The frequent portrayals of fathers and husbands in media as incompetent and foolish has led to its crystallization as a stereotype in American popular culture, with the portrayed fathers (or just men) described as “bumbling”, “idiotic”, “dumb”, or just “stupid”. TVTropes.org, a site that compiles pop culture memes and patterns and examples of them, has several pages referring to this stereotype and some related ones (chiefly “Bumbling Dad” and “Men Can’t Keep House”). The “Stupid Dad” has become a common part of modern sitcoms and advertisements, especially when fathers attempt to perform some sort of domestic tasks. The almost impossible level of incompetence these portrayals present has lead to some disagreement about what they actually represent for gender identities, a debate that actually served as the origin of this project.

            My father (a generally competent man) drew my attention to the “Stupid Dad” stereotype, and appeared offended at its allegedly emasculating implications. I replied with my theory (one I later found to be supported by communications and media research) that the incompetent father actually reinforces patriarchal gender roles, by saying that men shouldn’t be expected to perform domestic tasks. The strangest part was realizing the exact same cultural message of the ads – that fathers, husbands, and men in general are too incompetent to perform domestic tasks – led to both conclusions, depending on one’s perspective and how far one took the premise. After some academic investigation, it became clear the “Stupid Dad” was a definite part of American media, with similar concerns arising out of the United Kingdom. I was now interested in the public response to the stereotype, through an analysis of how it is discussed online, through blogs, articles, and comments from readers on those articles. By looking at how we discuss the implications of a cultural trope, I hoped to gain insight into its rhetorical power and effect.

Searching for “Stupid Dad Stereotype” using Google yields 2,590,000 results, and Google Trends indicates searches for “Stupid Dad” have been on the rise in the past few years. Since the first few pages generally represent the most relevant result, I dug through the pages that came up – mostly blogs and news site editorials. Remarkably few of the opinions on the “Stupid Dad” I found noted the implications of the stereotype on women, or even gender roles more broadly. Most authors of articles on “dumb dads” fell into two main categories: men’s advocates and religiously affiliated groups.

Many sources on the “Stupid Dad” stereotype focused on the detrimental effects of the portrayal on men and boys, emphasizing how it demeans men. The articles varied in levels of frustration at the “Stupid Dad”, with some more explicitly Men’s Rights-oriented authors and commenters expressing concerns about “Feminist Indoctrination” and “Feminazis”. Even the less radical of the articles in this category share concerns about “Male-Bashing” and emasculation, with some raising the specter of misandry. One of the more detailed examinations, from a female opinion writer in the Daily Mail (UK), explains the “Stupid Dad” as “inverse sexism” in the aftermath of the feminist movement, implying a “prejudice against men”. Another article in this vein discusses male “weakness” being used as a tool to sell products to women, an opinion itself based on gender stereotypes like those presented in other ads regarding women and shopping.

These perspectives appear to stop short of looking at any further implications of the “Stupid Dad” beyond its negative effects on men, jumping straight to outrage at the demeaning and, according to some, sexist portrayal. They charge the feminist movement with bringing the plague of the “Stupid Dad” down on the TV-viewing masses, while generally ignoring the actual feminist opinion on the “Stupid Dad”. As observed when ads portraying the “Stupid Dad” are studied alongside other ads featuring domestic tasks, the portrayal of fathers, stupid or otherwise, tend actually to reinforce traditional gender roles, implying that men should not be doing household tasks. The men’s advocates described above often get this far, noting the mockery of men’s competence, but fail to take their observations to the logical conclusion. If men are unfit for domesticity and someone has to take care of the house, “Stupid Dad” advertisements necessarily imply that the home is a “separate sphere” entrusted only to women. In this way, it would be unlikely for a trope attributed to the feminist movement to actively work against the feminist cause, making it more likely that the “Stupid Dad” is another case showing how patriarchy hurts men as well as women.

Commentary from a religious point of view incorporates similar themes as the men’s advocates, but from a slightly different angle. They, too, are concerned about how the “Stupid Dad” demeans the role of men, but especially emphasize the necessity of fathers in families and the loss of respect for men the “Stupid Dad” implies. Focus on the Family’s blog geared towards fathers (“Dad Matters”), describes the frustration with this portrayal, noting backlash against Huggies for their “Dad Test” ads, which described leaving babies with only their fathers as “the ultimate test”. After describing some other examples of the trope, the author bemoans how people haven’t done enough to “encourage companies to show respect to men”. An article on the “Stupid Dad” in the Deseret News (a newspaper owned by an affiliate of the LDS Church) expresses similar concerns about “the system that minimizes the father’s role in the home”, worrying that the trope tells children that they do not need to respect their fathers and women that men are not needed. The communities associated with sources, represented through the comments on the above articles, shed some additional light on the reaction to the “Stupid Dad”. Many commenters express a desire to return to more traditional portrayals of wise fathers and lament the transition away from traditional gender roles.

Mocking fathers, such as through the “Stupid Dad”, is viewed as undermining the legitimacy of the family, which requires both father and mother. Setting aside the heteronormative implications of the advocated arrangement (as would be expected from religiously affiliated sources), the concerns expressed here can be interpreted as a fear over the loss of male privilege that comes with being open to humor. The loss of privilege noted in Scharrer’s study of sitcom fathers over time (see Literature Review) appears in these analyses of the “Stupid Dad”, but with apparent disapproval at the change.

Both religious sources and men’s advocates can be considered part of “backlash politics”, where social groups perceive a traditional order being overturned, and respond with concerted opposition to the change. The tradition becomes part of one’s personal identity, making changes to the tradition a threat to one’s identity, allowing for particularly strong responses. The feminist movement represents a drastic change to patriarchal social norms, so advocates of backlash politics, popular among religious conservatives, latch on to negative tropes that can be tied to the movement as evidence of how noble social norms are under attack. Similarly, the emphasis on how the “Stupid Dad” demeans men could represent those holding to the traditional or status quo view in the modern “crisis of masculinity”, as described by Gentry and Harrison (see Literature Review). Much like the backlash against feminism, traditionalists in masculinity’s identity crisis see a changing world, with men taking on feminine roles while the media portrays men in traditional roles, and choose to cling to the tradition as a known quantity. Change implies uncertainty, and when there are positive associations with tradition, as implied through advertising, those traditions can hold a great deal of power.

There are some notably more moderate positions in the discussion presented by the Internet. One author questions whether the outrage directed against the “Stupid Dad” may be fathers “tilting at windmills”, albeit with his concerns expressed in contrast to a “misandry giant”. He observes that the real concern should be on portrayals of masculinity generally, rather than specifically focusing on portrayals of fathers, exhorting readers to oppose the image of the “mook” (from Douglas Rushkoff’s “Merchants of Cool”). Other pieces celebrate the entrance of fathers into domesticity, viewing the “Stupid Dad” primarily as offensive based on the day-to-day realities of modern fathers. These articles also tend to note how the “Stupid Dad” does far more than “demean men”, noting the effect of the trope on women, as well. In the words of one father, the “Stupid Dad” stereotype “implies a world where women aren’t good for much outside the home. The world has changed.” In this way, discussions of actual domesticity among fathers present a possibly more thoughtful outlook on the “Stupid Dad”, perceiving its effects on all members of the family.

It must be noted that the sample discussed in this analysis is not scientific. Almost certainly, the more moderate position on the “Stupid Dad” – noting it as offensive to both the realities of modern fatherhood and the strides of modern women – is more prevalent among the general populace. The Internet often caters to those most willing to express their opinions on a subject, which means that more hostile opinions are more likely to take advantage of the stage. Such voices may also keep a closer eye on their topics of interest, which allows them to have greater influence on the discourse. As such, studying the discourse around a topic like the “Stupid Dad” allows for insight into its place in a society. From the above review, it appears that the “Stupid Dad” exists like most aspects of advertising: observed and scorned, but perpetuated as an effective sales tool. This pattern may change for the “Stupid Dad” as male domesticity becomes more socially accepted, making its ridicule less socially acceptable.

Many of the loudest voices opposing the “Stupid Dad” appear stuck in a paradoxical situation, however. They take offense at the trope, but primarily for its denigration of men. Doing so allows the trope to still define “proper” male gender roles, either through implying men are unfit for traditionally “womanly” duties (accepting the “Stupid Dad”) or through implying that mocking men is socially detrimental (rejecting the “Stupid Dad” in the manner of men’s advocates and traditionalist religious groups). While “Stupid Dad” opponents should be natural allies of the feminist movement against this stereotype, they look at feminism as an opponent, imposing the “Stupid Dad” upon them through their preoccupation with the loss of male status that comes with it. Fathers who embrace the domestic aspects of fatherly responsibility appear to resolve this paradox – joining feminism in subverting patriarchal norms and providing a stronger principled backing to their opposition to the “Stupid Dad”.