|
|
|
|
PLEASE NOTE: The Reality TV World Message Boards are filled with desperate
attention-seekers pretending to be one big happy PG/PG13-rated family. Don't
be fooled. Trying to get everyone to agree with you is like herding cats,
but intolerance for other viewpoints is NOT welcome and respect for other
posters IS required at all times. Jump in and play, and you'll soon find out
how easy it is to fit in, but save your drama for your mama. All members are
encouraged to read the
complete guidelines.
As entertainment critic Roger
Ebert once said, "If you disagree with something I write, tell me so, argue
with me, correct me--but don't tell me to shut up. That's not the American way."
|
|
|
"Deflating one stereotype by reinforcing another"
mongoose eyeball 1 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "American Cancer Society Spokesperson"
|
01-13-04, 10:11 AM (EST)
 
  |
|
"Deflating one stereotype by reinforcing another" |
I've watched about 60% (as much as I could stand) of the first two episodes of "Average Joe 2," and I noticed something strange in the promo for "upcoming surprises." The first time around, there were only three good-looking "spoilers," and they were all fairly nice guys (nicer than some of the average joes, especially the bully who made it to the last round). I don't think Fox gave that group of spoilers any behavioral advice, on the assumption--a stereotype in itself--that they would be vapid and/or naturally arrogant because they're good-looking (and, the stereotype says, unavaoidably narcissistic). I think the producers assumed that the average joes would be brimming with personality in comparison. Unfortunately, that wasn't really the case. Yes, Adam did have a lot more personality than Jason, but as a group, the average joes supported something I've thought for a long time: contrary to stereotypes, good-looking people generally do have what we'd perceive as better personalities, due to a host of environmental factors. People are naturally attracted to them, and most of them have lived with this their whole lives. Studies show that good-looking people are just treated better and shown more attention by others. Because of this, I think they develop a sense of poise and security which eludes the average joe. I mean, look at how insecure and fixated on the attractiveness-disparity-factor all the first average joes were in their interaction with Melana. And the old stereotype that good-looking people are naturally cruel (constantly reinforced on every tv show about high school) has always seemed silly to me; beautiful people already have the advantange--what motivation do they have to be cruel? It seems to me that cruelty is a by-product of insecurity (to paraphrase Yoda, anger comes from fear). The bullies are always those who are least secure. This was played out on the first Average Joe, when the jerk smased the egg on the nerd's head. He did that because the nerdy guy highlighted his own insecurities; he saw, in the nerd, his own level of social unacceptability, realized that he'd been formally lumped into the same category with people he, in his deepest subconscious, feared he resembled, and acted out to explicitly separate himself from any perception of nerdiness by commiting an aggresive act of cruelty designed to ridicule the nerd. A good-looking, socially-comfortable person would never have the need to do that. The "good-looking-people-are-mean" stereotype is, itself, one perpetuated by people who perceive themselves as average or socially marginal--a sour grapes reaction to the fear that life may be, in fact, as unjust as it seems. Anyway, it looks like Fox has learned from the mistake. The new batch of six-packed spoilers is arrogant, vain and rude, at least according to the promo. This will allow the show to achieve its goal of shattering the "girls-are-shallow" stereotype and the "regular-guy-can't-get-the-hot-girl" stereotype, but it will be a sham, because her alternatives will be pre-engineered by behavioral modification of the spoilers, and because in achieving its goals, the show will simply reinforce a stronger, more pervasive stereotype, that good-looking people are vain and vapid, while goofy-looking people ooze generosity and personality.
|
|
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
Carybobski 49 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Beauty Pageant Celebrity Judge"
|
01-13-04, 09:29 PM (EST)
|
|
2. "RE: Deflating one stereotype by reinforcing another" |
Yours is an intelligent, thought provoking post. 
I'd like to add a thought to your comment about the stereotype that good-looking people are unavoidably narcissistic. If a beautiful girl happens to be shy, she is automatically labeled a conceited bi***. Sad, but true.
I was somewhat irritated with Fox cultivating an image of "good (nerds) vs. bad (hunks) with the clip of the handsome, supremely arrogant spoilers arriving. It's all about ratings. And you are on the money concerning how Fox has changed the tone of the show gearing it towards the beautiful girl winds up with the average guy. It's already apparent.
If Fox expects the viewers to believe that the average joes are charming, they have already failed. For the most part, these guys have proved themselves to be socially inept, infantile and in some instances, pathetic. As far as them being loaded with personality, that depends on the viewer's definition of personality. David is certainly loaded with personality, albeit an irritating one! 
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
 |
heracane 52 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Hollywood Squares Square"
|
01-14-04, 06:38 AM (EST)
|
|
5. "RE: Deflating one stereotype by reinforcing another" |
I think Ill be rooting for a hunk this time.. I am gonna find the least buttheaded one and go from there..I am not fond of any of the ajs. Maybe that anal one with the tattoos.. I like those tats.. and i like his face.. the analness is freaky
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
|
|
Email this topic to a friend
Printer-friendly version of this topic
Bookmark this topic (Registered users only)
