Joanna Schroeder hates the show Two and a Half Men, and wonders if she’s the only one.
I am going to say this up front: I hate the show Two and a Half Men. I’ve hated it since quite early on, despite the premise being sort of cool: a rich bachelor takes in his divorced brother who is a single father. It was an opportunity for an interesting exploration into men’s relationships with one another and the challenges of single fatherhood, ripe with situational humor.
But it never really went there. At times it can be genuinely funny and interesting, but it always seems to revert back to conversations and situations that really bother me.
At first I couldn’t quite put my finger on it. Is it the crude humor that turns me off? Nah, I’m generally just as crude (I mean, I co-write a sex blog), and I love great stand-up comedy, which usually gets way worse than anything network television would allow.
Is it the portrayal of women in the show? Well, yeah, but I’m sorta used to women being portrayed as emasculators, ball-busters, or sluts. Not that I condone that, but for me it’s pretty easy to identify.
No, it is something more insidious.
And then it hit me. These men are all such assholes. I mean, every single man on that show is an asshole! We have the womanizing, alcoholic Charlie Harper who exists in a morality-free zone where women are objects and everyone lives to serve him. He’s a jerk to almost everyone he meets, strangers and family alike, and very rarely are there any consequences for Charlie’s lack of scruples; instead, he is rewarded with a giant waterfront Malibu home and a plethora of young, beautiful women just begging to felate him.
And then there’s Alan, Charlie’s brother. At first you think the straight-man foil to Charlie is going to be someone that you, as the viewer, can identify with. A moral buoy in a sea of stupidity and filth. But no, Alan’s character is equally as lacking in “goodness.” He will do anything for money and is so cuckolded by his ex-wife that he will lie, cheat, and steal for pussy. He is a spineless mooch.
♦◊♦
It would be funny, except we learn though stories about Alan’s past that he has suffered neglect and abuse at the hands of his ex-wife, mother, and even strangers that has left him entirely emasculated. Worse, nearly every episode features Charlie and Alan making jokes about how stupid Alan’s son is.
I’m willing to admit that when my husband watches the show in the house I sometimes find myself laughing at random legitimately funny jokes. But the general theme of the show just makes me sad. The implication that Alan Harper has been sexually abused is just not funny to me. The fact that Charlie Harper lies to women and drinks himself stupid is just not funny.
Even the minor male characters are terrible. Their mom dated a con artist, Alan’s ex-wife’s new husband looks good on the outside but is a sex-starved slave to his overbearing wife. The portrayal of the trans-man character (Chris O’Donnell) was so baffling that I don’t even know how to start. And honestly, I can’t even get into the damage these portrayals of masculinity and femininity do to our collective images of gender relations. I’m sure you can all imagine.
But it seems like everybody and their mother loves the show. So in trying to figure out the appeal, I went to my husband to inquire what it was about the show that he liked.
“It’s funny.”
“But it’s not funny to make fun of a kid for being stupid. It’s not funny to see a guy exploiting women. It’s not funny to see a man completely beat down by his ex wife,” I said.
“You’re taking this too seriously. It’s escapism,” he explained. I was clearly getting nowhere.
So I went to my dad, who is a deeply analytical person like myself. I asked him what he thinks the big appeal of Two and a Half Men is.
He said something along the lines of, “I think in life, especially when times are tough, we like to see someone who is worse off than us. We look at Alan and we think, ‘well, at least I’m not that schmuck’ and we look at Charlie and we think, ‘I’m even doing better than that rich guy!’”
Maybe that’s true. Maybe we have a sick need to see people that we’re “better than.” Or maybe we just don’t care that much about how men are portrayed in the media.
How has this changed since Charlie Sheen left the show? The first episode with Ashton Kutcher debuted hugely, and I had high hopes. Kutcher’s character, Walden, is funny, interesting, and dynamic. A nice guy with a good heart and financial success.
But here’s the thing—Walden is a man-child. He’s a baby who is unable to live without his ex-fiancée. He throws food in restaurants, he attempts suicide in a dramatic and ridiculous fashion when he is dumped, he walks around naked in front of everyone and naively flaps his penis about, and falls in love with every single woman he meets, including a con artist.
So what is creator Chuck Lorre saying about men? That you guys are weak, that you’re beaten down by women, but that your pain doesn’t really matter? That you’re greedy and selfish and sex-crazed, and deserve to be laughed at?
And what if you’re not sex-crazed like the Harper brothers? Then you’re basically an infant. That sort of dichotomy is ridiculous, and it’s damaging to the way the world sees you guys, collectively. And it damages women, too. We aren’t all “sluts” or emasculating ball-busters. Some of us love you guys the way you are. Most of us want you guys to be happy and strong.
♦◊♦
Chuck Lorre had an opportunity to do something pretty cool with Two and a Half Men. He also created The Big Bang Theory, which presents an assortment of nerd-masculinities. None are perfect, but they are at least diverse and mostly good-hearted. That show has some unusually intelligent female characters, too, who have no ill-will toward men and cause them little to no pain (at least intentionally).
Now, here’s the part where I sell myself out. I try to never criticize something without figuring out the way I’m guilty of the same thing. And in this case, it’s obvious:
The Real Housewives series of reality shows on Bravo.
Yeah, I’m gonna admit it, I love the Real Housewives—specifically New Jersey and Beverly Hills. I’m a feminist, I have a degree in Women’s Studies, and yet I love those insane, over-the-top diamond-obsessed catty bitches.
My name is Joanna and I am a hypocrite.
When a friend of mine found out that I love RHOBH (that’s what us fanatics call the Beverly Hills version of the show) he asked me if UCLA was going to come take my diploma back.
I said, “Why?”
“Don’t be obtuse,” he said. “Nothing in the media has set women back worse than the Real Housewives franchise.” He was only half-joking.
“But but but but … It’s so funny. And fascinating!”
♦◊♦
So you see, dear readers, I am just as guilty of said escapism. Do I watch it because I like to feel like my life, which is often in turmoil, is better than that of Teresa Giudice (RHONJ), the Italian-American woman who is famous for screaming and yelling and throwing tables at people, or her arms-too-big husband, who has been charged with fraud and other crimes?
When I’m tight on money, when my husband is mad at me, when my kids are acting up, am I relieved that I’m still not as bad off as Kim from Bevelry Hills, a former child star who seems to be high on something all the time? Do I get some sick pleasure out of feeling “better than” some of them?
Ick. I hope not.
But there is an element of fascination with the wealth and the excess, as well as the big personalities and big situations. And maybe that’s sort of why people like Two and a Half Men, too: big, extreme versions of normal-ish personalities. Everyone has some greedy, lucky bastard in their family who seems to have everything go right for him or her despite being a total shithead. And don’t we all feel a little bit like Alan Harper in our worst times: beat down by life and overwhelmed by obstacles which seem to always fall in our path?
Sure we do. And maybe it’s all a part of the healthy catharsis we need in a world that sometimes can feel overwhelmingly dark. Or, maybe, it’s something we should be questioning and calling-out. I’m just not sure.
Just, please—seriously—please, don’t tell me I have to give up my RHOBH. Anything but that!
—Photo AP/New York Post
The fact that the characters annoy so many people proves a point. They are both created to be complete opposites and represent one interpretation of the male gender role in extreme, thereby contradicting the other. People who think that Charlie is an asshole for not being sensitive or loyal, measures manhood according to those virtues and rejects him for not living up to them. The people who think Alan is too sumissive, etc. thinks that because they have the opposite idea of manhood in mind. By being who they are and making us mad they confront us with our subconcious… Read more »
It seems like the sorry goes better if the characters have more than one side to them. All bad or or good, always winning or always losing is dull. Tim Allen’s “Home Improvement” show usually featured a battle between the husband and wife each week, but you couldn’t really pick a side because they were both, by different turns, stupid or smart, sneaky or upset, winning or losing. Of course they were also nice folks. By comparison all the characters in “Married With Children” were assholes. All completely and utterly selfish and generally stupid and downtrodden too. But they were… Read more »
Joanna, I agree with your husband: you’re taking the show too seriously. To be really funny, characters have to be somehow stupid and not PC. Good is not funny. Virtuous is not funny. Being good makes you feel better, but watching good is mildly boring. BTW, I love The Big Bang Theory, and I disagree with you: Leonard is the only good-hearted guy in the show. There are smart female charachters, but they’re far unadjusted (and that’s their funnyness). We laugh because of the characters faults, not because of their virtues; hence, the faults must be much more than the… Read more »
Comedy isn’t education, but we do need to be sort of careful about what we’re saying with media. Yeah, it can be non-PC, my friend Kerri Kenney had a ridiculously non-PC show called Reno 911 that was amazing. It was a parody, it was over the top, it was pure awesomeness. This isn’t truly a parody. I know it’s exaggeration, but there is sort of a subconscious absorbing of the messages. Big Bang, I would counter, does feature guys who are complicated but good. I’d counter that Howard is sort of a jerk, but the other three are well-intended and… Read more »
I like the simplicity of your husbands answer. I also liked your fathers answer too, one problem I had one problem with the “I am doing better than a rich guy”, it has nothing to do with your dad’s statement as much as I just don’t like the facade and emphasis this world puts on material security and prosperity.
Stick with Food Channel! It’s the final bastion of quality television.
Two and a Half Men clearly has some despicable people on it. I don’t find any of the men likable, and with the exception of Berta (housekeeper) none of the women are either. Your points about the messaging of the show are right on. Unfortunately we model what we see on a regular basis. This is why I don’t watch TV much. Maybe 2-3 hours a week, but most weeks not at all. This may sound strange coming from a white male in a first world country, but I don’t think my personality or beliefs are represented in the mainstream… Read more »
Shows with no likeable characters are not a new thing. “Married… with children” (1987-1997) did the same thing – no likeable characters and over-the-top stereotypes. I bet very few watched that or 2 1/2 men because they relates or identifies with any of the characters. I think it’s probably more a fascination similar to that watching an accident – not a pretty urge, but powerful nonetheless.
I think the show is hilarious. I especially like the earlier shows. If Charlie somehow “came back” I watch it in a minute. There are a bunch of people I know who act just like this only without the talent and humor.
Should it matter that one is a fictional over-the-top comedy show while the other one is a over-the-top reality-show – which is probably scripted to some extent but is at least marketed and portrayed as real?
Yeah, for sure there’s a distinction. I just personally only watch two or three shows on TV and the other two are Mad Men and Walking Dead, which don’t relate at all and don’t feel like guilty pleasures! They’re just pure, smart pleasure (if you ask me!).
I would definitely take arguments on how the “scripted overtly” show vs the “secretly scripted” show create different outcomes.
Great blogpost! You’ve inspired me to write a more pervasive blog about men on TV–look for it
tomorrow; I’ll site this post and credit you. Frankly, I find parts of the show funny or even very funny, yet mainly agree with you and generally find it despicable, as does my wife.
Tamen makes a great point. I think there is a difference, although I don’t believe it lets Two and a Half Men off the hook completely. The difference (may also answer your Q of why we find junk so fascinating even when we know it’s bad =) is that there is a self-awareness that allows the viewer to acknowledge that this is not reality, it is in fact a farce. A good satire is engaging, and requires the viewer/reader to appreciate both the truth and the lie. Hard to say if Chuck Lorre considers the show to be a satire,… Read more »
Smart thinking, Joe. I do wonder if Lorre sees it as a satire. That character was built for Charlie Sheen, based upon his persona which doesn’t come from *nowhere*… I’ve actually met Charlie a few times and he was nice enough, but my initial sense of him was sorta spooky. That’s a whole long other story. Satire or not, it is for sure an exaggeration, as I said in the piece, and that allows us to see ourselves in the characters without having to fully identify with them. But on a simple level, that show does nothing good for the… Read more »
Oh yeah, definitely agreed on that. I mean, look at Charlie Sheen, even he believes that there are no consequences for his actions. Unfortunately, I’d have to say I doubt most of the viewers are thinking as carefully about it as you are. If it’s not a satire then Two and a Half Men is, as you’ve illustrated, horrible and heartbreaking.
Are you implying that you relate to Real Housewifes when you say that you only watch 2 other shows: Mad Men and Walking Dead and you don’t relate to them? If so, in what way if I may ask? Mad Men is a overtly scripted show that everyone knows is scripted. I don’t watch it myself, but I understand from discussions of it and from the time period it protrays that the type of and amount of sexism displayed in that show is over the top by todays standards. It has drawn some critcism for this. That digression aside. The… Read more »
Oh I just meant that I don’t relate Real Housewives at ALL to the two AMC shows I watch. But I can see the similarities between RHOBH and Two and a Half Men because of the escapism, the “pity factor” and excessive personalities and behaviors. I relate to the AMC shows *much* more than RHOBH. Mad Men does show sexism, but it’s a period piece, it is a study in characters more than anything else. The show itself isn’t sexist, it has these beautiful, well-rounded female characters as well as great male characters. The women are written incredibly well with… Read more »
I like Mad Men, if that is what times were like back then it to me illustrates how sexism worked and how heavily gender roles were back then. Don’t recall any stay at home dads so it heavily portrays gender roles, if anything it’s a good way to be thankful for modern life maybe? Game of thrones is good if you like action and a cool story, but it’s full of quite serious topics so isn’t for the faint hearted (it portrays wore and dominance quite upfront). You have to really see them as stories though and try ignore the… Read more »
Honestly, it’s the dialogue on Two and a Half Men that makes me laugh. Yes, if you step back and look at the big picture of each character and his situation in life (I’m only familiar with the Charlie version of the show), there are some sad/unfavorable stories there. But I don’t really have high expectations of sitcoms like that. The witty one-liners make me laugh – even when they are sexist. It’s a show I can listen to without watching and still understand what’s going on. I’m not happy about the gender implications of How I Met Your Mother,… Read more »
I guess. Every man is an asshole in his own special and unique way.
I don’t watch television. I do like the fact that there is a show that doesn’t depict female on male spousal abuse as the norm.
I wonder about the unconscious message that you get when the two themes are taken in by the consumer – if women don’t abuse and emasculate their spouse, its men behaving badly.
Good points on all fronts.
My own take on the show is that its a bit bland, I watched it a few times after work, but it never really had me in knots. But it never really made me angry either. It should, its a horrible depiction of human beings, but the depiction isn’t really powerful enough for me to see it as a serious threat.
I find that show to be sooooo god damn booorrrrinnggg. Very predictable and cliche, but much of comedy seems to be like that. Guess they ran out of stuff to talk about:P
Thanks for writing this. I
It’s great to see something a bit more light hearted here