Why is the guy always the wacky on TV?

[Pronounceable]

There's a lot of quirky/wacky/zany male-straight laced female leads in X of the week shows. From Castle to Lucifer (I think this kinda goes waay back to Moonlighting but I barely remember that as a wee kiddie), it's always the lady who plays the straight man for the other lead's shenanigans. Is this some subconscious sexism thing? Since the woman can't be the clown because reasons?

Anyway I don't overly care about that angle, the title is totally misdirective. Are there any series where the guy is playing the straight man instead of the gal? Two buddies or 3+ ensembles or 1 star+supports don't count. Gotta be a series that exists primarily on the chemistry of male and female leads.

Is this just not a thing? Do these things not exist at all? I wanna see funny women annoying straight mans ( ba dum tss*). That can't be too much to ask.
*I'll be here all week.

[Dienekes]

New girl I think it's called is a sitcom about a weird girl in an apartment. I think she's the wacky one. I dunno I've only seen 1 episode.

Kimmy Schmidt has kimmy as the wacky one with her (still weird) roommate Titus usually being the straight man.

Parks and Rec has Leslie Knope as pretty out there in most of her dealings. She usually plays off of Ron Swanson, and Ben Wyatt as straight men. But she takes the straight man role when dealing with Andy.

[SaintRidley]

Sexism. Women are supposedly not funny and exist only to nag and annoy men. Men in these roles look like buffoons, but they are also presented as being fun, so it cuts less deep for them (also there are a wider availability of roles not slotting into this dynamic for them, as opposed to very slim pickings for comedy roles for women). Almost always the case where you have a family comedy with the father as the male lead.

Slowly getting better on this front, With some shows with female leads, but not sure if it's getting much better in the family comedy set.

[snowblizz]

Sexism.

Exactly, because portraying a woman as the whacky silly character would get you yelled at. Put any minority character in that position and you run the risk of being accused of denigrating them. Don't do it and you still get yelled at.

[AGD]

One old sitcom, where the woman was the wacky one and the man was the straight one, that comes to my mind, would be "The Nanny".

[PhantomFox]

Or to go further back, I love Lucy

[Dienekes]

One old sitcom, where the woman was the wacky one and the man was the straight one, that comes to my mind, would be "The Nanny".

Oh yeah if we're going by old sitcoms: I love Lucy.

Lucy was the weird one, Ricky was the straight man.

Edit: Well played PhantomFox.

[Chen]

Bones has the woman being the "weird" one compared to the super straight laced guy. Somewhat opposite of Castle.

[Zalabim]

I think there's a tendency for the bigger star in the show to get the more proactive role in storylines as well.

[ryuplaneswalker]

Sexism. Women are supposedly not funny and exist only to nag and annoy men. Men in these roles look like buffoons, but they are also presented as being fun, so it cuts less deep for them (also there are a wider availability of roles not slotting into this dynamic for them, as opposed to very slim pickings for comedy roles for women). Almost always the case where you have a family comedy with the father as the male lead.

Slowly getting better on this front, With some shows with female leads, but not sure if it's getting much better in the family comedy set.

Cause it is totally not sexist to portray men as Idiotic Morons Obsessed with sex, who can't focus on a task long enough to get it done correctly and only succeed without help from their wife or children by pure luck or just fail abysmally.

Not at ALL sexist.

[Kitten Champion]

Happens a lot in anime. The male lead is notably generic - that in itself has become a cliche - while the female cast around him is lively and eccentric.

I believe making the male lead an eccentric - supposedly charming - character (in an otherwise serious work) seems to be primarily there to sell the character to the female demographic. Changing that character's gender is more of a risk, I guess? Deviating off the proven ground.

[Razade]

Cause it is totally not sexist to portray men as Idiotic Morons Obsessed with sex, who can't focus on a task long enough to get it done correctly and only succeed without help from their wife or children by pure luck or just fail abysmally.

Not at ALL sexist.

You will be informed, I suspect very soon, that a "majority" cannot be the target of sexism because sexism is only something done to people not in power or that you are correct to say what you say is sexism but it is also perpetrated by a predominately male power base and thus placing yet more female leads who are funny, practicle and in charge will also help to remove your complaint. Of course both positions are fatuous but people still make them.

[ThinkMinty]

There's a lot of quirky/wacky/zany male-straight laced female leads in X of the week shows. From Castle to Lucifer (I think this kinda goes waay back to Moonlighting but I barely remember that as a wee kiddie), it's always the lady who plays the straight man for the other lead's shenanigans. Is this some subconscious sexism thing? Since the woman can't be the clown because reasons?

Anyway I don't overly care about that angle, the title is totally misdirective. Are there any series where the guy is playing the straight man instead of the gal? Two buddies or 3+ ensembles or 1 star+supports don't count. Gotta be a series that exists primarily on the chemistry of male and female leads.

Is this just not a thing? Do these things not exist at all? I wanna see funny women annoying straight mans ( ba dum tss*). That can't be too much to ask.
*I'll be here all week.

Star vs. The Forces of Evil, off the top of my head. She's a magical princess from another dimension. He's the "safe kid" who knows strip mall karate. They fight monsters.

http://i.imgur.com/9HvB85Wl.jpg

[SaintRidley]

Cause it is totally not sexist to portray men as Idiotic Morons Obsessed with sex, who can't focus on a task long enough to get it done correctly and only succeed without help from their wife or children by pure luck or just fail abysmally.

Not at ALL sexist.
Whoosh.

That was part of my point. It's a sexism that cuts both ways. Women can't be funny because they only exist to nag. Men are dolts, but kind of loveable in their doltishness. It hurts a bit less, though, since it's not like there aren't a ridiculous abundance of roles for men to portray non-doltish husbands, and even the doltishness is played off as a lovable irascibility more than an actual problem.

[ThinkMinty]

Whoosh.

That was part of my point. It's a sexism that cuts both ways. Women can't be funny because they only exist to nag. Men are dolts, but kind of loveable in their doltishness. It hurts a bit less, though, since it's not like there aren't a ridiculous abundance of roles for men to portray non-doltish husbands, and even the doltishness is played off as a lovable irascibility more than an actual problem.

Homer Simpson's portrayal, as it's evolved over the years, can show you how this evolved over the past quarter century, even.

[Ramza00]

Stargate SG-1 with the main lead Col Jonathan Jack. O'Neill (that O'Neill with two lls, there is another O'Neil with one L and he is not that very funny). O'Neill leads SG-1 a 4 person team with him, Samantha Carter (the wacky nerd, worm-hole astrophysicist, yet captain in the air force), Daniel Jackson the language, religion and archaeologist expert, and Teal'C the human/alien hybrid called the Jaffa.

O'Neill special ability was he used to be in the Special Forces for the Air Force and they used him to do Covert Missions where he had to Parachute behind enemy lines and O'Neill had to do nasty things. In Stargate he is now doing the same job except no parachute and it is instead him walking through a wormhole created via an alien artifiact.

Now O'Neill is often making humorous quips but a large part of it is to show how much he is outside his element, the quips are often smarter versions of the saying we are not in kansas anymore, or are forms of sarcasm at the situation that O'Neill can't change the situation such as he can't punch someone nor order someone who works in the equivalent of the intelligence branch of the pentagon that does not follow his chain of command.

He also mocks the villains since the villains are a form of parasitic snake that inhabit human hosts and pose as human mythological gods with the aid of advanced technology which they use to emulate magical powers.

-------------

Contrast this with Samantha Carter who is actually kinda normal some of the time but gets all wacky when science and technology is involved.

[ben-zayb]

I'm guessing it's more of a local media problem? Surely not the case where I came from, where being of a specific sex or gender isn't required to be a wacky character, although we still get occasional subtle deprecating humor based on sex and gender stereotypes of such characters. Additionally, being good at comedy or having an actually funny script apparently isn't a requirement in playing these "wacky" characters.

EDIT: Also, you mean you don't often see the tired cliche of zany, manic pixie dream girl characters in TVs? I'd call that a good thing!

[Yora]

I have the suspicion that it is related to boys of my generation being told "don't hit girls" and girls being told "just hit the boys back". If a girl starts a fight, the adults still blamed the boys.

The only way to get out of that no-win situation is to not fight girls at all. Just ignore them until they get tired of talking to a wall, and you'll be fine. When seen from the other side, this makes this makes it appear like men often don't listen or forget things they've been told, and do things they feel like doing even though previously they agreed not to do them.

Men of 25-35 aren't stupid or deaf. We heard it. We just chose to ignore it. It's a bit like civil disobedience. And if it looks like stupidity, you might even get away with it.


That was part of my point. It's a sexism that cuts both ways. Women can't be funny because they only exist to nag. Men are dolts, but kind of loveable in their doltishness. It hurts a bit less, though, since it's not like there aren't a ridiculous abundance of roles for men to portray non-doltish husbands, and even the doltishness is played off as a lovable irascibility more than an actual problem.

This is our survival strategy: The loveable dolt. :smallamused:

[Noldo]

Old sit-com(?) Dharma & Greg was built on the very premise of interaction between overly serious male lead Greg (played by Thomas Gibson) and his crazy hippiesque wife Dharma (played by Jenna Elfman)

[Psyren]

So we're all forgetting this lady I assume?

http://s1.favim.com/orig/22/cat-friends-phoebe-Favim.com-213463.jpg

[snowblizz]

So we're all forgetting this lady I assume?

http://s1.favim.com/orig/22/cat-friends-phoebe-Favim.com-213463.jpg

No but Friends is an ensamble cast piece with 6 characters, which breaks several of the original posters criteria.

Can't believe I didn't think of Dharma and Greg though.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Don't forget the infamous Manic Pixie Dream Girl.

[BRC]

Sexism. Women are supposedly not funny and exist only to nag and annoy men. Men in these roles look like buffoons, but they are also presented as being fun, so it cuts less deep for them (also there are a wider availability of roles not slotting into this dynamic for them, as opposed to very slim pickings for comedy roles for women). Almost always the case where you have a family comedy with the father as the male lead.

Slowly getting better on this front, With some shows with female leads, but not sure if it's getting much better in the family comedy set.

I think it's a matter of respect. Ideally, the Audience should have about equal levels of respect for all the Show's leads, whether it's a a comedy or a more serious drama.

However, I think Audiences are more forgiving of a Male character's faults than a female character's faults, and this comes from two angles. If a Male lead (like, say, Homer Simpson) is clearly less intelligent than the female lead (Marge), it's fine, the joke is that he's an idiot. However, if the Woman is an idiot, and the butt of the jokes, then they get attacked from two sides. Some people see the character's continuing stupidity or incompetence as annoying. On the other hand, some people will see the show as sexist for making it's female lead an incompetent buffoon, contrasted with their more sensible Male counterpart.


Now, to answer the OP's question, the best example I can think recently is Gravity Falls.

Gravity Falls centers around a pair of twins, Dipper and Mabel, who at first glance fall very much into the Sensible/Wacky dynamic. Dipper is serious, intellectual, and focused on solving the mysteries they face. Mable is goofy and fun-loving. The show makes it work by taking a more complex look at the Twin's relative intelligence.

What it basically comes down to is that Dipper is neither more logical, nor more intelligent than his sister. He just has different priorities.
He's not so much an Intellectual, as he is a pseduo-intellectual who wants to APPEAR mature and intelligent. Meanwhile, he causes just as much trouble obsessively tracking down mysteries as Mable does goofing off. Meanwhile, while Mable treats things with substantially less Gravitas than her brother, she's unconcerned with appearing Mature, and her goofy antics rarely actually cause problems.

[Razade]

Whoosh.

That was part of my point. It's a sexism that cuts both ways. Women can't be funny because they only exist to nag. Men are dolts, but kind of loveable in their doltishness. It hurts a bit less, though, since it's not like there aren't a ridiculous abundance of roles for men to portray non-doltish husbands, and even the doltishness is played off as a lovable irascibility more than an actual problem.

Well that took all of ten minutes. There are days I curse this gift of calling things before they happen but today is not that day.

[Psyren]

I believe another example of kooky female lead is Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt.


No but Friends is an ensamble cast piece with 6 characters, which breaks several of the original posters criteria.

Fair enough

[Rodin]

I have the suspicion that it is related to boys of my generation being told "don't hit girls" and girls being told "just hit the boys back". If a girl starts a fight, the adults still blamed the boys.

The only way to get out of that no-win situation is to not fight girls at all. Just ignore them until they get tired of talking to a wall, and you'll be fine. When seen from the other side, this makes this makes it appear like men often don't listen or forget things they've been told, and do things they feel like doing even though previously they agreed not to do them.



Gah, I remember running into that attitude in middle school. A couple of girls decided to do that old playground classic, one kneels behind you while the other shoves you backwards over the kneeling person. They did that to me, and I immediately got up, chased the shover down, and swept her legs to dump her on the ground.

I was met by utter horror from all my classmates, who had all seen the whole thing (and laughed when I was tripped). Because I was a boy, she was entirely entitled to knock me to ground with absolutely no consequences, and any form of retaliation was just not kosher.

On the plus side, I didn't get tripped any more after that.

[Hytheter]

Gravitas

Pun intended? :P

I think you might be selling Dipper a little bit short, but you're mostly right overall.

[SaintRidley]

Well that took all of ten minutes. There are days I curse this gift of calling things before they happen but today is not that day.

You may want to try rereading. The words I said and the words you think I said don't seem to match up.

[Jayngfet]

Because people will complain if you don't.

From what I recall Parks and Recreations began with Leslie being the funny man to Ron/Tom/Whoever's straight man. But after the first season the crew heard that people thought she was "ditzy" and she got more serious and the aformentioned two got played for an increasing amount of gags. Amy Pohler tries to get her share of gags in but there's a pretty notable shift by about halfway through season two from "Leslie takes this stuff way too seriously and tries something ridiculous, everyone else reacts" to "Leslie is both the most capable and least insane person actually working there(if we don't count Ann, who was always meant to play straight man)".

Fundamentally, a big part of being wacky is being stupid. You need to be able to fall for comedically obvious ploys or do something clearly insane for a joke to work as the clowny funny man of the dynamic, and generally speaking men have a bit larger of a leeway to fail in societies eyes while still being amusing. Which is clearly evident in ensable casts as well. Half the gags in friends, especially early on before they could riff on their own mythology, are the guys doing some ridiculous gag based on trying to be macho or dealing with other guys being guys, like the stupid way guys act when they're caught in a situation involving a girl they have no chance with(like Jill Goodacre), or dealing with other guys in a cartoonishly macho territory dispute(like the coffee shop seats bit). You even got the same bits with newer ensembles like Community, where half the gags early on were Troy and Ahbed having a weird bromance or Pierce doing something ridiculously inappropreate(Or Chang being well... Chang). Obviously in both shows the female characters had jokes, but there wasn't the expectation that they were these insane mile a minute cartoon people.

Being a gag character means being able to fail and have something utterly blow up in your face and for it to be funny.

[sktarq]

A girl being wacky will be called ditzy

but also young men have two "classic" ways to gain social acceptance. Be good at sports or be good at making people laugh. We are used to the class clown being a guy. This makes it very easy to translate those people who we meet in life into the art of TV scripts. Din't help that girls who make everybody laugh in school, for many years at least, were treated . . . poorly (a dirty joke from a guy means he was an adolescent but a dirty joke from a girl means she's a slut in some schools but not in others)

so thus a good "wacky" woman is somewhat harder to write - which leads to them being more rare.

[Kislath]

That Girl with Marlo Thomas.

[Friv]

Because people will complain if you don't.

From what I recall Parks and Recreations began with Leslie being the funny man to Ron/Tom/Whoever's straight man. But after the first season the crew heard that people thought she was "ditzy" and she got more serious and the aformentioned two got played for an increasing amount of gags. Amy Pohler tries to get her share of gags in but there's a pretty notable shift by about halfway through season two from "Leslie takes this stuff way too seriously and tries something ridiculous, everyone else reacts" to "Leslie is both the most capable and least insane person actually working there(if we don't count Ann, who was always meant to play straight man)".

Fundamentally, a big part of being wacky is being stupid. You need to be able to fall for comedically obvious ploys or do something clearly insane for a joke to work as the clowny funny man of the dynamic, and generally speaking men have a bit larger of a leeway to fail in societies eyes while still being amusing. Which is clearly evident in ensable casts as well. Half the gags in friends, especially early on before they could riff on their own mythology, are the guys doing some ridiculous gag based on trying to be macho or dealing with other guys being guys, like the stupid way guys act when they're caught in a situation involving a girl they have no chance with(like Jill Goodacre), or dealing with other guys in a cartoonishly macho territory dispute(like the coffee shop seats bit). You even got the same bits with newer ensembles like Community, where half the gags early on were Troy and Ahbed having a weird bromance or Pierce doing something ridiculously inappropreate(Or Chang being well... Chang). Obviously in both shows the female characters had jokes, but there wasn't the expectation that they were these insane mile a minute cartoon people.

Being a gag character means being able to fail and have something utterly blow up in your face and for it to be funny.

Jayngfet speaks wisdom.


Gah, I remember running into that attitude in middle school. A couple of girls decided to do that old playground classic, one kneels behind you while the other shoves you backwards over the kneeling person. They did that to me, and I immediately got up, chased the shover down, and swept her legs to dump her on the ground.

I was met by utter horror from all my classmates, who had all seen the whole thing (and laughed when I was tripped). Because I was a boy, she was entirely entitled to knock me to ground with absolutely no consequences, and any form of retaliation was just not kosher.

On the plus side, I didn't get tripped any more after that.

Argh, yes, this. I was watching an anime, "History's Mightiest Disciple Kenichi", which is an over-the-top martial arts show. The disciple in question gets attacked by a phenomenally skilled street fighter, and refuses to punch her because she's a girl and it's against his code to fight girls. And I'm sitting there just growling, "You goddamn *******, one of your mentors is a girl, your training partner is a girl, this girl is beating the crap out of you, stop being a sexist dipstick and PUNCH HER".

But no, we're supposed to be so happy that the guy didn't punch the girl. It's a total affirmation of his good nature. NO IT IS NOT, SHOW.

[ThinkMinty]

Argh, yes, this. I was watching an anime, "History's Mightiest Disciple Kenichi", which is an over-the-top martial arts show. The disciple in question gets attacked by a phenomenally skilled street fighter, and refuses to punch her because she's a girl and it's against his code to fight girls. And I'm sitting there just growling, "You goddamn *******, one of your mentors is a girl, your training partner is a girl, this girl is beating the crap out of you, stop being a sexist dipstick and PUNCH HER".

But no, we're supposed to be so happy that the guy didn't punch the girl. It's a total affirmation of his good nature. NO IT IS NOT, SHOW.

Just because the show asks you to think the way it does, doesn't mean you're obligated to agree with it. Critical thinking is fun like that.

And yes, it's sexist (specifically, the patronizing kind) to not hit a girl in a situation you'd hit a guy in, as far as martial arts goes.

[thompur]

Eva Gabor in Green Acres.
Gracie Allen in Burns and Allen.

[Saph]

Because people will complain if you don't.

This.

There's an attitude in America that says that if you have a character in media who's a minority (or one who's seen as a minority), then their portrayal has to be "positive". Not everyone believes this, but enough do that it has an impact.

So if I write a story with a stupid character and I make that character male, then readers will say "hey, this character is stupid." If I write a story with a stupid character and I make that character female, then most readers will say "hey, this character is stupid." But a substantial minority will instead say "this bothers me, it sounds like the author thinks that all women are stupid."

The only way you can avoid this kind of criticism is to avoid giving your female characters any really major flaws. Which basically means you can't have wacky female characters, since you can't be the wacky/zany/crazy one unless you're willing to sometimes look stupid.

The Simpsons is the classic example, but the best demonstration is probably Red Dwarf. If you look at the original four-man cast, they're all complete psychological wrecks. Rimmer is a obsessive-compulsive Napoleon wannabe, Kryten has absolutely no self-respect or ego, and the Cat is an oblivious narcissist. The 'healthiest' is Lister, and he's a chronically underachieving slob. Then in the later seasons they added a fifth member to the cast . . . who is a straight-laced, overachieving, hypercompetent genius. Have a guess what sex the new character is. :smalltongue:

[ThinkMinty]

This.

There's an attitude in America that says that if you have a character in media who's a minority (or one who's seen as a minority), then their portrayal has to be "positive". Not everyone believes this, but enough do that it has an impact.

So if I write a story with a stupid character and I make that character male, then readers will say "hey, this character is stupid." If I write a story with a stupid character and I make that character female, then most readers will say "hey, this character is stupid." But a substantial minority will instead say "this bothers me, it sounds like the author thinks that all women are stupid."

The only way you can avoid this kind of criticism is to avoid giving your female characters any really major flaws. Which basically means you can't have wacky female characters, since you can't be the wacky/zany/crazy one unless you're willing to sometimes look stupid.

The Simpsons is the classic example, but the best demonstration is probably Red Dwarf. If you look at the original four-man cast, they're all complete psychological wrecks. Rimmer is a obsessive-compulsive Napoleon wannabe, Kryten has absolutely no self-respect or ego, and the Cat is an oblivious narcissist. The 'healthiest' is Lister, and he's a chronically underachieving slob. Then in the later seasons they added a fifth member to the cast . . . who is a straight-laced, overachieving, hypercompetent genius. Have a guess what sex the new character is. :smalltongue:

The way you do that is that you have more than one character in group X, so that "representational burdens" or whatever you want to call it is distributed, thus you can make all your characters people without a group saying, "Hey, you portrayed all the us in your thing as X". As for how to do that without doing a Captain Planet checklist, I recommend starting from the personality and working your way out to the surface stuff during construction.

[Saph]

The way you do that is that you have more than one character in group X.

You'd think that would work, but I can tell you from personal experience that it doesn't. :smalltongue:

[Aotrs Commander]

The Simpsons is the classic example, but the best demonstration is probably Red Dwarf. If you look at the original four-man cast, they're all complete psychological wrecks. Rimmer is a obsessive-compulsive Napoleon wannabe, Kryten has absolutely no self-respect or ego, and the Cat is an oblivious narcissist. The 'healthiest' is Lister, and he's a chronically underachieving slob. Then in the later seasons they added a fifth member to the cast . . . who is a straight-laced, overachieving, hypercompetent genius. Have a guess what sex the new character is. :smalltongue:

To be fair, Kochanski was just as neurotic as the others, she jsut made some vague attempt to hide it.

(And also, she only lasted one-and-a-half season; she was a poor replacement for Rimmer in season 7, thougn she fared better in season 8. Notably, though, she hasn't been in any of the later series. (Though she might, I suppose show up in XI or XII.)

The obvious counterpoint, is, of course, Holly post-sex change. At that point, she was literally so stupid she had to count by banging her head on the screen at one point...

[Liquor Box]

This.

There's an attitude in America that says that if you have a character in media who's a minority (or one who's seen as a minority), then their portrayal has to be "positive". Not everyone believes this, but enough do that it has an impact.

So if I write a story with a stupid character and I make that character male, then readers will say "hey, this character is stupid." If I write a story with a stupid character and I make that character female, then most readers will say "hey, this character is stupid." But a substantial minority will instead say "this bothers me, it sounds like the author thinks that all women are stupid."

The only way you can avoid this kind of criticism is to avoid giving your female characters any really major flaws. Which basically means you can't have wacky female characters, since you can't be the wacky/zany/crazy one unless you're willing to sometimes look stupid.

The Simpsons is the classic example, but the best demonstration is probably Red Dwarf. If you look at the original four-man cast, they're all complete psychological wrecks. Rimmer is a obsessive-compulsive Napoleon wannabe, Kryten has absolutely no self-respect or ego, and the Cat is an oblivious narcissist. The 'healthiest' is Lister, and he's a chronically underachieving slob. Then in the later seasons they added a fifth member to the cast . . . who is a straight-laced, overachieving, hypercompetent genius. Have a guess what sex the new character is. :smalltongue:

This sums it up. The over-sensitivity by a vocal minority to the possibility that a group (in this case women) is being discriminated against is to the detriment of women because it limits they way in which women are written.

[Bulldog Psion]

You'd think that would work, but I can tell you from personal experience that it doesn't. :smalltongue:

This is true, IMO. As are the previous statements by Saph; and Liquor Box also makes a good point, IMO.

[Pex]

There's a lot of quirky/wacky/zany male-straight laced female leads in X of the week shows. From Castle to Lucifer (I think this kinda goes waay back to Moonlighting but I barely remember that as a wee kiddie), it's always the lady who plays the straight man for the other lead's shenanigans. Is this some subconscious sexism thing? Since the woman can't be the clown because reasons?

Anyway I don't overly care about that angle, the title is totally misdirective. Are there any series where the guy is playing the straight man instead of the gal? Two buddies or 3+ ensembles or 1 star+supports don't count. Gotta be a series that exists primarily on the chemistry of male and female leads.

Is this just not a thing? Do these things not exist at all? I wanna see funny women annoying straight mans ( ba dum tss*). That can't be too much to ask.
*I'll be here all week.

It's the same reason why in any fight or friendly sparring between a male and female the female always wins, unless the male is the BBEG to show off his EVILNESS. If the female is one of the bad guys she can only be defeated by a female good guy after the female bad guy defeats a male good guy, especially The Protagonist Hero. Brownie points if the male in the duel or the male Hero watching the sparring doubts the female's capability.

As for the zany female paired with a straightman male, the last one I can even name to be memorable is Lucy Ricardo. However, perhaps a female character can be zany if she's the sidekick to another female who's the lead. Given that criteria, I suppose then that would make Alice of "The Brady Bunch", Brenda of "Rhoda", Vera of "Alice", the sister on "Mad About You", forgot name, and Jackie of "Roseanne" to be considered zany.

[Liquor Box]

It's the same reason why in any fight or friendly sparring between a male and female the female always wins, unless the male is the BBEG to show off his EVILNESS. If the female is one of the bad guys she can only be defeated by a female good guy after the female bad guy defeats a male good guy, especially The Protagonist Hero. Brownie points if the male in the duel or the male Hero watching the sparring doubts the female's capability.


Except for 22 Jump Street, where Jonah Hill's character had a drawn out brawl with a female villain.

[Liquor Box]

This is true, IMO. As are the previous statements by Saph; and Liquor Box also makes a good point, IMO.

Jayngfett's discussion of parks and recreation was a good example too.

Parks and Recreation had a variety of female characters, including the most straight man character in the show (Anne), but Leslie's antics were still seen as being too wacky, so in later seasons she was written as much less so, and males like Andy took the wacky role.

[Pex]

Except for 22 Jump Street, where Jonah Hill's character had a drawn out brawl with a female villain.

Was there a female good guy sidekick in the movie? If no, then yes, the male good guy will eventually win if the good guys win in the movie. However, you did remind me of "Kingsman" where there was a female goodguysidekick but she wasn't where the climax action is so our Hero defeats the female bad guy. However, "it's not that kind of movie". :smallbiggrin:

[Liquor Box]

Was there a female good guy sidekick in the movie? If no, then yes, the male good guy will eventually win if the good guys win in the movie. However, you did remind me of "Kingsman" where there was a female goodguysidekick but she wasn't where the climax action is so our Hero defeats the female bad guy. However, "it's not that kind of movie". :smallbiggrin:

Yeah, there were the main characters' love interests, but to be honest I can't recall whether they became involved in the fight. You may be right, I mostly just remember that it was a very funny fight between a girl and a guy.

[ThunderCat]

You'd think that would work, but I can tell you from personal experience that it doesn't. :smalltongue:

I'm going to go against the grain here and say that it usually does. When most female characters are included explicitly as representatives of their sex, it's really no wonder people believe them to be representative of their sex. And that goes both ways, btw. I've seen just as many complaints about Mary Sues :smallsigh: or alleged propaganda about female superiority, as I have about a lacking or negative portrayal of women in fiction.

But including an equal or greater number of female characters tends to make most of these complaints disappear. Josh Whedon built a career, and a very large female fanbase, on this tactic. His female characters can be loaded with unfortunate implications, but because he includes a lot of them, people don't see it as reflecting badly on women. George Miller used almost every problematic trope in the book, at least if you're to believe the claims about what (straw)feminists and “SJWs” are supposed to have a problem with, but those people absolutely loved Fury Road. Friends was brought up earlier as an example, and if the fact that it's an ensemble cast means it doesn't count, then neither should Parks and Recreation.

MLP: Friendship is Magic has characters that are often unbelievably stupid, but very few people think they're setting a bad example for girls :smallsmile: Dharma & Greg was also mentioned earlier, and is another example of a show with many prominent female characters. Will & Grace is probably a better example, because Grace (and Karen) were nowhere near as nice and charming as Dharma. And the BBC sitcom Keeping Up Appearances centered around a female character who was physically unattractive, completely delusional, and extremely unlikable, and yet I've never heard it be criticized for sexism.

[Vinyadan]

About people beating each other, there also is the problem that it is much easier to sympathize with the one we assume to be weaker, or who is playing with a handicap. The idea in most plots is that there are obstacles which must be overcome by the heroes. If your body has some 20% less muscle mass than many men, that's an obstacle I can relate to and I want you to succeed. At the same time, it's hard to root for a man wasting a (bad) woman, because IRL women are less aggressive, weaker and often subject to aggression. There are ways to pull off a fight between a man and a woman (make it be through range weapons, have her be superpowered, make it in a world where men and women have equal strength, make it clear that she's skilled enough to make up for lower body strength), but, if there had been a scene with a healthy Christian Bale hypertrophic Batman kicking the hell out of some random women, I don't think I would have had fun watching that, unless they had the numbers to be a threat; which, in movies where the hero is supposed to easily defeat dozens of opponents, tend to be difficult to portray.

To sum it up, a woman with no special abilities using only her physical strength against a non incapacitated male hero is hard to read as a meaningful obstacle. A normal woman hero fighting a male villain? More interesting.

[Saph]

But including an equal or greater number of female characters tends to make most of these complaints disappear.

Which is great if you're willing to make the cast of every story you write majority-female, but I think at this point, you have to seriously ask whether the gain is worth the restrictions you're placing on yourself.

[ThunderCat]

Which is great if you're willing to make the cast of every story you write majority-female, but I think at this point, you have to seriously ask whether the gain is worth the restrictions you're placing on yourself.

Now you're just moving the goalposts. The argument was that people were so critical about female characters that it was next to impossible to make a flawed female character without being accused of sexism, and that including more female characters wouldn't change this. I gave plenty of examples of it working, while the only counter-example so far is Parks and Recreation.

And I can't see how a more balanced sex/gender ratio is any more restricting than the forced male majority we've had for the last several decades.

[Saph]

Now you're just moving the goalposts. The argument was that people were so critical about female characters that it was next to impossible to make a flawed female character without being accused of sexism, and that including more female characters wouldn't change this.

No, the argument is that, all things being equal, a flawed female character will attract more criticism than a flawed male character. This creates an incentive to make "risky" characters – which includes anyone likely to be seen as offensive, crazy, or stupid – male rather than female. Key word: risk. If the character is a smash hit, then no-one's going to care what their sex or race or whatever is. It's when things go wrong that you have a problem.

[ThunderCat]

No, the argument is that, all things being equal, a flawed female character will attract more criticism than a flawed male character. This creates an incentive to make "risky" characters – which includes anyone likely to be seen as offensive, crazy, or stupid – male rather than female. Key word: risk. If the character is a smash hit, then no-one's going to care what their sex or race or whatever is. It's when things go wrong that you have a problem.

Quoting you from earlier:


The only way you can avoid this kind of criticism is to avoid giving your female characters any really major flaws. Which basically means you can't have wacky female characters, since you can't be the wacky/zany/crazy one unless you're willing to sometimes look stupid.




The way you do that is that you have more than one character in group XYou'd think that would work, but I can tell you from personal experience that it doesn't. :smalltongue:

It's not about the comparative amount of criticism. You're making a pretty black and white statement: Female characters will categorically be criticized unless they have no real flaws, and ThinkMinty's suggestion of including more characters doesn't work.

[Saph]

The OP asked "Why is the guy always the wacky on TV". You apparently didn't have a problem with the word "always" in the question, so I really doubt that your problem with my answer is that it was too "black and white".

And regarding ThinkMinty's suggestion, the reason that I don't think it reliably stops that kind of criticism because I've tried it. (Note: this does not mean the suggestion is a bad one. It just means that insulating yourself from all criticism is impossible.)

[ThunderCat]

The OP asked "Why is the guy always the wacky on TV". You apparently didn't have a problem with the word "always" in the question, so I really doubt that your problem with my answer is that it was too "black and white".)
Plenty of people already answered the OP with different examples. If they hadn't, I probably would have included to some examples of exceptions.

Besides, I found a lot easier to read “always” to really mean “overwhemingly”, since it's frequentely used that way, than to figure out that your “It doesn't work” really meant “It's an effective strategy but nothing will make you completely immune to criticsm”.


And regarding ThinkMinty's suggestion, the reason that I don't think it reliably stops that kind of criticism because I've tried it. (Note: this does not mean the suggestion is a bad one. It just means that insulating yourself from all criticism is impossible.)

And yet you had recently (wrongly, imo) suggested that there actually is a way to avoid criticism (ie. by not giving female characters flaws). I'd argue that including more female characters is often a more effective strategy than just making them bland and boring.

[Saph]

And yet you had recently (wrongly, imo) suggested that there actually is a way to avoid criticism (ie. by not giving female characters flaws).

*sigh* You just quoted me – literally minutes ago – as saying "this kind of criticism" and now you're trying to tell me that I actually meant "all". I'm going to give up replying to you at this point.

[dps]

There are a couple of other things to consider. Often, the "wacky" character is the lead, with more grounded characters in the supporting cast, and the lead is more often male, since actors are often bigger stars than actresses. Also, if a comedy is based on slapstick to a significant degree, a lot of actresses aren't as willing to do slapstick as actors (this is probably less true now than in the past, but it's a big part of why Lucille Ball became such a big comedy star--she was one of the few actresses of the day who was willing to do a lot of slapstick).

And while if is true that TV shows often (not always, as the OP suggests) pair a wacky male character with a more straight-laced female character, I'd note that romantic comedy movies often go the opposite route--a straight-laced male is paired with a more free-spirited female. Even then, though, there's a kind of reverse sexism going on, because usually in such rom-coms, the "flawed" character isn't the grounded, straight-laced one; instead, the male character is portrayed as overly stiff, and the slightly wacky female character has to provide him with a much-needed loosening up.

[ThunderCat]

*sigh* You just quoted me – literally minutes ago – as saying "this kind of criticism" and now you're trying to tell me that I actually meant "all". I'm going to give up replying to you at this point.

You're of course free to disengage if you want to, but I feel like you're reading my posts in bad faith. By “this kind of criticism”, I presume you're talking about this:


So if I write a story with a stupid character and I make that character male, then readers will say "hey, this character is stupid." If I write a story with a stupid character and I make that character female, then most readers will say "hey, this character is stupid." But a substantial minority will instead say "this bothers me, it sounds like the author thinks that all women are stupid."

The only way you can avoid this kind of criticism is to avoid giving your female characters any really major flaws. Which basically means you can't have wacky female characters, since you can't be the wacky/zany/crazy one unless you're willing to sometimes look stupid.

I didn't think it was relevant because I still disagree. You haven't given a single example of a story which has been criticized for stereotyping women simply because one out of several prominent female characters happened to have one or more major flaws. Especially not if those flaws aren't stereotypically feminine.

You've just stated that this happened, and then talked about how female characters are treated in male-dominated stories for, by, and about men. Since I've never seen it happen, I'd like to know what you base your assertion on.

And on a related note, given the huge amount of complaining about male characters being too stupid, I'm not even sure why it's especially relevant if female characters get criticized for having flaws :smallconfused:

[Liquor Box]

Was there a female good guy sidekick in the movie? If no, then yes, the male good guy will eventually win if the good guys win in the movie. However, you did remind me of "Kingsman" where there was a female goodguysidekick but she wasn't where the climax action is so our Hero defeats the female bad guy. However, "it's not that kind of movie". :smallbiggrin:

I thought of another - Blacklist.

In that series the good-guy protagonist (Elizabeth Keen) has a full on fight with Tom Keen (her husband) on at least a couple of occasions. I think he wins each time.

[Liquor Box]

I'm going to go against the grain here and say that it usually does. When most female characters are included explicitly as representatives of their sex, it's really no wonder people believe them to be representative of their sex. And that goes both ways, btw. I've seen just as many complaints about Mary Sues :smallsigh: or alleged propaganda about female superiority, as I have about a lacking or negative portrayal of women in fiction.

But including an equal or greater number of female characters tends to make most of these complaints disappear. Josh Whedon built a career, and a very large female fanbase, on this tactic. His female characters can be loaded with unfortunate implications, but because he includes a lot of them, people don't see it as reflecting badly on women. George Miller used almost every problematic trope in the book, at least if you're to believe the claims about what (straw)feminists and “SJWs” are supposed to have a problem with, but those people absolutely loved Fury Road. Friends was brought up earlier as an example, and if the fact that it's an ensemble cast means it doesn't count, then neither should Parks and Recreation.

MLP: Friendship is Magic has characters that are often unbelievably stupid, but very few people think they're setting a bad example for girls :smallsmile: Dharma & Greg was also mentioned earlier, and is another example of a show with many prominent female characters. Will & Grace is probably a better example, because Grace (and Karen) were nowhere near as nice and charming as Dharma. And the BBC sitcom Keeping Up Appearances centered around a female character who was physically unattractive, completely delusional, and extremely unlikable, and yet I've never heard it be criticized for sexism.
Just commenting on the two shows mentioned that I have seen.

I'm not sure Friends counts per the original post (even beyond being an ensemble). The original post suggested a male whacky character to a female straight character. But Pheobe (who is wacky) plays along side Joey (equally goofy). It's really the two of them as goofballs against the rest of the cast which is straighter. Parks was a bit different because in the first season or so, when Leslie was by far the goofiest character in the first couple of seasons, and Andy was only a minor character - Andy came to prominence when Leslie's portrayal changed to one of hyper-competence.

As to Dharma and Greg, my memory was that the other prominent female characters were also decidedly whacky, although in different ways to Dharma. Greg was perhaps the only character on the show who was portrayed as sensible. It shows that women can be portrayed as the goofy one, but I don't think it supports the suggestion that this can happen when the other female characters are portrayed as sensible.

[ThinkMinty]

Which is great if you're willing to make the cast of every story you write majority-female, but I think at this point, you have to seriously ask whether the gain is worth the restrictions you're placing on yourself.

Women are a slight majority of the human population. Unless the setting calls for otherwise, that'd kind of be what would be organic.

Then again, I tend to view character gender as largely arbitrary, so I'm weird.


No, the argument is that, all things being equal, a flawed female character will attract more criticism than a flawed male character. This creates an incentive to make "risky" characters – which includes anyone likely to be seen as offensive, crazy, or stupid – male rather than female. Key word: risk. If the character is a smash hit, then no-one's going to care what their sex or race or whatever is. It's when things go wrong that you have a problem.

So that's the audience being more critical of female characters than they are of male characters. Which...well, as much as I've seen, that's a pretty real phenomenon.

There's a point where we have to learn to entertain the criticism without letting it get to us as creatives, I guess.

[Captain Raveman]

There have been a few examples of the opposite, such as in Star Vs. The Forces of Evil or The Loud House.

[Reddish Mage]

I am thinking how a guy, to pick up a girl, probably is better approaching in a fun, weird, and interesting manner than "boring straight same old." Don't know what that has to do with TV though.

I think its just a symptom of Males being the main lead. The normal one is rarely in the leader position.

One example I can think of a straight man is Clark Gregg's Coulson in "Agents of SHIELD," but he's just "the boring middle-aged accountant" on the surface, he has that thing were he acts likes it totally normal when his mid-life crisis car stars flying.

Another is the Men in Black movies, where supposedly J (Tommy Lee Jones) is the lead, but everyone takes Will Smith's (K's) perspective and the billing had more to do with contracts...in fact I think that's always true of Tommy Lee Jones's movies.


No, the argument is that, all things being equal, a flawed female character will attract more criticism than a flawed male character. This creates an incentive to make "risky" characters – which includes anyone likely to be seen as offensive, crazy, or stupid – male rather than female. Key word: risk. If the character is a smash hit, then no-one's going to care what their sex or race or whatever is. It's when things go wrong that you have a problem.

I wonder if the criticism is coming from a female angle or a male angle? I find in real life, a girl is more likely to receive biting criticism from her female friends than male ones, and I wonder how it plays out in Hollywood that a "female receives more criticism."

Also, I think the flawed female character being "at risk" for criticism makes for better television, big controversy makes for big shows. Perhaps another dynamic is at play? Like the fact or perception that shows with male leads produce bigger ratings...

[Vinyadan]

I wonder if the criticism is coming from a female angle or a male angle? I find in real life, a girl is more likely to receive biting criticism from her female friends than male ones, and I wonder how it plays out in Hollywood that a "female receives more criticism."


There is a very vocal feminist critique scene which breaks down internally into various, extremely different views of how female representation should be. I don't think they have much weight, however. The main problem with them is that they make ideological interpretation, but their ideology isn't very widespread, so most won't care about what they say.

As for normal women, I wouldn't know. I would expect them to relate more to a female character and consequently to be more irked if it doesn't work, but I never really put much attention on that.

[The Glyphstone]

Another is the Men in Black movies, where supposedly J (Tommy Lee Jones) is the lead, but everyone takes Will Smith's (K's) perspective and the billing had more to do with contracts...in fact I think that's always true of Tommy Lee Jones's movies.



You meant this in reverse right? TLJ played K, WS played J.

[eggynack]

Bob's Burgers is a good one. Bob is usually, though not always, the straight man to Linda's insanity. I also disagree with the general assessment of late Parks and Rec strictly reducing Leslie wackiness. Season one Leslie is more buffoonish, less competent, and a bit of an ass. The comparison to Michael Scott is an obvious one, and one that was made often at the time. Later Leslie is competent and intelligent, but she's still fundamentally wacky. Just in a different way. Same kinda thing is what actually happened with Andy. He started out as a stupid jerk, and turned into a stupid awesome guy. Really, the thing that limits Parks' ability to hold this title is that most of the characters are crazy. Sure, Ann isn't, and Mark wasn't, but really, more of the comedy comes from different kindsa crazy interacting than from crazy meeting normal.

Also, kinda sorta Death Note. Though that one I'm convinced actually is sexist. Just, like, as a general show. Good show, sure, but my second or third sentence describing it is that it's kinda sexist. Either way, Misa is a bit on the wacky side, though she could also be thought of as being on the insane side, which could be different. Whatever.

To that larger sexism argument, it's a bit harder to justify all of these claims premised on it given how weak the premise is. There are all kindsa works with wacky ladies, and most of them don't attract much criticism. I feel like writers feel safe making their ladies wacky, and that audiences are cool with said ladies being wacky, and that, whether the numbers are equivalent or not, we can see a lot of wacky ladies hanging around in media. I don't even usually see it as weird when I see it show up. Usually, when something out of the ordinary happens, I'm like, "Oh, hey, they're having this weird thing happen. Kudos to them." Here, I typically just watch the show, and say, "Oh, hey, check out this show that's maybe good. I enjoy/don't enjoy it. Look at them other qualities." Y'know? I don't see such a work as progressive.

[2D8HP]

I'm 48 and most of the television I watched growing up were reruns from previous decades, in which sometimes the "wacky" one would be played by a women (Lucy, The Flying Nun), and other times the "wacky" one would be played by a man (Dr. Smith, Gilligan), I don't watch much current television, but even in the '90's I remember both men and women playing "wacky".
Are there really no "wacky" women on TV anymore?
The 21st Century continues to bewilder me.

[Leewei]

I'm 48 and most of the television I watched growing up were reruns from previous decades, in which sometimes the "wacky" one would be played by a women (Lucy, The Flying Nun), and other times the "wacky" one would be played by a man (Dr. Smith, Gilligan), I don't watch much current television, but even in the '90's I remember both men and women playing "wacky".
Are there really no "wacky" women on TV anymore?
The 21st Century continues to bewilder me.

There certainly are women playing goofball characters on TV. The assertion that there aren't, or that goofball guys are overrepresented, seems to be unsubstantiated.

[Donnadogsoth]

There certainly are women playing goofball characters on TV. The assertion that there aren't, or that goofball guys are overrepresented, seems to be unsubstantiated.

I think a better question would be how popular are these respective things? Do audiences prefer wacky men to wacky women or vice versa?

[2D8HP]

There certainly are women playing goofball characters on TV. The assertion that there aren't, or that goofball guys are overrepresented, seems to be unsubstantiated.That's what I suspected.
Thanks.
So it's sort of tangential, it's also a myth that women in old movies were always "weak" and men were always "strong", while more rare in the 1950's (and to some extent in the '60's), the movies of the '30's and '40's had plenty of "strong" as well as "wacky" women (and "wacky", "strong" and "weak" men).
My grandmother worked in a factory alongside men. My great-grandmother likewise on the farm.
The era when most adult women in the United States were "housewives", was only for a brief two generations after the second World War, if even that.

[tomandtish]

Stargate SG-1 with the main lead Col Jonathan Jack. O'Neill (that O'Neill with two lls, there is another O'Neil with one L and he is not that very funny). O'Neill leads SG-1 a 4 person team with him, Samantha Carter (the wacky nerd, worm-hole astrophysicist, yet captain in the air force), Daniel Jackson the language, religion and archaeologist expert, and Teal'C the human/alien hybrid called the Jaffa.

O'Neill special ability was he used to be in the Special Forces for the Air Force and they used him to do Covert Missions where he had to Parachute behind enemy lines and O'Neill had to do nasty things. In Stargate he is now doing the same job except no parachute and it is instead him walking through a wormhole created via an alien artifiact.

Now O'Neill is often making humorous quips but a large part of it is to show how much he is outside his element, the quips are often smarter versions of the saying we are not in kansas anymore, or are forms of sarcasm at the situation that O'Neill can't change the situation such as he can't punch someone nor order someone who works in the equivalent of the intelligence branch of the pentagon that does not follow his chain of command.

He also mocks the villains since the villains are a form of parasitic snake that inhabit human hosts and pose as human mythological gods with the aid of advanced technology which they use to emulate magical powers.

-------------

Contrast this with Samantha Carter who is actually kinda normal some of the time but gets all wacky when science and technology is involved.

I always got a chuckle about O'Neill "Two L's. There's another one and that guy has no sense of humor!" being played as unintelligent. As a Colonel, unless he received AND KEPT a combat promotion, he's got an equivalent of a Master's degree (Most of them go to the War College). So maybe not as smart as the other three, but definitely not an idiot.

Edit: Actually, in doing some research battlefield commissions (raising an enlisted to an officer) or promotions of officer level rank stopped after the Vietnam War. They can do acting designations in emergencies, but they do not carry after the emergency anymore for officer level. They can be used for non-com ranks since 2009 (at least in the Army and Marines).

[Callos_DeTerran]

Argh, yes, this. I was watching an anime, "History's Mightiest Disciple Kenichi", which is an over-the-top martial arts show. The disciple in question gets attacked by a phenomenally skilled street fighter, and refuses to punch her because she's a girl and it's against his code to fight girls. And I'm sitting there just growling, "You goddamn *******, one of your mentors is a girl, your training partner is a girl, this girl is beating the crap out of you, stop being a sexist dipstick and PUNCH HER".

But no, we're supposed to be so happy that the guy didn't punch the girl. It's a total affirmation of his good nature. NO IT IS NOT, SHOW.

To be fair, the manga doesn't treat that quality of Kenichi's as a positive or negative quality....just as a quality of his that almost gets him killed a few times.

In fact most of his friends and teachers tell him that he's being foolish and his enemies or even just opponents won't give him the same courtesy.

Nor does he not hit them because he thinks he'll hurt them or that they're weaker than he is (he is very aware that the women and girls in his life are badasses in their own right, if not capable of kicking his a as seven ways to Sunday)...he's just not comfortable hitting a girl..eventually he's proficient enough with grappling that he's able to restrain female opponents and end the fight that way by making them give up.

Show never gets that far to my knowledge.

[Aotrs Commander]

I always got a chuckle about O'Neill "Two L's. There's another one and that guy has no sense of humor!" being played as unintelligent. As a Colonel, unless he received AND KEPT a combat promotion, he's got an equivalent of a Master's degree (Most of them go to the War College). So maybe not as smart as the other three, but definitely not an idiot.

Edit: Actually, in doing some research battlefield commissions (raising an enlisted to an officer) or promotions of officer level rank stopped after the Vietnam War. They can do acting designations in emergencies, but they do not carry after the emergency anymore for officer level. They can be used for non-com ranks since 2009 (at least in the Army and Marines).

Ah, Jack is nowhere near as daft as he acts and lets everyone (not sharp enough to see through him) actually think he is. Like somewhere between Grimlock (Marvel comics continuity, who spoke all dumb-like but was actually nobody's fool) and Dave Lister (who is just too lazy to use his brain), Jack prefers to let the others do all the really complex science-thinking and plays it up a bit, since he does like the simple things... (They made him Hammond's replacement in the latter seasons, fer frag's sake!)

[dps]

I'm 48 and most of the television I watched growing up were reruns from previous decades, in which sometimes the "wacky" one would be played by a women (Lucy, The Flying Nun), and other times the "wacky" one would be played by a man (Dr. Smith, Gilligan), I don't watch much current television, but even in the '90's I remember both men and women playing "wacky".
Are there really no "wacky" women on TV anymore?
The 21st Century continues to bewilder me.

The reason Lucille Ball ended up becoming a comedy actress was because she was willing to do "wacky" stuff like take a pie in the face. A lot of actresses of her generation weren't willing to do things like that, because it was felt that it detracted from their physical attractiveness (and let's face it, in Hollywood, actresses, especially those just starting out and trying to make a name for themselves, get judged very heavily on appearance). I don't think the attitude that doing "wacky" comedy might detract from the perceived attractiveness of an actress is as widespread now as back then, but I'd say it still exists. I would point out that many successful comedy actresses from even the last 30 years or so are women who aren't considered conventionally beautiful, or even "pretty" by show business standards--Rosanne Barry, Melissa McCarthy, etc.

[Aotrs Commander]

The reason Lucille Ball ended up becoming a comedy actress was because she was willing to do "wacky" stuff like take a pie in the face. A lot of actresses of her generation weren't willing to do things like that, because it was felt that it detracted from their physical attractiveness (and let's face it, in Hollywood, actresses, especially those just starting out and trying to make a name for themselves, get judged very heavily on appearance). I don't think the attitude that doing "wacky" comedy might detract from the perceived attractiveness of an actress is as widespread now as back then, but I'd say it still exists. I would point out that many successful comedy actresses from even the last 30 years or so are women who aren't considered conventionally beautiful, or even "pretty" by show business standards--Rosanne Barry, Melissa McCarthy, etc.

I would cautiously like to hope that the current generation of folk from stuff like Disney's or Nickelodoen sitcoms might start to erode that a bit more... But then again, it seems a bit like many of the actresses in those tend to hit the point where they are sort-of given the boot for being too old or whatever and go a bit crazy-bonkers and stuff, so...

[snowblizz]

I'm 48 and most of the television I watched growing up were reruns from previous decades, in which sometimes the "wacky" one would be played by a women (Lucy, The Flying Nun), and other times the "wacky" one would be played by a man (Dr. Smith, Gilligan), I don't watch much current television, but even in the '90's I remember both men and women playing "wacky".
Are there really no "wacky" women on TV anymore?
The 21st Century continues to bewilder me.


There certainly are women playing goofball characters on TV. The assertion that there aren't, or that goofball guys are overrepresented, seems to be unsubstantiated.

The original premise was the apparent lack of male/female duos where the man is played straight and the woman is the whacky one as opposed to the many many examples of the "trope" "played straight".

I haven't in detial studied all previous responses but the best inversion of the trope (excuse my tvtropy language here) seems to be Dharma and Greg and The Nanny. According to Jim, Married with Children, My wife and kids, King of Queens, Everybody Loves Raymond all veer towards the trope. Though could be argued to be more of "ensamble cast" type pieces, which it seems is much much much more common for comedies. I'd suggest amybe Will&Grace but despite the titling seems also to be a bit of ensamble piece where really Will is the only sane one and everyone seemed whacky IMHO.

I think the last discussion centered around the seeming occurance where a whacky female would usually be mitigated by others around here (Phoebe is matched by Joey, Elaine is balanced by George same as Grace shares whacky time with Jack) whereas a whacky guy would be front and centre the main premise of the show.

Based on my consumption of 80s 90s and 00s sitcoms I can't fault the OP for asking the question.

[Flickerdart]

How about Veronica in Better Off Ted? Wacky isn't really the word I'd use, but she's definitely the source of many a fine shenanigan. Amy from Big Bang Theory is also a wacky one, and I'd be remiss not to mention the vastly superior IT Crowd where everyone including Jen is wack. Gilmore Girls has pretty much two people who even approach rationality, and both are men (Richard and Luke); everyone else is wackier than wack.

I think there are actually fewer examples than counter-examples. In Brooklyn Nine-Nine the female lead is less wacky than the male lead. The Good Place has a "normal" female lead and its share of wacky dudes and dames. Then of course there's Sherlock, where Mary and Mrs. Hudson are pretty much the only normal people.

[snowblizz]

Amy from Big Bang Theory is also a wacky one,
Well Penny is rather wacky as well. And Wolowitz, and Raj and... and we have an ensemble piece. Of all the characters on TBBT Amy actually strikes me as least wacky. She's not the first one to do something silly, nor the third... in fact she has I'd say become the measuring stick of "do you ppl realise how insane you are behaving anymore?". Ignoring the ensemble cast dynamics both Bernadette and Amy actually play a more traditional not silly roles compared ot the respective partners to bounce off.

[Flickerdart]

Well Penny is rather wacky as well. And Wolowitz, and Raj and... and we have an ensemble piece. Of all the characters on TBBT Amy actually strikes me as least wacky. She's not the first one to do something silly, nor the third... in fact she has I'd say become the measuring stick of "do you ppl realise how insane you are behaving anymore?". Ignoring the ensemble cast dynamics both Bernadette and Amy actually play a more traditional not silly roles compared ot the respective partners to bounce off.

Penny is not wacky in the least. She's self-absorbed, shallow, intellectually uncurious, and self-centered, but not wacky at all. Howard is not wacky either, he just has a mother complex and a love of belts. Raj just likes his dog too much. Amy's no Sheldon but she's close.

[snowblizz]

Penny is not wacky in the least. She's self-absorbed, shallow, intellectually uncurious, and self-centered, but not wacky at all. Howard is not wacky either, he just has a mother complex and a love of belts. Raj just likes his dog too much. Amy's no Sheldon but she's close.

Now you make me curious. What exactly is Amy doing that's considered wacky?