Saturday, 5 December 2015

The families in US family-based sit coms.

Let's compare the families in three of my household's favourites: The Simpsons, Family Guy and The Goldbergs:

Homer, Peter, Murray

Fat slobs in not very exciting or ambitious jobs. Politically disinterested and very politically incorrect and undiplomatic. Very lax approach to parenting. It is never clear why they got married and had children in the first place but they love their wives by default, by force of habit as much as anything.

Marge, Lois, Beverley

Full time housewives. Relatively attractive. Married beneath themselves but seem to love their husbands - it is never quite clear why. More politically aware: Marge is more Democrat and Beverley is more Republican. Pushy with their husbands and ambitious for their children.

Bart, Chris, Barry

The first-born son. Do badly at school, lazy around the house but adventurous or at least in their own imaginations. Bully their siblings.

Lisa, Meg, Erica

The first-born daughter. Look down on the rest of their family, are bullied by them and get their own back by scheming. Do well at school. Politically engaged, ready to take up left wing causes like the environment etc.

Maggie, Stewie, Adam

The youngest child/the baby. Maggie just an eternal baby. Stewie is an evil genius and Adam is a documentary film maker, but both have rich fantasy lives.


Lola said...

Seems about right for most of us eh?

Mark Wadsworth said...

L, most of us in some respects, I guess.

Random said...

What about two child examples?

BTW, I have been arguing for LVT (the conversation is initially about JG but moved onto LVT and 'compensating' people 'for the housing costs in London' which we know just raises land prices.

He says in comments:

"We can say this if we choose. We can also say no-one has a right to live in the SE of England. Or we can say no-one has a right to live within a 100km radius or 200 km radius or whatever. So where do we draw the line here? Where do they have a right to live?

The same arguments apply to those who might have been born and brought up in a rural area which has recently become very expensive . Like parts of Oxfordshire for example.Do we go in for social cleansing in parts of the country?"

I support "social cleansing" now apparently. People are fully compensated! Surely he cannot be arguing the current system is better.

Mark Wadsworth said...

R, that is a traditional KLN

"Poor people will be forced out of nice areas and will be forced to live in ghettoes"

It's all bollocks. Admittedly, LVT speeds up the process but it will happen anyway.