I recall an episode or Roseanne where Darlene was having a baby. The baby was premature and both her and her husband were spazzing because the baby was struggling. (I forget what happened exactly)
I just recalled the father (John Goodman) saying "Davis, I know your scared for the baby too, and I know it's not PC, but you need to be the man, and be strong for Darlene.
Is this sexist, or would most feminists agree sometimes a man need to be a man in that sense.
This is how it was explained to me by my parents. Men are hard and strong, and women are caring and sensitive. They need to other to balance things. (Just to avaoid being called sexist or whatever.)
2007-07-13 18:18:26 · 10 answers · asked by Benjamin W 3 in Social Science ➔ Gender Studies
No, and yes.
The yes first-
When something terrible like that is happening to a couple, it seems to me that at least one person needs to be functional to deal with the outside world.
If both were very stoic people, maybe both would be functional, but in this case (and David especially) they were not. That's ok. People need to let themselves feel their fear and grief.
However, someone needs to be interacting with the outside world (and not feeling their fear or grief) well enough to make informed decisions and to do what is best for themselves and their mate.
The no-
Just becuase Darlene is the female, does not give her exclusive rights on 'spazzing'.
Of course her father advised her husband to be strong! Her father, after all, would have a greater incentive and desire to support and protect her then to protect David, who is not 'really' his son.
The problem that I have with that situation is that it not only places an even heavier burden on David (anyone that watched the show knows he is typically more sensitive then Darlene), who is dealing with the same crisis as Darlene, but it also invalidates his emotional responses.
The role assigning can be especially bad if he feels added stress from hiding his feelings, and if she thinks that he is truly indifferent to the plight of their child because he refuses to break down and show her what is actually going on in his head.
Darlene is not the only one who loves the baby, or the only one who is scared, or the only one who fears that the premature birth is due to some shortcoming or rule-breaking or oversight. Moreover, she is as capable of offering support and solace to her husband as he is to her.
I mentioned up above that at least one member of a couple should be functional during such crisis, but the right to retreat from the outside world should not always fall to one person.
When one person is constantly being capable and able, and the other person is constantly needing support, it is unfair to both. Why should the more stoic person always be denied the opportunity to fall to pieces? Why should a less stoic person never be allowed the opportunity to make things better?
A couple that shares the burden, and takes turns in each role, not only help each other make it through- they better understand the nature and depth of each others feelings. And understanding each other can not only make it easier to weather the crisis- it may be enough to stay together after everything is said and done.
I really think that sharing the roles is the best way to go about it.
2007-07-13 21:55:13 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The male characters on that show are hardly what I would call typical for men and in the case of the role of David, not a man at all. (Keep in mind that Roseanne (both the character and the woman) are not quite what I would call 'male friendly' to start with).
Men are men and need to act like men, which means staring adversity in the face and getting on with life without all the hyper-emotional B.S. Women are emotional enough for both.
I like the show in spite of it's obvious disattachment to reality, which is why I also like "Married With Children", the opposite side of the same coin.
2007-07-15 09:22:35 · answer #2 · answered by Phil #3 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, the "be the man" bit was a bit sexist, but the overall sentiment is fine. Sometimes one partner needs more reassurance than the other. It's usually harder when both are freaking out, and someone needs to hold it together. I don't think it has to be the man, necessarily. I mean, I wouldn't expect the woman to be crying hysterically while the man was strong when it's the man's mother who died, you know?
The sexism here is assuming that women are all one thing, and men are all another. It's damaging to both sexes, as in my dead mother example. And it's different with different people. In my family, it's the women who are strong and hold things together when disaster strikes. In your family, it's the opposite. That's fine. Again, it's when you expect my family to resemble yours that the problems begin.
2007-07-14 01:28:11 · answer #3 · answered by random6x7 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
An intelligent person would not bother to cast an opinion on the relative merits of a scripted interaction between two fictional characters. "Roseanne" was written during that era of television where only Women knew best, when story lines 'reflected' contemporary gender politics, and the move was being made to empower Women by giving Them role models with whom They could relate. Even if They were fictitious, ("Maude", "Murphy Brown", "I Lucy Love", "Our Miss Brooks" etc).
The particular episode to which You are referring had to do with the differences in the ways two generations of parents resolved Their emotional problems, and how They come to grips with situations of a major import within the extended nuclear family.
I have yet to meet a Woman who is looking for a weak Man to marry. Strength is not the same as indomitable will, unswerving perseverance, indefatigable persistence and steadfastness of purpose. These are the true qualifications of a Man. In answer to Your question I firmly believe that a universal "Yes" is in order. Women (Feminists) not only appreciate but also nurture these characteristics in Men. As to whether or not this particular vein of behavior is 'sexist' I, for one, resolutely assert an unequivocal "No" it is not. It is merely an intrinsic exhibition of the Human Condition.
2007-07-14 02:02:34 · answer #4 · answered by Ashleigh 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I think Dan wanted both Darlene and David (not Davis) to be stronger for the baby. Would you want a mother to be weaker for her baby? He didn't really have to have said "be the man," though.
2007-07-14 11:39:59 · answer #5 · answered by Rio Madeira 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
i dont think its a question of 'being a man' i think whoever was with her (even just a friend who is a girl) should be strong for her in that scenario, by being positive and stopping her from panicing. both a man and a woman could have done that in that case
2007-07-14 09:11:44 · answer #6 · answered by Kares88 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
yea i agree with you.. i love that show and darlene balances out david and visa versa
-â¥
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Am_rWC66xe._c675PstK0Irsy6IX?qid=20070713221059AAOQeU2
2007-07-14 01:21:48 · answer #7 · answered by rawr 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
So you act the way mommy and daddy said you should? Wow! What a loser...
2007-07-14 01:23:47 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋
no. no. no. we hate dem men. de r no good.
u wit me womyn?
2007-07-14 01:22:47 · answer #9 · answered by ? 1 · 0⤊ 5⤋
This is stupid. Thanks for the 2 points.
2007-07-14 06:34:38 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋