Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here’s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Marriage, family and the media

By Patricia Edgar - posted Monday, 13 July 2015


Marriage and the family were social inventions. ‘They married and lived happily ever after’: that ubiquitous story-ending mystified us, until we grew up and learnt how complex family life really is.

Recent decisions in favour of same-sex marriage in Ireland and the United States have redefined family life further. Yet in Australia we drag our feet. In part it is because the conventional concept of marriage and family has been firmly embedded in our psyches by the power of mass media.  Television which held us back in our understanding of the family for decades is now leading the way.

In 1972 I published a report analyzing twelve of the most popular programs of the time. Marital relationships were harmonious. The male partner was middle-class, a professional breadwinner, while the women were financially-dependent housewives (or secretaries) responsible for domestic work and if single, desperate to get married. They lacked a say in major decisions and their interests were confined to trivialities.

Advertisement

Betty Friedan’s book The Feminine Mystique, released in 1963, exposed the ‘happily ever after’ myth but did little to educate mainstream television. Twenty years after the book’s release the Australian Institute of Family Studies analysed all television programs which depicted family life and found they still portrayed middle-class, Anglo Saxon dominant males in white-collar full-time employment.  

Working class families, working women, the aged, unemployed, single mothers, ethnic and indigenous families got barely a mention. Gay families were nowhere on the media radar. However this dominant picture presented was the culture of only a small minority.

For by 1980 only 25 per cent of families came close to the ‘ideal’ model; 42 per cent of married women were in the workforce in 1982 and two million people were on welfare support. Sole parent families were on the rise following the introduction of no-fault divorce and we were beginning to recognize that the family, as well as providing our focus of love and support, is the most violent institution in our society.

Scholars began asking whether this distorted image of family life could be affecting policy concerning the needs of families. John Howard was led astray. In December 1988 as leader of the Federal opposition he launched his Future Directions Report in front of a backdrop depicting a smiling couple with two children, standing in front of a house (with a car) bordered by a white picket fence. (Beaver Cleaver lived in such a house in the 50’s and 60’s).

That image was intended to summon up in the public mind, the primacy of the family, the dream of home ownership, the rewards of hard work, the importance of private enterprise and law and order. John Howard believed these were the timeless values of the traditional family. His plan was for ‘One Australia’ which meant a limit on Asian migration and a move away from multi-culturalism.

The plan was firmly rejected. Howard lost the leadership and retreated to ponder his next move.

Advertisement

Evidence of real family life had been circulating from 1980 when the Institute of Family Studies was established. Howard recanted his social position on immigration and ‘the white picket fence ideal’ of family life, discovering ‘Howard’s battlers’. With this vision he swept to power as Prime Minister in 1996.

By then the traditional model of television had been challenged by new technology. Cable meant multi-channels and drama channels like Showtime TV became creative powerhouses developing ground-breaking series for diverse audiences. In turn free-to-air was forced to compete with more adventurous drama. So began the golden age of television.

The Huxtables in The Cosby Show (1984), still professionals,were black.  Rosanne (1988- 97) was working class and so popular she defied her producer to insist on bringing a gay character Nancy into the show. Australia introduced gay characters early, in No 96 (1972-76), The Box (1974-77) and Prisoner (79-86). Thirty Something (87-91) was the first prime-time show to put two men in a bed together. In Brothers and Sisters (2006), Kevin and Scotty were investigating surrogacy. Gay characters are now part of the fabric of television family life.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

11 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Patricia Edgar is an author, television producer and educator. She was the founding director of the Australian Children's Television Foundation. She is also the author of In Praise of Ageing and an Ambassador for the National Ageing Research Institute.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Patricia Edgar

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 11 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy