesting how the nontraditional gender casting upsets certain negative stereotypes while introducing other ones.

I've got a kind of tangentially related experience in my studies as a character designer that apply to this. If you take a look at illustrators and painters and especially cartoonists it's incredibly prevalent in male artists to have incredibly unflattering male characters with a variety of unappealing qualities whereas female characters have a very strong tendency to be created as ovetly sexualized and impossibly perfect (put on a pedestal if you will.) Now obviously this is hardly a scientific research paper, it's anecdotal observations from one of my professors and myself, but I've been exposed to a fairly wide degree of art, and my instructor all the more so, to lend the statement a bit larger credibility. His theory was that it is a kind of hold the other guys back from the girl you're attracted too idea, pointing out all the flaws in men and none in women etc. I am inclined to go further, and personally believe that it is even more to do with a lack of concern for the female gaze. A Het male artist is inherently understanding if their own interests and attractions and can easily pander to themselves and with socionormative beauty standards, culturally similar viewers and it doesn't occur to them (or they intentionally don't want to, or it doesn't hold their interest) to have a pedestal featuring an ideal male that isn't tragically flawed to mock and feel better about themselves. Hopefully the concept of a market that exists for that kind of imagery and character archetypes can emerge and cartoons, sitcoms and romantic comedies can grow to have rolls beyond what are currently represented and serve a broader market. Maybe even lead to a more diverse market place inspiring a more diverse creative industry.

I think it's problematic because most sitcom oaf husbands that I'm familiar with aren't made fun of for their weight so much as for their incompetence (except Homer Simpson--but maybe I just don't watch enough sitcoms). Fat men can exist on TV without being mocked, so it's not *quite* as stereotype-reinforcing when they *are* mocked. To get away with satirically mocking fat people I think you'd have to line it up with a bunch of really obviously offensive stereotypes against other types of people too, so people could tell you were purposely being offensive. I think it's hard to set up the woman as the oafish spouse without also including misogyny, because the oafish husbands can be slightly competent at masculine things, like fixing the house or playing with cars, without being HAWWWT, but women cannot be at all successful in any way at feminine things, such as wearing pretty clothes and makeup and whatever the hell I'm supposed to do as a woman but do not because it fills me with a combination of not caring at all and intense loathing, unless they are HAWWWT. Sitcom husbands screw up their masculine hobbies hilariously, but they are always assumed to be basically capable of doing them at all. And I think we already have the same situation to a large extent for non-"oafish" wives in sitcoms, who are basically competent but sometimes hilariously screw up at cooking or parenting, even though they tend to be more competent and insightful overall than their oafish husbands.

I notice that the guy in this parody is still the bread-winner, whereas the oafish sitcom husband at least serves a purpose in the household by providing all their income. Keeping the husband as the bread-winner makes the oafish wife into a worthless infantile appendage, as opposed to a difficult but necessary partner in the household.

Sean from our website The Blogulator I'm sure was intending this to be strictly satire/comedy and I swear he's not a sexist and/or into reinforcing hurtful stereotypes, but I'm flattered that it's incited such great discussion!! Also check out his first Sitcom Idea: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV731z21ao4&feature=related

don't overreact. This won't be on TV. It's some vid made and uploaded onto youtube. It's likely a vid he made for a college or high school project.