The Brady Bunch : The sexism in this show really annoys me

The sexism in this show really annoys me

Let me start off by saying that the Brady kids and I are contemporaries.

With that said, watching the show now (as a middle-aged adult) sometimes makes me REALLY uncomfortable because of its overt sexism. Like in "54-40 and Fight" (the episode about the trading stamps). The kids go on and on about sexist things like how groceries are part of a girl's domain, a row boat is for boys, sewing machines are only for girls, etc.

When I watch older shows--shows from before my time, like "I Love Lucy"--the inherent sexism doesn't really bother me. In other words, I accept that Lucy was a homemaker and Ricky was the breadwinner--as most families were back then. But when I watch shows from my youth, I get offended by sexism--because *I* wasn't brought up that way. I grew up thinking/knowing that I could be ANYTHING I wanted to be and, indeed, that's what I did. Started out working toward going to medical school, then had an amazing offer that caused a career detour--into the heavily male-dominated world of computer programming and system administration in the '80s. It never occurred to me that I couldn't/shouldn't do any of that, or that my domain was the kitchen and groceries and sewing machines.

Just curious if anyone else--of similar age--feels the same way regarding the archaic sexist sentiments displayed on TBB.


--


http://www.CaliforniaDreamsPhotography.com

Re: The sexism in this show really annoys me

I guess the times were different and it shows. Until the early '70's girls couldn't wear pants to school. I was born in the early 70's. I noticed that in the earlier episodes the girls always had on dresses when they went to school, but it seems around season 5 they were able to wear pants to school.

Re: The sexism in this show really annoys me

By 1969 or 1970 girls were allowed to wear pants to school. Most school districts said yes. By 1972 Congress said girls were not required to wear dresses/skirts to public school.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: The sexism in this show really annoys me

'Until the early '70's girls couldn't wear pants to school. I was born in the early 70's.'
---------------------
Girls wore low-rise hip hugger jeans in the early 70's; I was in class with them. If you were born in the early 70's, how do you know?

Re: The sexism in this show really annoys me

there is good and bad sexism.

I don't see much of a problem with 'let me take care of you' sexism with households. I DO see a problem with 'I work all day, you pick up my socks from the floor' sexism.

I am of, course, cool with 'girls can be anything' but in an encouraging, not forcing way.

and enough of the 'have to have it all' crap. something has to give when a ceo wants the kids to call her mommy and not the au pair.


the worst form of sexism is: what are you doing washing our neighbor's clothes for money? >slap< when the house needs money to stay afloat and the father keeps on drinking his wages away.



Oh God. Fortune vomits on my eiderdown once more. Edmund Blackadder.

Re: The sexism in this show really annoys me


there is good and bad sexism.
I respectfully disagree.


I don't see much of a problem with 'let me take care of you' sexism with households.
I do. Let me explain: I have *NO* problem whatsoever with a woman being in the 'let me take care of you' role in a household, as long as that's her choice--just like I have no problem with a MAN being in the 'let me take care of you' role if that's his choice. My husband and I have both done that, at different periods in our lives, and it was by choice and agreement, so everything was cool. What I do have a problem with is the assumption that women, by virtue of being born with ovaries, I guess, are the ONLY ones who can/should fill that role in a family.


I DO see a problem with 'I work all day, you pick up my socks from the floor' sexism.
In my world, people pick up after themselves, regardless of which spouse is in the homemaker role. But, also in my world, the homemaker (male or female) does the nitty-gritty stuff of running a household: the laundry, the cleaning, the cooking, the shopping, the vacuuming, etc. That's because that's their "job" so to speak.


I am of, course, cool with 'girls can be anything' but in an encouraging, not forcing way.
And what's your stance on 'boys can be anything'--is that also in an encouraging, not forcing, way?


and enough of the 'have to have it all' crap. something has to give when a ceo wants the kids to call her mommy and not the au pair.
I'm assuming you're referring to both male and female CEOs, correct?


--


http://www.CaliforniaDreamsPhotography.com

Re: The sexism in this show really annoys me

The Brady Kids and US are contemporaries....actually by the late 60s the sexism was almost over... there is the good type like on the show and the bad type (Frank Sinatra et al beating up female reporters after having Mob connections and just wanting the gossip to go away, a la the Catholic priests and child molestation more recently).

Actually with mini skirts back then even, the girls WERE getting MUCH more liberation fashion-wise than, say, 1950s girls (the Screen Gems cuties like Mary Stone of "Donna Reed", the Anderson chicks - my favorite kind of sexism - on Father knows Best,etc.). THOSE teenage girls wore the SAME long lovely dresses as did their mothers.

BTW In 1961 on "The Dick Van Dyke Show" Laura Petrie already was popularizing pants--capris in this case--in 1962 "The Jetsons" had Judy Jetson in both short wolf wqhistle slitted Minis (like something Tex Avery would design for Hanna-Barbera, given his 1940s slit-dressed hot chicks) AND capri pants..no naked legs! Jane Jetson though, kept the dress and no pants thing.)



Amanda Bynes is hot and Lindsay Lohan is not.
Profile pic: Courtney Thorne-Smith.

Re: The sexism in this show really annoys me


Actually with mini skirts back then even, the girls WERE getting MUCH more liberation fashion-wise than, say, 1950s girls

And women as well. Compare Elizabeth Montgomery's look in the last season of Bewitched to her look in the first. That show started in the mid '60's and lasted until the early '70s. By the final season she had grown her hair longer and started wearing mini skirts. Montgomery was always stunning, but I loved her look in the later seasons.

(the Screen Gems cuties like Mary Stone of "Donna Reed", the Anderson chicks - my favorite kind of sexism - on Father knows Best,etc.). THOSE teenage girls wore the SAME long lovely dresses as did their mothers.

Additionally, the shirtwaist dress was popular in the early '60s. I have read a few debates about whether the early part of he decade or the later part was better when it came to music, fashion etc. I think the early and late '60s both had hits and misses.



"It is rare for people to be asked the question which puts them squarely in front of themselves."

Re: The sexism in this show really annoys me

I think that's it, the contemporary aspect. When it's before your time, you see it as just how it may have been. When though it's during your time, you're aggravated that they weren't more empowered.

The Brady Kids are a bit older than me. I too was bothered by the sexism, especially in that episode. I did like when Jan said that boys should use hairdryers because many of them have longer hair than some of the girls.

It though was a sign of the times. There were strong women throughout history. These shows though were the sign of the times for their television eras.

Re: The sexism in this show really annoys me


The Brady Kids are a bit older than me. I too was bothered by the sexism, especially in that episode. I did like when Jan said that boys should use hairdryers because many of them have longer hair than some of the girls.


That was a funny line since the boys all had short hair. Just once the show showed a guy with longer hair, the ice cream shop episode.

Re: The sexism in this show really annoys me

They supposedly saw people outside their personal neighborhood. They had television. Davy Jones was considered to have long hair during the height of his popularity.

Re: The sexism in this show really annoys me

His hair was not long! How would anyone consider that long?

Re: The sexism in this show really annoys me

It was the sign of the times. It isn't long by today's stanards but long and shaggy during his era.

Re: The sexism in this show really annoys me

I've seen other pictures of guys during that era - with hair far longer than his was.

Re: The sexism in this show really annoys me

So? A woman today may have long hair but many others could have hair even longer. It isn't a competition but a stereotype of that era.

Re: The sexism in this show really annoys me

I am a female. But one thing I never liked, was women wanting it both ways.

Like, they want to be fire-fighters, and to be eligible for all the fire-fighting jobs men do. But then they want certain requirements (like weight carried) changed for them. Which can cause a real liability, if she is physically unable to do the job.

Or, as someone else pointed out. The birth-giving woman says "here you go, stranger" and hands a two-month old baby to a nanny, day care worker, etc. Because her "ca-REER" means everything to her. Then has a tantrum when the kid bonds more with the person raising him than with her. Or the nanny tells her the kid took his first steps, etc.

Re: The sexism in this show really annoys me


I am a female. But one thing I never liked, was women wanting it both ways.
So you've also never liked *MEN* wanting it both ways, correct? In other words, you have just as much of a problem with men who want to be parents but also want to have their careers, right?


Like, they want to be fire-fighters, and to be eligible for all the fire-fighting jobs men do. But then they want certain requirements (like weight carried) changed for them. Which can cause a real liability, if she is physically unable to do the job.
My [late] brother was a firefighter/paramedic for the Los Angeles City Fire Department and, back in the day, he bemoaned the fact that women were infiltrating its ranks. However--in the end--he had to admit that the female firefighters he'd worked with were every bit as capable as their male counterparts. The training and requirements are murder, but anyone, regardless of gender, who can pass them is qualified for the job.


Or, as someone else pointed out. The birth-giving woman says "here you go, stranger" and hands a two-month old baby to a nanny, day care worker, etc. Because her "ca-REER" means everything to her. Then has a tantrum when the kid bonds more with the person raising him than with her. Or the nanny tells her the kid took his first steps, etc.
Again, I'm assuming that you're every bit as indignant at the MALE parents who do this, right? Last time I heard, it took TWO people to make a child, so it wouldn't make any sense for your disgust to be aimed ONLY at one gender.


--


http://www.CaliforniaDreamsPhotography.com

Re: The sexism in this show really annoys me


My [late] brother was a firefighter/paramedic for the Los Angeles City Fire Department and, back in the day, he bemoaned the fact that women were infiltrating its ranks. However--in the end--he had to admit that the female firefighters he'd worked with were every bit as capable as their male counterparts. The training and requirements are murder, but anyone, regardless of gender, who can pass them is qualified for the job.


Maybe it depends on the department. I do know that my local fire department has (or at least last I knew they did) different weight-carrying requirements for males and females. I know because a female friend wanted to be a fire-fighter.


Again, I'm assuming that you're every bit as indignant at the MALE parents who do this, right? Last time I heard, it took TWO people to make a child, so it wouldn't make any sense for your disgust to be aimed ONLY at one gender.


Again, it has to do with experience. So far, I have only seen women have fits that the nanny (or whoever) has more of a bond with the child than the "mother" does. But as long as we are on the subject - how would you feel about a man choosing to be a stay-at-home dad so the child can have one parent who actually raises him/her? I usually hear the terms "dead-beat" and "she's carrying them" when that happens.

Another example of wanting it both ways - she will keep her last name after marrying, make a big showing of how "independent" she is. She will make decisions without consulting him, because she is so "independent". She will always be showing how "independent" she is. Then, if they divorce, suddenly she wants spousal support. What happened to all her "independence"?

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: The sexism in this show really annoys me

First, I want to say I hope I didn't come off sounding snippy earlier--I was feeling like crap, and it may have shown!


Maybe it depends on the department. I do know that my local fire department has (or at least last I knew they did) different weight-carrying requirements for males and females. I know because a female friend wanted to be a fire-fighter.
Yeah, it probably does depend on the department.


Again, it has to do with experience. So far, I have only seen women have fits that the nanny (or whoever) has more of a bond with the child than the "mother" does. But as long as we are on the subject - how would you feel about a man choosing to be a stay-at-home dad so the child can have one parent who actually raises him/her? I usually hear the terms "dead-beat" and "she's carrying them" when that happens.
You're not going to find me in that group! As I said earlier, I have no problem at all with a man OR woman choosing to stay home--like my husband and I each did at different times in our lives--as long as it's what THEY want to do, and their spouse is in agreement. The way it worked for us was that early on in our marriage, I stayed home at various times, and he was the stable breadwinner; I had a difficult pregnancy, then I wanted to be at home for a while, then I had a near-fatal illness. Later, after I was established in my career, and was out-earning him by more than double, he wanted to stop working, and I was all for it. In both cases, whichever of us was the stay-at-home spouse, that's who did the homemaker-ish stuff, like cooking and cleaning and laundry.


Another example of wanting it both ways - she will keep her last name after marrying, make a big showing of how "independent" she is. She will make decisions without consulting him, because she is so "independent". She will always be showing how "independent" she is. Then, if they divorce, suddenly she wants spousal support. What happened to all her "independence"?
You'll NEVER find me supporting that way of thinking. Ever! Oh, I'm absolutely fine with married women keeping their names (I wish my daughter had done that, actually), but the rest of it? No. As far as I'm concerned--and, hopefully, the courts are, too--spousal support should only be a factor when one spouse heavily out-earns the other, regardless of gender, or when one stayed at home per their mutual agreement and now has no marketable skills. In that latter case, I'd put a time limit on it. Just because someone didn't work BEFORE doesn't mean they can't work NOW.


--


http://www.CaliforniaDreamsPhotography.com

Re: The sexism in this show really annoys me


First, I want to say I hope I didn't come off sounding snippy earlier--I was feeling like crap, and it may have shown!


We all have times like that - even me 😄

My focus on the women wanting it both ways was due to the thread being sexism, and what some see/saw as bias against females.

But (on a side note) believe me, I know of men wanting it both ways - was married to one. He wanted the modern wife who was the breadwinner and covered most (if not all) of the bills, so he could work a "fun" type of job. But he also wanted the 50s wife who did all the women's work - cleaning, cooking, laundry, etc. We lived in an apartment, so the only "man chore" for him was carrying the trash out, and most of the time there was an argument to get him to do that. Needless to say, the marriage didn't last (and I took my own name back after the divorce).

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: The sexism in this show really annoys me

It doesn't have to be to one extreme or the other. Equal means everyone is given an equal chance not preferential treatment.

Women have to go through the same tests as men for jobs such as firefighters, police, etc. Some men don't keep themselves up and some are slackers. To say that it's gender specific is prejudice.

Re: The sexism in this show really annoys me

It doesn't have to be to one extreme or the other. Equal means everyone is given an equal chance not preferential treatment.
Women have to go through the same tests as men for jobs such as firefighters, police, etc. Some men don't keep themselves up and some are slackers. To say that it's gender specific is prejudice.

Why is okay for fathers to work but not mothers? Some companies provide in building day care. Some parents today need to be at least two income families.
It's better to have sitters than to sponge off others who are working and thus take money out of their households because you (used generally) may be too lazy to work and/or just want to stay home.

I understand that sometimes unforeseen things happen such as the loss of a job. However, welfare was meant to be a temporary aid until one could get back on their feet. It isn't meant to be a way of life. Parents should only have as many children they can afford. If they want more then they'd better start saving and be prepared to use sitters. If the children began to suffer then jail the parents for neglect/abuse and place the children in protective care and maybe even up for adoption. If one parent earns enough money so that the other can stay home then that's great for them if they choose to do so.

Re: The sexism in this show really annoys me

I am not talking about cases like that. I am talking about "parents" who decide that a bigger house (guess what? I grew up in a three bedroom, one bathroom home and I am alive and well, no scars or damage today) and fancier car (oh, they can't drive a $20,000 car, must be at least double that!) is more important than their children. And then act like they are "victims" when the kids have no bond with them at all.

And then if something goes wrong (kid gets in trouble) of course, they are not to blame. How can they be to blame when they had nothing to do with raising their own kid?

I agree about welfare, but that is a totally different story. May of those cases the "parents" stay home, and even though they are home have little to do with raising their kids.

Re: The sexism in this show really annoys me

Inattentive parenting can happen no matter the size of the bank account. Some wealthy parents can be wonderful at parenting. People shouldn't be penalized for success. Much of that money is for homes in good communities, good schools, learning devices, etc. Teaching children to work hard can be a positive.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: The sexism in this show really annoys me

It's not about criticizing for success. It's about paying little to no attention to your own child, then acting butt-hurt because that child has bonded with the person raising them, instead of you. (And I don't mean you directly here, I am talking these types of parents.) Or acting like a victim when something goes wrong.



Re: The sexism in this show really annoys me

Wealthy people can pay as much or as little attention to their children as those of any other means. Remember how it was agreed upon that some stay at home parents don't always pay adequate attention to their children.

Many, wealthy or not, often try to blame others when things go wrong. You're generally sweeping.

It's more about parenting skills than money. Money though does help to provide things children need and want.

Re: The sexism in this show really annoys me

Growing up in the 1970's, while women were forging careers in traditional male dominated roles, there was a huge divide between the genders in school as to what were deemed acceptable pursuits. When I watch 'The Brady Bunch', I understand that the gender inequality portrayed on the show does not exist now, but that it reflects how things generally were.

That said, the show did have its moments where it showed that the girls/ women were equal to men. Does anyone remember the big driving test between Greg and Marcia? How about Marcia's foray into the Frontier Scouts? Don't forget the female doctor played by Marion Ross in season 1 !


Re: The sexism in this show really annoys me

That's another thing that makes me ask what are women always complaining about. In just about every show I have seen that have a male vs females type of competition, the females always win. What's more, the males are usually shown being incompetent, cheating (and still failing) and just so stupid that it's not even funny.

Re: The sexism in this show really annoys me

It's because it's the loud mouth male who usually starts it all and the female sees it as a chance to get even. People who don't feel they have anything to prove usually aren't taunting another so no contest then comes into play.

Marcia had to prove herself and did to join the Frontier Scouts. All Peter had to do to become a Sunflower was sign up.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: The sexism in this show really annoys me

The point was which required competition. Up until Marcia joined it was assumed that Frontier Scouts had to be boys. They set up competiton even among one another.

What do you mean should in regards to being a girl. Yes, it's more of a stigma for a boy to do girlish things than a girl to do boyish things but it shouldn't be that way. Things should be equal and accepted easily.

Re: The sexism in this show really annoys me

Keep in mind that's the way the script is written 😃

And exactly my point. Men are shown as loud mouth know-it-alls who always end up failing. The women are always shown as successful, saving the day, etc. And women complain about how they are shown? Just imagine showing a woman as totally incompetent at something.

Another example of the double-standard. Remember the movie Serial Mom? I know women who LOVED that movie. Imagine Serial Dad? Same type of thing - women would be SCREAMING.

Re: The sexism in this show really annoys me

It isn't always life imitating art but often art imitating life.

Many men don't have the antiquated idea that a man would always win at everything over a woman. The ones that do run their mouths and challenge capable women.
Billie Jean King beat Bobby Riggs. A woman struck out Babe Ruth. There's quite a few examples.

There's been plenty of movies that have favored men. Men have been killers in movies too. Serial Mom was a comedy. Most of the time a woman is shown to even be equal to a man in a film she had to have had help from a man.

Re: The sexism in this show really annoys me

I know Serial Mom was a comedy. Would you laugh at a man running around killing women? Maybe cutting a woman's boobs off?

Re: The sexism in this show really annoys me

Many have laughed during the Friday the 13th movies, the Nightmare on Elm Street ones, Chucky, etc.

Women are now sometimes shown as getting revenge in a film because it was the media status quo for quite some time that a woman was to be subservient. Times are slowly changing. It's a slow walk more than a run.

Re: The sexism in this show really annoys me

Males and females both get killed during those films. And when I laughed, often it was the bad acting or just how ridiculous the scene was.

Re: The sexism in this show really annoys me

They usually included a pretty female who tried to run in high heels and bared her breasts. Breasts were shown often in movies long before a penis was ever shown.

It isn't though just about you. You asked for examples and I provided them.

Re: The sexism in this show really annoys me


Breasts were shown often in movies long before a penis was ever shown.


As a curious kid, that used to annoy me 😀

All I am saying is the "sexism" isn't nearly as bad as some make it out to be. And it seems some people want it both ways, not truly equal. But that goes for a lot of people, which could be a totally separate discussion.

Re: The sexism in this show really annoys me

It;s been bad. It's been getting better but will happen over time.

Wanting it both ways? It's about equal opportunities and choices. There's no two ways about that. I don't object when a man or woman holds open a door for me and I too have held doors open for men and women. I would though object to a male being given a job over a more qualified woman.

Equality is about equal opportunities. Nothing about anything being given. It also doesn't mean we can't appreciate and be appreciated by our loved ones. We can all have it all.

Re: The sexism in this show really annoys me

As I said, this spirals into another discussion.

Equal means equal, in every way. And some people only want equal when it suits them, but not when it doesn't.



Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: The sexism in this show really annoys me

One of my points. I know women who are always yelling about "equality" who feel women should not be drafted, or sent to war zones. But should still get all the benefits, just like the men who do those things.

Another thing is the ones who remove the choices from other women. Just because one woman likes wearing man-style suits to work, does not mean she should dictate all the women in the office have to. A friend of mine actually had to quit her job because her (female) boss refused to allow her to change her name when she got married. All her work records (including paychecks) would have to stay in her maiden name. Which would cause problem when she tried to cash her paycheck (they didn't offer direct deposit) and her check was in one name and her ID in another.

Re: The sexism in this show really annoys me


One of my points. I know women who are always yelling about "equality" who feel women should not be drafted, or sent to war zones. But should still get all the benefits, just like the men who do those things.
I have a LOT of friends and relatives who are veterans, including my best friend (100% disabled, medically retired Marine) and her daughter (Marines). I don't know ANYONE who thinks women should get the same benefits as men if they're not performing the same jobs in the military! Not one person.


A friend of mine actually had to quit her job because her (female) boss refused to allow her to change her name when she got married. All her work records (including paychecks) would have to stay in her maiden name.
Seriously?! What state are they in? I cannot even IMAGINE how that can be legal, but maybe it is...somewhere. Employers have to follow certain laws/rules in terms of dealing with the government; for example, they have to have proof from applicants that they're US citizens (or have the right to work in the US), they have to have the employee's Social Security number, they have to report the employee's income to the IRS and Social Security, etc. I don't see how the employer could get away with continuing to issue checks--and report to the IRS and make payments to SS from the employee's withholding--with an employee's name that was no longer valid. Doesn't make sense.


--


http://www.CaliforniaDreamsPhotography.com

Re: The sexism in this show really annoys me


I don't know ANYONE who thinks women should get the same benefits as men if they're not performing the same jobs in the military! Not one person.


I haven't known many, but I have known a few. Especially one, who was a real piece of work. She hated men, yet she hated anything feminine. She'd cry rivers for criminals (especially if they did while committing a crime) but felt nothing when a cop or fire-fighter was killed in the line of duty, because "it's part of the job, they should know that's possible when they take the job". When I pointed out that being killed was also a possibility of criminal activity, and the criminal should know that's possible when they decide to commit a crime" she said I was "cold". A liquor store owner shot and killed a would-be robber (who pulled a gun on him) and she felt the owner should be prosecuted for murder (again, he should have known being robbed was a possibility when he decided to own a business). I could go on and on.


I don't see how the employer could get away with continuing to issue checks--and report to the IRS and make payments to SS from the employee's withholding--with an employee's name that was no longer valid. Doesn't make sense.


We are in the state of NJ. She was nineteen when she married, and just never thought to look up the laws about that. I didn't either, we both just assumed it was a private company so the owner could set her own rules. (Now that you mention it, I'd like to see what the law is concerning that. Not that it matters for her anymore.) And that was the issue - they didn't have direct deposit. So there would be issues cashing her check, having her social security card not match, etc. Her choices were keep her maiden name or have all kinds of problems.

Re: The sexism in this show really annoys me

If women ran the world there wouldn't be all these pointless wars.

Re: The sexism in this show really annoys me


If women ran the world there wouldn't be all these pointless wars.


bzzzt. Wrong.
Top