Male Bashing on Tv
Male Bashing on TV
In an article written in 2003 by Michael Abernethy entitled Male Bashing on TV, the author laments about the negative stereotype depicted by the media of men. In order to gain a better understanding of the effects of Male Bashing on TV, people need to understand the consequences on the male bashing. The constant denigration of men in the media will lead to problems in the future; specifically, the loss of self esteem, the way children view their fathers, and how men react to their personal aspirations.
The problem deals with the way that the media negatively portrays men. While women have been suffered from being negatively portrayed by the media for years, male bashing it has never been as severe as it is today. For example, while watching shows such as King of Queens, Yes, Dear, Everybody loves Raymond, and Still Standing, men are being depicted as “selfish and lazy, inconsiderate husbands and poor parents”(515). If that is not enough television commercials are depicting men as buffoons and idiots. The print media can be just as bad in the bashing of the male species. “This trend has become so noticeable that it has been criticized by men’s rights groups and some television groups”(516).
The first effect is on the male psychic. It is common knowledge in the media world that repetition can influence the way people view things. This is a concept utilized constantly in advertisement. So it is not a far leap to conclude that constant exposure to this denigrating message will affect the way that men view themselves. “According to Gender Issues in Advertising Language, television portrayals that help create or reinforce negative stereotypes can lead to problems with self image, self concept, and personal aspirations. Young men will learn that they are expected to screw up, that women will have the brains to their brawn, and that childcare is over their heads”(517).
The second effect will be the relationship between males and
In an article written in 2003 by Michael Abernethy entitled Male Bashing on TV, the author laments about the negative stereotype depicted by the media of men. In order to gain a better understanding of the effects of Male Bashing on TV, people need to understand the consequences on the male bashing. The constant denigration of men in the media will lead to problems in the future; specifically, the loss of self esteem, the way children view their fathers, and how men react to their personal aspirations.
The problem deals with the way that the media negatively portrays men. While women have been suffered from being negatively portrayed by the media for years, male bashing it has never been as severe as it is today. For example, while watching shows such as King of Queens, Yes, Dear, Everybody loves Raymond, and Still Standing, men are being depicted as “selfish and lazy, inconsiderate husbands and poor parents”(515). If that is not enough television commercials are depicting men as buffoons and idiots. The print media can be just as bad in the bashing of the male species. “This trend has become so noticeable that it has been criticized by men’s rights groups and some television groups”(516).
The first effect is on the male psychic. It is common knowledge in the media world that repetition can influence the way people view things. This is a concept utilized constantly in advertisement. So it is not a far leap to conclude that constant exposure to this denigrating message will affect the way that men view themselves. “According to Gender Issues in Advertising Language, television portrayals that help create or reinforce negative stereotypes can lead to problems with self image, self concept, and personal aspirations. Young men will learn that they are expected to screw up, that women will have the brains to their brawn, and that childcare is over their heads”(517).
The second effect will be the relationship between males and
Cited: Abernathy, Micheal. “Male Bashing on TV” The Bedford Guide for College Writers. Ed. X.J. Kennedy, Dorothy M. Kennedy, Marcia F. Muth. Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2008. 515-519