I haven't seen it recently enough to really say, that was just quoted from the article. But even just based on her first sentence in the Big Bang Wiki, she seems pretty geeky to me:
Quote:
Amy Farrah Fowler, Ph.D., is a neurobiologist whom Raj and Howard discovered as a possible match for Sheldon through an Internet dating site (without Sheldon's knowledge).

Ph.D., Neurobiology, Internet dating--she's more-or-less the female Sheldon. If she's not intended to be a geek girl representative, what is she intended to be? And reading Bernadette's character bio in wikipedia, I can't really say she's a better representation of a woman (the entire synopsis save for the first couple of sentences are all about her relationship with a man. Does she add anything on her own? Is she useful to the show outside of the relationship? Is she a compelling character in-and-of herself, or does her only value come as the girlfriend of one of the main characters? I hope it's just the article that's biased).

None of that really matters, though, my point still stands.
merthsoft wrote:
I haven't seen it recently enough to really say, that was just quoted from the article. But even just based on her first sentence in the Big Bang Wiki, she seems pretty geeky to me
Quote:
Amy Farrah Fowler, Ph.D., is a neurobiologist whom Raj and Howard discovered as a possible match for Sheldon through an Internet dating site (without Sheldon's knowledge).

Ph.D., Neurobiology, Internet dating--she's more-or-less the female Sheldon. If she's not intended to be a geek girl representative, what is she intended to be?

A female Sheldon, and Sheldon is definitely not the "geek guy representative". Sheldon is the "OCD and high-functioning autistic representative".

Quote:
And reading Bernadette's character bio in wikipedia, I can't really say she's a better representation of a woman (the entire synopsis save for the first couple of sentences are all about her relationship with a man. Does she add anything on her own? Is she useful to the show outside of the relationship? Is she a compelling character in-and-of herself, or does her only value come as the girlfriend of one of the main characters? I hope it's just the article that's biased).

She's one of the only two characters on the show that is an actual person, rather than a (potentially offensive) stereotype. The other one being Leonard, who, as Kerm has already pointed out, is probably intended to be the primary sympathetic character on the show.

Quote:
None of that really matters, though, my point still stands.

I don't think it does, except maybe as a critique of the entire sitcom genre.

Quote:
Chuck Lorre has given us four exceptionally intelligent, nerdy main characters and he’s positioned us as an audience against them.

Go watch this episode, and then try to make that point again.

If you don't like the show, fine. But don't try and act like it's somehow morally superior to have a different sense of humor. Misogyny? Misandry? It's a Sitcom.
elfprince13 wrote:
merthsoft wrote:
I haven't seen it recently enough to really say, that was just quoted from the article. But even just based on her first sentence in the Big Bang Wiki, she seems pretty geeky to me
Quote:
Amy Farrah Fowler, Ph.D., is a neurobiologist whom Raj and Howard discovered as a possible match for Sheldon through an Internet dating site (without Sheldon's knowledge).

Ph.D., Neurobiology, Internet dating--she's more-or-less the female Sheldon. If she's not intended to be a geek girl representative, what is she intended to be?

A female Sheldon, and Sheldon is definitely not the "geek guy representative". Sheldon is the "OCD and high-functioning autistic representative".
You're making it sound like there can only be a single geek representative on the show--all four of the main male characters are geek representatives.

elfprince13 wrote:
Quote:
And reading Bernadette's character bio in wikipedia, I can't really say she's a better representation of a woman (the entire synopsis save for the first couple of sentences are all about her relationship with a man. Does she add anything on her own? Is she useful to the show outside of the relationship? Is she a compelling character in-and-of herself, or does her only value come as the girlfriend of one of the main characters? I hope it's just the article that's biased).

She's one of the only two characters on the show that is an actual person, rather than a (potentially offensive) stereotype. The other one being Leonard, who, as Kerm has already pointed out, is probably intended to be the primary sympathetic character on the show.
That's good to hear. Though Kerm only pointed out that Leonard is his primary sympathetic character on the show. Most of the people I talk to who like the show would not make that claim, which is also true of the article Tari posted. None of you have made a compelling case as to why Leonard is meant to be the main sympathetic character, just that he is for you. Luna Lovegood isn't the main sympathetic character of Harry Potter, but she's the character I relate to the most and the character I like the most.

elfprince13 wrote:
Quote:
None of that really matters, though, my point still stands.

I don't think it does, except maybe as a critique of the entire sitcom genre.
I fail to see how you've refuted it. You've picked one point in my argument, you've not shown how the show isn't misogynistic. And you didn't even address the video I posted about the commodification of nerd culture.

elfprince13 wrote:
Quote:
Chuck Lorre has given us four exceptionally intelligent, nerdy main characters and he’s positioned us as an audience against them.

Go watch this episode, and then try to make that point again.
I wasn't making that point, he was, but I'll watch that when I get home. However, I will preemptively say one episode out of an entire series is not indicative of anything. I'm basing everything I'm saying on having watched the first two seasons, and having read about the rest.

elfprince13 wrote:
If you don't like the show, fine. But don't try and act like it's somehow morally superior to have a different sense of humor. Misogyny? Misandry? It's a Sitcom.
[/quote]As I said, it's more than that I just don't like it. I wouldn't go into a Doctor Who thread and say I don't like it (and the only reason I came in here in the first place was Tari name dropped me, and I wanted to add my side to the argument), because I've yet to see anything bad about so much as it's just not the kind of thing I like. It's more than just having a different sense of humor, and that's exactly the point I'm making. I'm not sure how being a Sitcom makes any difference, and the section in wikipedia didn't add anything:
Quote:
As opposed to stand up comedy and sketch comedy, a situation comedy has a storyline and ongoing characters in, essentially, a comedic drama. The situation is usually that of a family, workplace, or a group of friends through comedic sequences.

Traditionally comedy sketches were presented within a variety show and mixed with musical performances, as in vaudeville. The emerging mass medium of radio allowed audiences to regularly return to programs, so programs could feature the same characters and situations each episode and expect audiences to be familiar with them.

Sitcom humor is often character driven and by its nature running gags evolve during a series. Often the status quo of the situation is maintained from episode to episode. An episode may feature a disruption to the usual situation and the character interactions, but this will usually be settled by the episode's end and the situation returned to how it was prior to the disruption. These episodes are then linked by the overarching storyline, driving the show forward.

Cool, I knew all that. I know what a sitcom is. There are sitcoms that do less to reinforce negative stereotypes, such as Community and Arrested Development. They certainly aren't perfect (and would probably be less funny if they were), but they tend to treat stereotypes as tropes and break them down, rather than just reinforcing them. And from what I've seen and know of Seinfeld, it's similar (though I don't like that show). So, there are example of shows that I like and don't like that are sitcoms that have better portrayals of women (and geeks!). That being said, there's lots of good art in all sorts of mediums where stereotypes are reinforced and they're still good, but it's dangerous to approach them without an eye for it, and I think that's the same for The Big Bang Theory. Saying it's OK because it's a sitcom simply demonstrates a deeper systemic issue. The same is true for comics and video games, and a feminist critique of a comic book isn't invalid just because the same problems apply to other comics.

Also, I'm unlikely to revisit this conversation unless something incredibly compelling happens. These types of conversations in communities like this almost always go in the same direction, and I'm burnt out on that.
elfprince13 wrote:
merthsoft wrote:
I haven't seen it recently enough to really say, that was just quoted from the article. But even just based on her first sentence in the Big Bang Wiki, she seems pretty geeky to me
Quote:
Amy Farrah Fowler, Ph.D., is a neurobiologist whom Raj and Howard discovered as a possible match for Sheldon through an Internet dating site (without Sheldon's knowledge).

Ph.D., Neurobiology, Internet dating--she's more-or-less the female Sheldon. If she's not intended to be a geek girl representative, what is she intended to be?

A female Sheldon, and Sheldon is definitely not the "geek guy representative". Sheldon is the "OCD and high-functioning autistic representative".
Actually, over time Amy has evolved from highly asexual into someone constantly lusting after Sheldon, Penny, and even (named) electric toothbrushes. In fact, every one of their young female characters has been highly sexualized, eventually, from Penny to Leslie Winkel to Amy to Raj's sister to the buxom actress who briefly lived upstairs from them.
qazz42 wrote:
sure, here is the one that completely turned me off from TBBT



Just looking at someone else's view: The lack of a laugh track makes it better. "The people who says that this isn't funny need to get a new sense of humor" It's a different type of humor that is seen.

Personally, it's a funny show. It has entertainment value. Also:
Quote:
The majority of people are able to experience humour, i.e., to be amused, to laugh or smile at something funny, and thus they are considered to have a sense of humour. The hypothetical person lacking a sense of humour would likely find the behaviour induced by humour to be inexplicable, strange, or even irrational. Though ultimately decided by personal taste, the extent to which a person will find something humorous depends upon a host of variables, including geographical location, culture, maturity, level of education, intelligence and context.


merthsoft wrote:
Also, I'm unlikely to revisit this conversation unless something incredibly compelling happens. These types of conversations in communities like this almost always go in the same direction, and I'm burnt out on that.


Merth++

In all seriousness, the shredding and disecting of this show in the topic is saddening.
KermMartian wrote:
Actually, over time Amy has evolved from highly asexual into someone constantly lusting after Sheldon, Penny, and even (named) electric toothbrushes. In fact, every one of their young female characters has been highly sexualized, eventually, from Penny to Leslie Winkel to Amy to Raj's sister to the buxom actress who briefly lived upstairs from them.

I think it's safe to say that every one of all of their characters has been highly sexualized, except for Sheldon. I guess I haven't adjusted from Amy as lady-Sheldon to Amy as lady-Howard.


merthsoft wrote:
You're making it sound like there can only be a single geek representative on the show--all four of the main male characters are geek representatives.

The article made it sound like you could have only a single female geek representative, I was trying to match roles to the "generic and unoffensive geek". Most of the characters are stereotypes of some subpopulation of broader category (geek or otherwise). Bernadette is the "vanilla smart girl".

shaun wrote:
None of you have made a compelling case as to why Leonard is meant to be the main sympathetic character, just that he is for you. Luna Lovegood isn't the main sympathetic character of Harry Potter, but she's the character I relate to the most and the character I like the most.

Because Leonard is the only (main) character that reliably exists in 3 dimensions rather than being a walking stereotype. Bernadette too, but she doesn't get quite as much screentime (or hasn't from the beginning, she gets plenty now).

Quote:
I fail to see how you've refuted it. You've picked one point in my argument, you've not shown how the show isn't misogynistic.

I can't come up with any reasonable argument that would lead me to believe it's misogynistic. It's a show that makes fun of stereotypes. If you're sensitive towards one set of stereotypes and unconscious of another, you're going to feel like it is singling out some group unfairly. It's not. How do you accuse something of being both misogynistic and misandristic? Was the creator a eunuch, or just self-hating?


Quote:
And you didn't even address the video I posted about the commodification of nerd culture.

I watched it and felt like it would have more accurately been titled "bitter hipster nerd wishes he was still uncool (but is secretly emotionally scarred from being not cool)".

shaun wrote:
I wasn't making that point, he was, but I'll watch that when I get home. However, I will preemptively say one episode out of an entire series is not indicative of anything. I'm basing everything I'm saying on having watched the first two seasons, and having read about the rest.

Sorry - you were referring me to the same essay, so I assumed you agreed with that point. Also, that was just the most recent episode so it was freshest in my mind.

shaun wrote:
I'm not sure how being a Sitcom makes any difference, and the section in wikipedia didn't add anything:
... There are sitcoms that do less to reinforce negative stereotypes, such as Community and Arrested Development. They certainly aren't perfect (and would probably be less funny if they were), but they tend to treat stereotypes as tropes and break them down, rather than just reinforcing them. And from what I've seen and know of Seinfeld, it's similar (though I don't like that show). So, there are example of shows that I like and don't like that are sitcoms that have better portrayals of women (and geeks!). That being said, there's lots of good art in all sorts of mediums where stereotypes are reinforced and they're still good, but it's dangerous to approach them without an eye for it, and I think that's the same for The Big Bang Theory. Saying it's OK because it's a sitcom simply demonstrates a deeper systemic issue. The same is true for comics and video games, and a feminist critique of a comic book isn't invalid just because the same problems apply to other comics.

All I have to say is that I've never seen a sitcom that I thought was using constructive humor. It's always humor at the expense of whoever did something dumb most recently, and the characters are almost always stereotypes (with one or two exceptions, who are intended to be the sympathetic characters, and even they aren't spared the occasional mockery). If you think that's not a useful form of humor, that's fine, but your criticism then has very little to do with the specifics of TBBT.


Quote:
In all seriousness, the shredding and disecting of this show in the topic is saddening.

Yeah, I don't really want to dissect my veg-out humor.
qazz42 wrote:
sure, here is the one that completely turned me off from TBBT



You're wrong, the BBT is the funniest show in on air right now.



I've never heard a funnier laugh track.

BASSOOPER
Ashbad wrote:


You're wrong, the BBT is the funniest show in on air right now.



I've never heard a funnier laugh track.

BASSOOPER


I've never seen such terrible spelling:
The name of the video:
"THE BIG BANG THEORY IS THE FUNNYIST SHOW EVER MADE" Razz
Ashbad wrote:

You're wrong, the BBT is the funniest show in on air right now.



I've never heard a funnier laugh track.

BASSOOPER


I don't think there is enough laugh track. It still isn't funny enough.

blaspbinger.
qazz42 wrote:
I don't think there is enough laugh track. It still isn't funny enough.

blaspbinger.


Funny enough? You mean it's at least slightly funny?

What's wrong with you?

BODIPPLE
  
Register to Join the Conversation
Have your own thoughts to add to this or any other topic? Want to ask a question, offer a suggestion, share your own programs and projects, upload a file to the file archives, get help with calculator and computer programming, or simply chat with like-minded coders and tech and calculator enthusiasts via the site-wide AJAX SAX widget? Registration for a free Cemetech account only takes a minute.

» Go to Registration page
Page 2 of 2
» All times are UTC - 5 Hours
 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 

Advertisement