Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

            If media is to represent American life, then it must inevitably look at families and how their members relate to themselves and each other. Academics have devoted a great deal of time in recent history looking at representations of women in media as part of the emergence of feminism into the mainstream, with some signs of progress. Such a social transition also affects men’s perceptions, leaving modern gender roles in flux. Modern fathers and husbands, in particular, are becoming more involved in domestic life, entering traditionally feminine worlds while women enter traditionally masculine worlds, like the workforce. This movement away from stereotypical roles in society should be reflected in modern media, but research appears to show that recognition of men’s transition away from traditional masculinity has been very slow, on many fronts even seeking to maintain traditional gender norms through their representations of fathers engaged in domestic life.


Portrayal of Fathers in Advertisements

            Gayle Kaufman examines how men are portrayed in family roles in on 1999 study, looking at both the reality in American society and how advertising portrays that reality. Generally, modern men are more involved in domestic roles, particularly childcare and play with children. This transition has not been a complete social overturn, however, as fathers are still viewed as a supporting figure, under the leadership of mothers, who are expected to be much more involved (Kaufman 441). Television, however, seems to exaggerate this dynamic, portraying married men as “vulnerable and trapped, relying on wives to tell them what to do,” relying on women to truly take care of the family (442-3). This assumes, however, that men are even involved at all, as fathers and husbands are rarely portrayed in domestic roles in advertising. When showing products to care for children, such as medicine or vitamins, the adult depicted is overwhelmingly the mother. Fathers are featured in ads for insurance, however, reinforcing the image of father as protector and provider (448).

Housework is infrequent in ads, but, when shown, women rather than men predominantly perform the work. Men are sometimes present in ads involving housework, but they are generally passive, expecting women to wait on and please them (449-50). When men perform housework in ads, it is commonly tasks considered to be masculine, like taking out the trash. Men are often portrayed as incompetent, even at masculine jobs, requiring help from wives to guide them through the chore (450). In domestic life, men avoid this incompetence in their other primary portrayal as teacher to their children. While women are assumed to be caregivers, men are often shown teaching, reading, talking, or playing with their children, implying that knowledge is passed on by men (452-3). The overall image of fathers carried by advertising is one of passivity, incompetence, and dependence, reinforcing traditional masculine roles and the image that women need to stay home, because men do not or should not.

James Gentry and Robert Harrison find a similar pattern in a 2010 study of portrayals of men – advertising images maintain traditional masculine stereotypes and avoid the image of a competent, nurturing father. They argue that societal changes in gender roles, when compared to advertising’s portrayal of masculine hegemony, have contributed to a “crisis of masculinity”, where men are confused about what it means to be a man (Gentry and Harrison 75-6). Actions seen as “feminine” are violations of normal roles for men, and the image of the “new father”, who is actively involved in child care and nurturance, appears to regularly breach these norms (77, 79). Advertising helps reinforce these norms by associating men with strength and violence and avoiding associations with nurturance, especially during male-oriented programming, such as sports programs. During such programs, ads “did not stress the nurturing father to any extent whatsoever,” instead depicting two major themes: the “stoically macho man” and the “horse’s ass” (85, 88). The former theme is based on the traditional notion of masculinity – strong, career-minded, protector of the family, and “having very little social connection with his children” (88). The “horse’s ass” can also be described as the “stupid father” – “immature, incompetent, […] destructive and violent when presented with any sort of dilemma” (88). This archetype of father is not expected to do anything right, as everyone around him knows he is a “horse’s ass”, and the family is partially to blame for even thinking he could do something right. The ridicule leveled at this father helps maintain traditional gender roles by mocking deviations from the norm and implying that successful male domesticity is impossible. Afternoon commercials tend not to show these themes as strongly, showing fathers as passive consumers or inept helper, while children’s programming appears to show a world with few parents, and without fathers at all (87, 89). Overall, women are being depicted as more independent (in line with modern realities), but “real men (like those watching sports on TV) are not shown as being active fathers” (90).


The “Stupid Dad” Stereotype Examined

            A 2006 study by Erica Scharrer, et al., sheds more light on the portrayal of fathers as incompetent and dependent by examining the frequency, success, and competence of men performing household tasks. Women performed a vast majority of the chores in the ads in the study (66%), but when chores had negative consequences, men were “five times more likely to have performed chores with negative consequences than [women]” (Scharrer, Kim and Lin 231). Men are portrayed as “relatively inept at domestic chores”, with their chore performance more likely to be met with disapproval, to be considered less satisfactory in process and outcome, and to be unsuccessful (231).

            Men’s chore performance is generally portrayed as humorous, with men being the target of jokes about chore performance in the commercial significantly more often, indicating that male attempts at domestic chores in advertising is an object of ridicule (233). Men in commercials featuring domestic chores are often used for comedic effect, and Scharrer, et al., propose two main theories of humor regarding this pattern. Incongruity theory relies on an unexpected connection between two concepts to create an absurd image in the viewer’s mind. Ads with men performing (traditionally feminine) domestic chores “violate our expectations”, and mockery at men’s failures in the ads is portrayed as a natural result of the incongruity (219-20). Superiority theory, on the other hand, relies on a power imbalance to evoke humor, with laughter being “the result of feeling superior to another who is the butt of the joke” (220). Under this theory, ads with inept fathers allow viewers (especially women) to feel elevated status relative to the object of mockery in the ad. The authors argue that the “stupid dad” portrayal in ads, under both theories, may act to reinforce traditional gender roles. Incongruity theory implies that attempts by men to attempt domestic chores are ridiculous on their face, while superiority theory implies that men are incapable of domestic tasks in the first place. In both cases, the humor promotes the idea that the “domestic burden remains largely on the shoulders of females” (236).


Rise of the “Stupid Dad” in TV

            Erica Scherrer has also written on the development of “foolish fathers” in a 2001 study of fathers on TV sitcoms, arguing that the prevalence of jokes targeting the father in sitcom families has increased greatly from the 1950’s to the 1990’s, in addition to the foolishness of the father’s portrayal (Scharrer 32). In the 1950’s, sitcom fathers were making fun of sitcom mothers three times as often as the reverse, a ratio that steadily shifted until, in the 1990’s, the mother was making fun of the father twice as much as he made fun of her. Scherrer considers this change to be a reflection of the changing economic dynamics of American families, with the rise of women in the workforce. Humor is “often an expression of power between the teller of a joke and the target”, and most jokes target the less-powerful person in the exchange, with the teller, from their position of power, making fun of the target (25-6). As women challenge the notion of men as a household’s sole source of income, it diminishes the unique place of the father, reflected in sitcoms through “father characters increasingly [being] ‘fair game’ for light hearted criticism and joking” (34). In the 50’s, the father’s status as sole breadwinner bestowed certain societal privileges on fathers, including exemption from ridicule (25). As women gained economic power, this privilege declined, leaving open the possibility for women to have the advantage in humorous exchanges. This change may also be by design, as Scharrer also attributes the shift in joke-telling to “the increased presence of females in the behind-the-scenes roles of writing and crating television programs” (27). As women become more involved in producing programming, the shows themselves are likely to reflect this change in perspective, in the form of a changed balance of power. In this way, the portrayal of fathers as foolish comes with societal changes in the power balance between men and women, as jokes at men’s expense is more acceptable in countries with a smaller distance in power between men and women, associated with the decline in privilege that comes with greater power (26).


Conclusion

            Literature on the portrayals of fathers in media indicates these portrayals, while recognizing some social change, tend to actually reinforce traditional gender roles. This reinforcement may be explicit, through portrayals of fathers in stereotypically masculine roles, or implicit, through portrayals of male absence from or incompetence at domestic tasks. The implicit portrayal has developed over recent years as gender dynamics have changed and empowered women, opening up fathers as legitimate targets for ridicule in popular culture, effectively allowing media portrayals to coopt the advances of the feminist movement. While the rise of the “stupid dad” may seem to be to feminism’s advantage by undermining male privilege, the media, and advertising in particular, can turn this shift on its head to further entrench stereotypical gender roles.