5 ms·
He's quite full of himself (the show was called "Seinfeld" after all, before hardly anyone recognized that name), but I think that's part of the comedic persona
by manholio 4y ago
He's quite full of himself (the show was called "Seinfeld" after all, before hardly anyone recognized that name), but I think that's part of the comedic persona, that's his routine, a snob successful man.
A thing I really find off-putting is the overt misogyny of the Seinfeld character in the series - he's a ladies man and has very little regard or respect for his romantic conquests, over 70 throughout the series, iirc. Jerry's love interests are a source of gags, but the fact that he's essentially a sexual addict if never addressed or mocked.
I realize the character is not the same as the comedian, but it's hard to disentangle the two, especially if he owns up to such a large influence on the final text. It's as if a woman was never involved in the writing so she could object to the disposable nature of Jerry's female companions. Is it a personal fantasy that's being projected, is it a comedic version of his real life? I don't know.
- seehafer 4y agoCarol Leifer was a writer on the show for many years and the inspiration for Elaine, as she was an ex-girlfriend of Jerry’s and they remained friends after the breakup.
- Panoramix 4y ago>it's hard to disentangle the two It's not hard at all. It's a TV show.
- conradfr 4y agoWell the show motto was "no hugging, no learning". But don't you think Elaine was a "strong independent woman"?
- seattle_spring 4y agoDo you feel that Elaine was misandrist for basically treating men the same way?
- theclansman 4y agoElaine literally says that she hates men on the show lol.
- MisterBastahrd 4y agoI don't know why it's off-putting that Jerry was always failing at relationships. There's never an insinuation that he's a sexual addict. He just has a ton of first dates because he's a weirdo and so are his friends. It was fairly common for characters in that era of sitcoms to date a stream of new people. The only difference between Jerry and other characters was that the dating was usually a method of creating tension for characters who fans thought SHOULD have been dating. But that type of storytelling requires a sort of earnest humility in the character, and the Jerry Seinfeld character had none to give. Elaine did the exact same sort of thing with men in her relationships.
- _rutinerad 4y agoTo me it just seems like they're exploring the funny side of relationships. That they started with funny observations about relationships and then picked a combination of main character and side(?) character that made sense to play out each joke. None of the main characters have any regard or respect for their romantic conquests - once the joke is done, they move on to the next thing. Just like they don't have respect for each other or anything else in the universe - except parents.
- kortilla 4y agoPeople who look to polish their hobby horse always seem to find a way. The Elaine character is exactly the same and you didn’t pull out your misandrist violin for some reason. Care to reflect on that?
- manholio 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Fervicus 4y agoForced gender and identity based virtue signalling gets so tiring.
- astura 4y agoYet, it's not nearly as tiring as as people accusing other people of "force[ing] gender and identity based virtue signalling." Especially since accusing others of virtue signalling is, itself, a form of [virtue] signalling - https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=42280 https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=42280
- theclansman 4y agoThis doesn't make any sense as one of these is logically less in volume than the other one, since it's just a reaction to the first virtue signaling. It's probably more tiring to you because you post stuff like that a lot.
- manholio 4y agoIt makes sense because the latter is by definition a form of virtue signaling while the former is just presumed to be. Virtue signaling involves intent, so a person pointing out something is, say, misogynistic might do it because they are really concerned about the topic and it's the way they feel, even taking the risk of an unpopular opinion. Whereas someone denouncing them for virtue signaling is overtly engaging in virtue signaling, i.e. publicly proclaiming their distaste or disinterest to the topic. Unlike the first case, there is no larger public interest the denouncer claims to protect.
- astura 4y ago>It's probably more tiring to you because you post stuff like that a lot. Nope, I absolutely do not, nobody in my life has ever accused me of virtue signalling or even implied it. Try again. >one of these is logically less in volume than the other one You're absolutely right, accusing someone of "virtue signalling" is certainly more voluminous! The absolute only reason to accuse someone of virtue signalling is because the accuser themselves want to publicly signal their values to others and show their group affinity.
- eej71 4y agoMany successful comedic shows are named after their creators. Bob Newhart had _two_ shows to his name. Carol Burnett had a show named after herself too. Of course, I'm dating myself by readily recalling those. :-)
- astura 4y agoMaking the characters somewhat amoral jerks was very much intentional - the mantra of the show was "No hugging, no learning." >I realize the character is not the same as the comedian, but it's hard to disentangle the two No, it's really not.