1. Political Correctness, (as dictated by the embedded political environment)

2. Popular Demand (as interpreted by those who think the people has fixed, reducible set of evaluation standards and needs)

First factor is briefly noted in the text, feminists, (at least the feminists that constitute mainstream feminism in US) oppose the traditional gender roles and stereotypes that reinforce and recreate them anew.

This first factor has a lot to do with the emergent needs of the feminist movement to break outside of the sense of normalcy as dictated by the patriarchy, and other conditions that may be corrected or ameliorated through mass media enculturation.

However, this first position reinforces the illusion of equality, ends up confabulating an imagined society under the umbrella of editorial egalitarianism, that does not exist and can not exist because of its on-screen existence. Once the standards of the mass media make-believe sinks in, it inevitably forces it way into the ‘perceived’ popular demand. Thus, a primary policy step that is inseparable from the whole of feminist discourse, ends up living the life of its own and its own only, eradicating all attempts and hopes of factual representation or exposition of existing inequalities.

That being said, I think it’s also necessary to point out the inefficiency and insufficiency of the representational and pure feminist politics alone when considering the issue at hand. Without any regard or relevance to the fixed schema of self-sustenance that owes much to the less-debated economic system, it would be naive to hope for an invention or innovation to circumscribe the problem through the means of the medium. This brings us back to the questions asked in this text, all of which seem to be completely oblivious to that side of the policy making, and inevitably appealing to the unquestioned factors and neglecting the necessity of any systematic change.

And because of that, my friends, this conditioned reflex is rightfully called reactionary politics, since it invariably present a stale mate position where only the possible improvements are ‘relevant’ to the question at hand, but not the present impositions which allow and arbitrate what might be asked, and what can be done.

Your best point? “It allows men to complain that feminism has made men look stupid.” It feels like when we are talking about men’s portrayals on television (your blog, my link, others I’m sure), we go unnoticed or ignored.

The “Impossibly Tolerant and Successful Wife and Her Schlub Husband” is related to the “Badass Warrior Queen Who Will Probably Have Sex With You Miserable Schlubs” in pop culture lore.

Both are sexist figures disguised as “positive” depictions of women. The unifying reason that they are sexist? They are there to titillate men, not women. And that wouldn’t be so bad… if the characters weren’t so universally designed to reflect men’s fantasies. I’m actually ok with objectification for humor’s sake – but the current power dynamic means that women really rarely ever get a chance to do any objectifying of their own.

There’s also the question of the spirit of the insults – sometimes in insult humor shows, it’s all in fun. Other times it isn’t (I don’t think ANYONE can argue that the way Meg is treated in Family Guy is just all in good fun).