NY Times is Upset Over Sitcoms Where Fat Guys Have Hot Wives
CBS Photo Archive. Getty Images.This comes as news to me, but AMC+ is premiering a show called "Kevin Can Fuck Himself," which stars Annie Murphy and is described on its IMDB page as "A look at the secret life of a sitcom wife." Apparently it's meant to be a spoof on the common sitcom trope of the chunky blue-collar schlub with the impossibly hot wife. Which I am all about. Because it sounds funny. Annie Murphy is objectively great on "Schitt's Creek." And in a world where the Jim Belushi vehicle "The Word According to Jim" - a show which not only did I never see, I've never met anyone who watched it or ever heard it referenced, quoted or vaguely alluded to - was on the air for eight years and 182 episodes (!!!), it's a genre just crying out to be parodied.
Except that in some places, the ordinary guy/attractive wife trope is more than just a lazy. oft-repeated sitcom presence. It's a sign of something much more sinister in our deeply flawed society.
NYT - This isn’t to ding sitcom dads as unattractive. And if they display a greater diversity of body size, well, that’s a diversity TV ought to embrace across gender. Instead, the standards for female beauty are enforced rigorously on network shows, while those for men and their waistbands remain comfortably loose. Audiences accept this, though when roles are reversed — when a show, sitcom or otherwise, pairs an absolute hunk with a less glamorous woman — some viewers lose their minds.
The article cites an example of some internet backlash against a "Girls" plot where Lena Dunham was dating a bohunk. Then goes on at considerable length listing all the shows that allow a chubby guy to have a smokeshow wife. Including, though not limited to, "King of Queens," "World According to Jim," "Family Guy," "Modern Family," "The Honeymooners" and "The Flintstones." And ties it all together as examples of the rampant misogyny in our culture, our differing standards of male and female attractiveness, and insidious prevalence of the male gaze. Or something. I'm paraphrasing. Because I stopped reading after "The Flintstones."
And I'm not even mad. On the contrary. I think we should take this a good sign about how well we're doing. A great sign, in fact. When our morally superior scolds can get worked up over the relative physical appearance of a cartoon caveman who drives a car, owns a pet dinosaur and has talking animals as household appliances vis a vis his wife, I think we've come a long way.
I mean, we must be running out of problems if we're finding them in the fact that a Sofia Vergara fictional character could pretend marry a much older successful fictional character played by Ed O'Neill. There are countries in the world where women still can't drive a car. Where they get stoned if they're seen walking with a man who is not a family member. When you might be killed by your own relatives because you're a victim of rape, I'm going to assume you dream of a world where you can worry about how much sexier Lois Griffin is than Peter.
Besides, this is a Grade A, USDA prime example of a straw man argument. Who is the Times to say who should find which actor attractive? I'll admit that I find Leah Remini much prettier than Kevin James. But that's my individual preference. I'm sure there are millions of people who would disagree. Women often say the number one thing they look for in a man is a sense of humor. And Kevin James is funny. So why wouldn't a fictional woman who happens to look very much like Remini want to pretend spend the rest of her non-existent life with his chunky self? And I say this as a guy who looks like a particular sitcom character and yet whose adoring Irish Rose is the very ideal image of female loveliness.
And while we're at it, the running gag that is a through-line running among all these shows is that the husband is the butt of every joke. He's a slob and a doofus, a man-child with hare-brained schemes that blow up in his face. And the wife is always the smart, mature, grounded one who gives him his comeuppance. Would the writer of this be happier if the wife is the less attractive of the two while also being the one whose made to look stupid every episode? Because I feel like the Times would be the first outlet to scream that is the very definition of misogyny.
If anything, the Times is guilty of generalizing. Projecting they're own deals of masculine and feminine beauty on the public. And fat shaming in an era where we want out sitcoms to promote body positivity. Shame on you. Try to be better.
But still, thanks for the reminder that we're doing alright as a society. Maybe our sitcoms by and large suck, and hopefully this "Kevin Can Fuck Off" might improve that situation. But when this is the stuff the New York Times has its knickers in a twist about, then things must be looking up.
