"Study shows soap operas trigger aggression in women"
.
I personally think that watching that shit would wind anybody up, male or female. I only have to hear the theme tune from A Certain Famous Soap to feel my blood pressure rising.
Just as the viewing of violent movies or videogames can turn people nasty, so it seems that hours spent watching angry fictional drama protagonists cheating, bullying, deceiving and shouting at one another will also have evil effects. The revelation that EastEnders and Coronation Street cause at least as much human misery as …
" personally think that watching that shit would wind anybody up, male or female. I only have to hear the theme tune from A Certain Famous Soap to feel my blood pressure rising."
Absolutely! My wife frequently wonders why I leave the room when certain shows are on TV (not just soaps, "talent" (word used without prejudice) shows have an even more pronounced effect). I tend not to say I am looking for more fun things to do, like stapling my ears to a wall, or putting my hand in a meat grinder. Somehow, remarks like that do not go down well.
Are you small with an identical twin?
And they call me dad, used to be daddy but they are more grown up now.
My worry is when they are a little older, they will shower themselves and I will be stuck with Deadenders downstairs. I suppose on computer, headphones on and see what Steam games I have.
But then you can't shower a teenager anyway!
I'm with you 100%, I can't stand soap operas, especially UK ones where virtually all the characters are back-stabbing lying deceitful cheating sub-intelligent people who are only ever looking out for no.1 and all the 'plotlines' revolve around the nasty spiteful things the characters do.
It's all just depressing shite that should be banned.
On the left side of the Atlantic, we think that all English people are like the crazy, screaming wastes of protoplasm on "Eastenders".
And for those of you in England who think that all Americans are like the crazy, screaming wastes of protoplasm on the Jerry Springer Show, let me tell you we're not at all like that. We're worse - lardier and with 73.2% less self control.
One of the cast seems to have been beheaded by her brother, if the police are right, and then thrown in the local canal.
However, I think it will be alright in the end, as apparently we find out on Christmas day that her brother wasn't actually her brother, she was his lover, and the body in the canal is actually an already dead body, from a bizarre cloning experiment, shortly before there's a party in the Queen Vic, and someone dies outside.
On boxing day, Booby Ewing will be seen in the shower, because his post SOAP career failed, and the whole last five years of telly will turn out to be a dream.
...that modern patriarchal society is out to destroy and demean women by any means necessary, now even attacking the last redoubt, their Emotional Intelligence, via the cocaine-like delivery vehicle of Chauvinist Soap Operas depicting lurid male fantasies of how women supposedly behave.
Wake up!!
What are you rambling about? Soap Operas are traditionally marketed at women! It's less prevalent now than the 80's and 90's but certainly in my own personal experience the vast majority of people I know who watch soaps are women. If they depict chauvinistic fantasies then why would women watch them at all? If anything one of the reasons I dislike soap operas is the misandry that quite often can be found in the plot lines.
We see this stuff on major channels. That makes it OK. After all, to get there it's been approved by the programme makers, tacitly blessed by the "powers that be (be cee)", got through the political tests for fairness, sensitivity, balance and blandness and ultimately doesn't get complained about by the viewing audience. That means that whatever is shown in a soap, cop-show, talk show, reality programme or any other "pulp" TV must be socially acceptable ... and if it's acceptable, well then, shouldn't we all be doing it?
We know that TV has a huge influence - if it didn't nobody would advertise on it. What would be the point of telling people to buy "wonder-goop: (it'll make you look younger, thinner and more attractive to all of those weirdo's whom you don't want to attract)" if none of them ever did? So it's not exactly an intuitive leap to recognise that people will also ape the behaviours they see, as well.
The worst part though, is when audiences fail to distinguish between a character they see on telly and the real-life person who plays that role. Not only can their love/hate of the character leak out of the TV, but they start to believe that (somehow, god knows why) that actors they "know" from TV somehow have valid views on things outside the narrow characters they play on the idiot box. Hence we see celebrities getting involved in causes or politics and gathering a herd of followers simply on the basis of "ooooh, we _like_ her".
Maybe it's time TVs came with a health warning printed large, across the screen,
"The worst part though, is when audiences fail to distinguish between a character they see on telly and the real-life person who plays that role."
That unfortunately happens too often, the studios which produce this stuff will often receive things like baby clothes in the post whenever a character has a baby etc. - a perfect time to use the fail icon.
Many moons ago I read an article in which actor Brad Pitt recalls being asked what should be done about the situation in Tibet after the movie _Seven Years in Tibet_ (in which he starred) was released, and responding to the reporter "How the f#ck should I know? I'm just an actor!" or something to that effect. 'Twould be nice if more celebrities had a clue.
Something from trick cyclists that not only makes sense but many people have actually seen evidence of. I certainly have.
These 'soaps' are about nasty people being unpleasant to each other. The trouble is, they look just like people you might see at work/pub/market or even at home. They are in situations that we can all recognise and they take pride in their "gritty realism" and "real life story lines". That is the precise opposite of entertainment and it shows.
Let's see if our ever more conservative leaders have the gonads to regulate this then!
I bet if you ask the average soap addict that some will come out with stuff like:
"I watch it because even though I know it's not real it makes me feel like my life is better because the characters on screen are going through much worse things than I am"
If you watch soaps to help make you feel good about your life, you must have a bloody miserable life and the soaps are just acting as a bandaid.
Makes you wonder how many relationships have deteriorated due to one or both partners being influenced by watching too much soaps.
I've worked in day centres for people with learning disabilities, and they asbolutely couldn't get enough of Eastenders, especially when they could get to the iplayer/subsite, etc.
I reasoned exactly what you mentioned, and these people stuck in an institutional life, saw these horrible TV people having some vague, inferred 'life' and thought either they were better off than those poor souls they're watching or wanted to have some drama in their very very controlled lives. Sad on either counts.
And having a go at wimmin because they like it - I tend to prefer the Archers rationale (though I never listen to it) that people need to learn new agricultural stuff and story telling is a great way of doing that...I recall a Pakistani radio station using this model and putting in a story line about a farmer caught in a minefield; seemed the Taliban liked the show too...
Well at least video games requires a little inter-action, you're not just sitting there, though I could hardly call solitaire a workout games like skyrim can demand some concentration..
We tend to turn the sound off when the adverts start - something my 6 year old thinks is fun ('silly adverts!')
My wife doesn't watch soaps, but watches weight-loss and surgery documentaries instead - that's when it isn't a horror film or similar.
ttfn
My fiancée doesn't watch sops or medical documentaries, but she is always happy to play a bit of Skyrim or join me in a bit of Portal 2 co-op mode.
She is not even slightly aggressive (apart from hitting me in the head with a rolled up scrunchie thrown across the room with impressive accuracy when she thinks it will be funny).
Not making a point other than this thread has made me fell quite lucky.
Mind you how about an Eastenders FPS.
When the twins were being particularly annoying I mocked up a page for a game.
I plonked the Deadenders docklands & Thames title screen on the cover for a game, and told them to behave or I would get it for them.
Worked brilliantly
Actually, Dan 10, there *is* a difference. At the moment.
Most video games have a more cartoonish level of violence. It is easier to keep reality and game separate. The relational violence in soaps is indistinguishable from 'real life', and certainly suits many women's need for drama, which they supplement by trashing the hearts, souls and spirits of the people unfortunately in their life.
We are what we consume -- and when I leave the room when the woman wants to watch shite like that, I make no bones about telling her that I refuse to watch abuse. When she told me that she was only watching it because it makes her feel better, I told her that she can always volunteer at the City Mission, feel good about helping the less fortunate *improve* their lives, and not turn herself into an abusive shrew, vicarously feeding upon human misery.
I don't mind sleeping on the couch. It's just like going camping, only without the mosquitoes.
This isn't to let us who play the games off the hook. As they get more and more realistic, they turn more and more into training tools -- and paying money to have someone turn me into a killing machine with a detached understanding of the consequences seems like a dangerous thing to release on society as a whole.
Bad consequences of Eastenders:
Acting now means shouting.
Stiff upper lips have become loose and floppy.
Couples in real life now have loud, shouty arguments in the street instead of the bedroom or car.
Every soap is now about shouty relationships.
Emerdale is no longer about sick animals.
Casualties is no longer about who will end up with the worst injury and die. Horribly.
Whenever I glare aggressively and meaningfully at an oik on the street, THAT music appears as if by magic.
I've got the 'ump.
I hear the "telenovelas" (Mexican soap operas that are broadcast in Amurka by teevee stations pandering to the immigrant market) are just as bad, encouraging all kinds of loud shouty behaviour by yoofs. Maybe if the shouting shrews on the teevee got a bust in the chops occasionally (or some other direct, immediate, and harsh consequence), the yoofs could be given fair warning.
This post has been deleted by its author
What is sadder, watching a soap to see how the characters you've 'known' for years are doing, to chill out after a crap day at work - or moaning about it on the interwebs?
It's drama. So what? Anyone with a brain knows it's not real, nobody ever stands up for themselves and so problems escalate, most of us know not to be doormats like that.
Why not complain about about the news, too? Only the most unusual deaths make it onto the news, we don't expect to go that way. Most of us will die drugged up to the eyeballs in a hospice, or after some other illness or heart attack - not in a horrendous freak accident fireball!
What is sadder, watching a soap to see how the characters you've 'known' for years are doing, to chill out after a crap day at work - or moaning about it on the interwebs?
Neither, it's moaning about the moaners that's the saddest.
:)
When expressing your thoughts/ideas/views online about something, you're physically compsing a (hopefully) a meaningful set of words to express what was previously just internal dialogue, whereas watching a soap you're just consuming the mindless pap they serve you.
Which is worse?
Since we now have the Dangerous Pictures and Dangerous Drawings Acts based on the idea that looking at that sort of thing will "Make You Do Bad Things[tm]", I think it's time that we started a petition to ban Soap Operas since it's clearly been shown that they are a greater danger to society!
Darwin and state education has already drilled into people that they are just animals.
Soaps are just the demonstration of that. We're happy to dunk dumb people in a cesspool of anti-social behaviour which will help spoil their real-lives, if we can just punt them a particular brand of tampons.
Where's the controlled test? Surely this experiment proves equally that women shown videos get more aggressive? Where is the group that was given an article from a magazine to read, or a video game to play? How about a group that was shown "Antiques Roadshow"? What about subjecting men (poor blighters) to the same videos? How did they fare?
Bad science, I say, possibly just more popularist opinion mongering.