Seth MacFarlane, writer of the Family Guy a show filled with dirty jokes and political anti-correctness announced on a panel at Comic Con that he is producing an episode about abortion in the upcoming season of Family Guy, but it looks like 20th Century Fox will not air the show.
MacFarlane revealed he's producing a controversial episode about abortion for the upcoming season. But he and others on the panel said that Fox was unlikely to air the episode."20th Century Fox, as always, allowed us to produce the episode and then said, 'You know what? We're scared to f--king death of this,'" MacFarlane said.
The episode will probably be available on DVD, he added.
A Fox spokesperson said that no decision has yet been made on the matter.
There were few details offered about the content of the episode, but given the show's penchant for political incorrectness -- it has in the past featured a character wearing a McCain/Palin button on an SS uniform, among other flourishes -- it's unlikely Planned Parenthood would use the episode in a PSA anytime soon.
They are not sure if they will air it or not and it doesn't surprise me that Fox would be "afraid" to air it. I wonder if another network would air it. This is brilliant marketing for them, since Family Guy is known for pushing the envelope and if they release it on DVD, they will sell that many more.
I guess no one is seeing the real humor in that unless you are avidly pro-life and anti-women's right to chose, abortion is not really a fringe topic that is so edgy it must be banned from TV. Again not shocking, but maybe they should try something easier like period jokes, until they can get with the really big scary stuff.
Update: Fox released a statement that they will not be broadcasting the episode.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Family Guy "Abortion" Episode Will Most Likely Not be Run on Fox.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15216
I dunno, Family Guy's "progressivism" is pretty sexist and obnoxious... I doubt their Abortion episode is going to be in the same vein as their FCC episode (when it's something that threatens the show's creator personally, he can be quite acidic against the right wing). I suspect he's going to make jokes about how "both extremes are so kooky and nutty, why can't we just keep abortion legal, even though total slutbombs use them, and we made an icky aborted fetus puppet musical number, sometimes our daughters need them too, you know? Now, let's show Quagmire's rape machine again, cuz it's funny and edgy!"
I'd love to see more responsible representations of abortion on TV, Family Guy is definitely not the venue.
You are so right. I used to love Family Guy, and sometimes I think they still have flashes of brilliance (the pot episode was pretty good), but when it comes to women he sucks. At first it only irked me that Meg was the butt of all the jokes, but when in the season finale she's a grotesque dead body in their "Stand By Me" parody...I was extremely upset. Not fucking funny, Seth, not when we live in a society that routinely subjects women to violence and death and sees them as disposable.
Point being...I don't think this episode is going to be some progressive exploration of abortion, and maybe Fox pulled it because they FINALLY decided that he crossed a goddamn line.
It is and it isn't. Well, what I mean is that from a political standpoint it is--the show is boastfully liberal/progressive/left-wing, however you want to put it, from a moral-of-the-story perspective. The show often has a sociopolitical message and I don't agree that he'll present "both sides as kooky and nutty." He'll knock the anti-choicers. Brian is the voice of reason on the show and he is a leftist, through and through. Pro-gay-marriage, pro-legalized-marijuana, pro-comprehensive-sex-ed, anti-war and anti-religious-fundamentalism. I would be shocked if the show's overall message was anything other than pro-choice at face value; the overall bent will probably be that abortion should be kept safe and legal.
However, the episode is bound to screw it up and make over-arching generalizations about the women's movement and women who get pregnant accidentally. Girls will be called irresponsible sluts who have the right to kill their babies and pro-choicers will probably be fat ugly lesbians. Yawn. To be honest, I think the stereotypes will just be boring.
Either way, as a one-time big fan who's since developped a love-hate relationship with the show, I must say I'm pretty curious to see it.
Let's think about this: are the people who would be offended by abortion going to be watching Family Guy?
Further: is anyone who is easily offended going to watch Family Guy?
Obvs not.
Family Guy is about as progressive as a wooden spoon. I can't imagine abortion being treated any better than Seth Macfarlane treats violence against women, rape, or race. He just rehashes old jokes, and not in an ironic way.
Can't say I agree with that sentiment. His offensive humor is often if not mostly ironic.
What definition of "ironic" would you say that MacFarlane's offensive humour satisfies?
"He just rehashes old jokes, and not in an ironic way."
True, there would be no "storylines" if there wasn't--oh---every tv show and movie of the 80's to parody.
I'll admit, I'm curious to see what they come up with for the topic of abortion, given the show's general all-around pathetic view of women. Even though I'm pretty much expecting a rehashing of the Breakfast Club with Meg as the "Basket Case" character and maybe Brian as the Judd Nelson guy and something about abortion thrown in.
Also, anyone notice that in the picture of the Griffins here, all three children look unhappy? (as does Brian?) What's up with that?
I love Family Guy. It's hilarious when it's both offensive to progressives and reactionaries. I'm sure the abortion-related episode will be both anti-conservative and anti-feminist. I bet it will also be funny.
You realize of course that "progressive" is not the antonym of "reactionary." That's like saying that Grey is the antonym of Black.
A Reactionary is someone who is ultra-rightwing.
A Radical is someone who is ultra-leftwing.
A Conservative is someone who identifies with the policies of the right.
A Progressive (also known as a Liberal) is someone who identifies with the policies of the left.
You see, after years of hearing the word "Liberal" spat out like the word "Pedophile," and watching as people who were liberal slowly drifted right and the word liberal didn't really come to describe left-leaning policies, many liberals began to identify as "Progressives" instead.
This has been your lesson in Basic Political English 101. Please come back next week and we'll discuss the difference between Communism and Socialism.
And here's a few lessons for you: First, Webster's defines "radical" as "marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional." This can apply to either the left or right wing--it doesn't specifically apply to the ultra-left wing but the ultra-anything. Second, most political theory that focuses on class and ideology defines progressive as those who wish to move forward towards whatever that ideology considers best and reactionary as those who wish to hold back, so in many contexts they are autonomous. Third, "leftwing" and "rightwing" are not words, they are phrases.
I'd love employ my MA in English and my Ph.D. in Political Science in any other discussions on political English you wish to have. Moreover, my second field in Poli Sci is Political Philosophy, and I comped on Marx. So I'd also be glad to discuss the difference between Communism and Socialism.
re?ac?tion?ar?y
??/ri?æk???n?ri/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ree-ak-shuh-ner-ee] Show IPA adjective, noun, plural -ar?ies.
Use reactionary in a Sentence
–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, marked by, or favoring reaction, esp. extreme conservatism or rightism in politics; opposing political or social change.
Synonyms:
1, 2. ultraconservative.
Antonyms:
1, 2. radical.
Oy, okay I'll take the bait.
Yes that is one definition and one set of synonyms and antonyms. But as it turns out, words in English have multiple definitions and sets of synonyms and antonyms. Go ahead and type in reactionary into every online thesaurus you can find and/or look it up in every paper one. You'll find progressive as an antonym almost every time.
Start with Thesaurus.com and move on from there. Good luck.
I think Ponygirl's main issue, besides the condescension and entitlement spewing from the reply, is the disregard for Capital and lowercase designations of ideology vs philosophy. Liberal and liberal are different as are Progressive and progressive.
One debatable point is the usage of radical. It can be used with any ideology (as can progressive) but generally it has to do with the root of something. Usually the root of the system.
"Right" and "Left" don't really exist.
I agree with this, and would edit "Socialism" and "Communism" in my exchanges to "socialism" and "communism." Anyway, I don't want to try and close debate here, and if there's a point here that relates to feminism I'd love to keep it going. Otherwise, I feel this is non-germane to this forum.
Condescension? Ponygirl was the one who was condescending:
"This has been your lesson in Basic Political English 101. Please come back next week and we'll discuss the difference between Communism and Socialism."
In the USSR, reactionary meant ultra-left and progressive meant less authoritarian and in favour of reform. They are often used as contrasts, but don't necessarily tie into the left-right spectrum of politics.
LAWL pwn.
Thought it was needed given the condescension on both sides going on here.
You contend that you have a PhD in poli sci and then you cite Webster's for your argument??? Bwah ha ha ha ha!!!!!!
Actually, scratch that. Since this blog is called "Feministing" and not "Nitpicking About Definitions In A Pretentious Manner," I'd much rather discuss feminism.
j-dog, could you let me know how you master approving your own comment more than once? Does it involve deleting cookies and then clicking the 'Liked' button over and over? Because I have a feeling you might know.
Some of their jokes are pretty sexist...and even in American Dad (I think it's created by the same people? well even if it's not...the drawings looks similar and the mother is kinda laughed at when she tries to be a working mom...real progressive, but eh I can't help but to like the show still). I think the most important thing for me is to be able to laugh...even if it's supposed to offend me...as long as I realize it's sexist or racist etc. Although, I'd be more offended by sexist jokes than ones about Latinos or Mexicans because I've been laughing at jokes related to race my whole life. I think some people will disagree with me but I try not to get easily offended with these types of shows...like I said, I always laugh at jokes dealing with race, especially if it's about Mexican Americans since I am one and it just doesn't bother me.
There was a South Park episode where the whole premise was that if you pulled one episode of Family Guy due to controversy, you could get another pulled off, and another, until it was off the air. Oh please let that be the case.
The show is not only sexist and racist, most children's cartoons have more wit. I cringe to think of them attempting to explain reproductive rights.
Are you saying you support feminism as well as censorship?
I'm saying I support taking crappy shows who've more than gone past their prime off Fox.
I'm saying I support taking crappy shows who've more than gone past their prime off Fox.
I'm saying I support taking crappy shows who've more than gone past their prime off Fox.
Fair enough.
Doug, you are CLEARLY out-witted!
LMAO!!!!
How is it censorship, exactly, to wish that a show you disagree with were off the air?
I happen to think the Twilight series is sexist crap and I wish it were never written, but it's not like I'm writing angry letters to Borders that they yank the title from their shelves. And even that's a pretty loose definition of censorship.
Or, are you saying that you support Family Guy and THOUGHT CRIME PROSECUTION?
I brought up censorship because that's what the South Park episode was about. If you say that we can't say or think one thing that's a slippery slope that allows someone to control everything that one thinks and says. It was a simple question.
I think supporting the right for corporate interests and the government to eliminate shows that contain viewpoints that some group finds offensive would be an excellent example of what you call "THOUGHT CRIME PROSECUTION" and of course do not support that, do you?
Wow, Doug! You really hung in there! I would've thought you would have been bored shitless way before this!
considering that they do that already, i'd say it's not so much favoring "thought crime prosecution" to wish that it work on the side of one's values more often than against...
i mean, some shows get cut... others don't... i sure wish that Bill O'Reilly didn't have a tv show... especially considering that Jane Akre and Steve Wilson have lost their show due to the actions of Monsanto... on the same network...
doesn't mean i'm in favor of policing thought, just that, while thought (and expression) is being policed, it would be nice if it weren't so heavily weighted against people i see as allies.
but, then, i haven't seen that south park (the opening music really grates on me, so i almost never watch)...
I support people being able to dislike shows and wish they were off the air without that being conflated to the act of a government or corporation actively censoring speech.
I hate that attitude a lot of people have (often Family guy fans) that if you get offended by things you are "over-sensitive" and need to "lighten up".
Anyway, I hate family guy with a burning passion. Until Seth Macfarlane gets raped, I think he should stay off the subject. As for the Abortion topic, I think Mighty Ponygirl's first post pretty much sums up anything FG could have to add to it.
The show is not funny. It just makes crude jokes about sensitive subjects for the sake of it. That, in itself in not funny. Good humour depends on timing, logic and pathos. Family guy lacks ALL of those things in its writing.
Wow, nella, I'm impressed that you were so insightful that you could nail down what other philosophers have been unable to for centuries! And with only three criteria. Genius! Now I know what "good" humor "depends on".
aww, thanks : )
...are you sure you didn't mean bathos, though?
No, Pathos. Think about it. Unless you're just wikipediaing this stuff. Then forget about it.
THAT was irony. Coupled with my timing and pathos...funny.
I hate that attitude a lot of people have (often Family guy fans) that if you get offended by things you are "over-sensitive" and need to "lighten up"
I think this stems from people wanting to believe they're not offensive in their senses of humor. You rightfully point out that it's not Family Guy specific, but any "edgy" humor -- including acts like Shirley Q Liquor.
Hilarious. Anyway, what I'm saying is, all good comedy has an emotional/pathetic element. So Pathos is essential. Bathos HAS pathos if you like.
Ummm, I think what you were tying to do was define humor based on your personal standards of what is "funny". While I appreciate the thought you've put into the subject, please don't forget that this concept has been tossed-around for centuries and what is funny/humorous to you might not be so to others. Point being, censorship is wrong.
"Censorship is wrong" is such a useless, single-minded, unexamined perspective. It also generally gets trotted out in contexts where censorship hasn't been (and couldn't be) genuinely invoked.
If censorship is what happens when ANY given thing isn't expressed in ANY given context, how could it POSSIBLY be just plain wrong?
Ummmm, I always know I'm going to hear a cogent and completely respectful comment when someone starts their response with "Ummmm." It totes doesn't signal contempt or anything like that.
yeah censorship is wrong. Who is arguing that its not?
anyway it is a pretty well established idea that there are certain ingredients in good humour. and three of those are often said to be logic (all humour, absurdist/realist etc is based on logic) timing (this is linked to logic) and pathos (after all laughter is an emotional response).
And I'm not ashamed to sound snotty when I say I think FG is lowest common denominator, bad humour with awful timing and badly written jokes. And there IS such a thing as bad humour btw. Its just that some people like it ; )
I'd argue that it is appropriate to censor many of the racist cartoons i watched as kid...
There have been Family Guy episodes from previous seasons which have been banned from original air. In syndication, they've popped up and then Fox was pretty much forced to air them in re-runs.
Sidenote: anyone else smell a troll in the dungeon in this thread?