Family Guy meets Jersey Shore

A

Adna

New member
Call this the germ of an idea for a TZ blog post, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

Family Guy repeatedly has "jokes" about violence against women and it barely causes a stir. Just in the last week of reruns on Adult Swim, I've noticed two instances of this: an Asian version of Peter punches out an Asian version of Lois; and an Irish pub is named "Wifey McBeater".

And then MTV's "Jersey Shore" comes along showing a woman getting sucker-punched and the media has a field day over it causing the entire episode to get yanked.

Is the difference in viewer/media reaction due to the fact that one is a reality show and the other is a cartoon and it's simply dismissed as a gag?

Granted, all of the FG characters often take a pounding on the show in one way or another. But I find FG's gags about violence and agresssion towards women unsettling because they're repeated so often. Heck, the abuse of one of the show's main characters, Meg, has become a running gag -- abused by pretty much every character on the show (except maybe Neil Goldman).

In Googling "Family+Guy+violence+women" there have been other articles and bloggers addressing this issue. Not being a regular viewer of FG (for reasons like this), perhaps I'm coming in late on the discusssion. But I'd be very interested to read comments from our members -- whether you're a fan of the show or not.
 
None of what happens on Family Guy bothers me because nothing and no one is sacred. Everybody's a target. The contrast to all the violence against women in Family Guy is probably the episode where Lois learns kung fu and kicks everybody's ass, even her sensei. Or maybe the episode where Peter is forced to go through sensitivity training as a result of his cruel jokes? Everybody takes a turn, really, and nobody comes out ahead.

I don't watch Jersey Shore so I can't compare and contrast, but a quick Google search suggests it's a reality show? That's a huge difference. It's being presented as unscripted entertainment showing real people in their natural element (supposedly, anyways.) That could be seen as condoning the actions on display as opposed to merely using them to generate a laugh. In a cartoon, no one gets hurt.
 
Because FG is using domestic violence as a joke. Sure, this is a very questionable use of the topic and would definitely be considered to make light of the situation, but it still shouldn't be taken seriously.

And yeah, the fact that it's a cartoon while the other was a reality show helps. Imagine if a live-action show had someone like Peter Griffin on the cast.
 
Because you were trying to stir some weird agenda stating that family guy hates asian which isn't true because they get made fun of just as much as every race and creed that they get a hold on. And you wouldn't listen to reason.

But to get on topic though I think the media doesn't get on Family guy as much because they notice that it's to big to go up against. It's just like South Park and the episode about them saying **** over a 100 times. It's just how Family guy does and they aren't gonna change just because someone complains because they'll say don't watch it which is true. Although they could just tone it down but not to the point where episodes are edited and cut. The only reason Jersey shore is getting a bad rap because it's a real woman and it isn't for comedy also the show already has bad rap because they're embarrasing their culture.
 
You make it sound like I'm trying to brainwash people to my beliefs or something. I just noted that the Asian jokes seemed a lot more frequent than other race jokes, so they kind of started to stick out.
 
Well you were stating it like family guy hated asians. If you look at the first season there was hardly any aside from the trisha takanawa jokes.
 
I think all the Jersey Shore hoopla is because it's a reality show. As in real. The violence in Jersey Shore was not scripted, or planned in advance. They didn't tell a joke about a woman being hit, they actually showed a woman being hit in real life, by someone who really intended to hurt her. Regardless of how offensive you think Family Guy's domestic abuse jokes are, no one is being physically hurt, and the writers aren't advocating domestic abuse either.
 
@Behonkis and JDO8: If we could please keep this discussion civil, that would be greatly appreciated. Your comments are on the brink of being moderated and I'd like to avoid that.

@chdr: Please don't misquote me. I never said I was "offended" by the way domestic violence is portrayed on FG for (and I can't believe I'm saying this) the sake of a gag. I said I found it "unsettling." For one thing, even if I thought those gags were amusing, I would feel weird laughing at it. And if I did find them funny, I think I might need to have my mental health evaluated. My opinion is that it's simply for shock value, and violence gags in general are a crutch the writers rely on far too often when they can't think of any other way to end a scene.

I thought I already said it was.

Yep, I did:



That would be true, except for the way people sometimes react to the show's content. This isn't the best example, but do you think Entertainment Weekly staffers weren't hurt by Peter's arse-wiping gag? I personally thought it was hilarious, but I wonder if it was really necessary for the writers to stoop that low in retaliation to getting a poor review. It was a typically juvenile, over-the-top reaction for FG.

I'm still undecided on whether or not this is worth the time involved to research it for TZ's blog. I just thought it might be an interesting topic to address. And I do appreciate your feedback thus far. Anyone else is more than welcome to chime in. If I do decide to write it, I'll be contacting some members requesting permission to repost their comments.
 
^ I wasn't actually referring to you or anyone in particular with that comment. I just think that jokes and fictional depictions of domestic abuse are not on the same level as the real deal.
 
Was it necessary? Not at all. Was it warranted? Well, why not?

To clarify, my intention was for my statement to only apply to physical pain, not mental anguish. People can get offended over anything, so for Family Guy staff to say "No, we can't do that joke, someone's feelings might get hurt" strikes me as absolutely ludicrous. I hate censorship in all its forms and have no issue with telling others so. The PTC just filed a complaint with the FCC over last Sunday's episode of Family Guy because it showed a stripper. Oddly, both American Dad and The Cleveland Show have featured strippers this season and we didn't hear one word from the PTC about either case (which I am quite pleased about. I'd rather they shut their yaps, permanently.) So why the double standard? Do they only care about Family Guy because it's the top of the food chain? Do they pretend it doesn't exist until they randomly channel surf past it and then scream "OH MY GOD I'M OFFENDED?" I don't get it. Nor do I really care.

If you don't like Family Guy, you shouldn't be watching it. EW is a different case because they're professional reviewers, so they have to watch it. But in what kind of world would it fair if EW could say "We don't like Family Guy" and Family Guy couldn't say "Well, we won't don't like EW" back? Because if I had to take a side on the issue, I'd take FG's side. I love Family Guy and I think EW is trash.
 
Back
Top