Rationalizing Judd Apatow’s Insidious Virgin/Whore Complex
11 August 2009, 10:10 AM. By Alejandro Paz
Sarah Seltzer of RH Reality Check wrote recently that “Judd Apatow (pictured with wife, Leslie Mann) has the most insidious Madonna-whore complex in Hollywood.” Our reaction to her thesis went something like this: What? … Fuck that! … Well, maybe. … No. She’s wrong. Let us attempt to articulate why.
Seltzer claims that in Apatow’s films, 40 Year-Old Virgin, Knocked Up and the recently released Funny People, “women exist mostly as the objects of lasting affection or the punchlines of dirty jokes.” Seltzer laments that because these films “aren’t just taken as laugh-fests, but as Humorous but Important Statements on Modern Life” it is important that Apatow “get his gender issues straightened out.”
There are two claims embedded in her indictment of Judd Apatow with which we take issue. The first is that despite the fact that Apatow makes movies about men from a male perspective, he is doing a great disservice to the fabric of humanity with his insidious refusal to portray women with the fulsome perspective they deserve. The second is Seltzer’s presumption that fuels the first: Apatow has his gender issues all jacked up and he needs straightening out.
Judd Apatow makes movies, comedies, in fact. While he’s definitely heteronormative, he’s not making documentaries that are shown to students in their psychology/sociology/humanities classes. Seltzer might retort that Apatow’s prevalence and acceptance into pop culture is what makes his portrayals all the more dangerous. Maybe. But should we hold him accountable for putting groups of people in convenient boxes as a literary tool?
Take for instance, Sex and the City. It’s a show about women, for women, and in that show the women characters are fully developed whereas the men are fit into stereotypical roles such as the powerhouse Big, the sensitive Aidan, the boy toy Smith, the gay guy, etc. Sex and the City may be a vile and obnoxious show, but millions of people love it. Why?
They love it because it makes sense. The roles that men play in SATC resonate with women who have seen instances of these guys in their own lives. Just in the same way men have experienced the career-minded get your shit together Allison type in Knocked Up, the whoredacious put your bike in my trunk chick in 40 Year-Old Virgin and the frustrated darling housewife in Funny People. Seltzer seems to suggest that the fact that men and women are complicated beasts in real life makes it a crime to avoid this fact when making a fictional comedic point in streamlined cinematic form. We don’t think so.
And that brings us to question why Seltzer is so pissed that Apatow suggests that an essential challenge men face is overcoming their “libidinous need to fornicate” with women in favor of seeing them as “creatures to be worshipped and obeyed.” She claims, women are “punished by being the gauntlet men must run to prove their virtue.” What Seltzer fails to realize is that men actually do face this particular challenge, very frequently. And for good reason. We are genetically predisposed to fighting the battle between wanting to fuck everything that moves and needing to raise a family.
Many men start their adult lives living with a group of friends, partying balls, getting wasted and making sweet, drunken love with a bunch of chicks. Then at some point, they each get a job, one friend gets married and they move on from their badass ways to find a woman to adore, have some kids and make a life out of it. It happens. Every single day. The reason is because men have an evolutionary need to spread their seed, but humans thrive culturally in monogamous relationships with a nest of a couple of children, a Ford Explorer and a picket fence.
We need a woman to worship to make this work. If we’re stuck with some beeyotch that we picked out of our life of getting our freak on with random skanks, we will become dissatisfied and break up the family. That negatively effects our evolutionary advancement. Apatow encourages men to put their girl on a pedestal, instead of treating them as sexual conquests. His goal is not for men to appreciate a woman as another one of the crew, but to reward the man who can ascend his crew in pursuit of a family. Seltzer feels that Apatow is misogynist. She decries the implicit lack of gender equality that Apatow’s focus on women as either goddesses or trivialities reinforces.
The point is that there is little, if any, middle ground in the general male mindset. It’s not an issue of men feeling that women are of inherently lesser quality, but rather that they exist in a different, BUT WILDLY SIMILAR, realm. Women, too, desire deeply to end up in a monogomous, child-bearing lifetime with another person. They just get there and overcome internal battles in different ways. The reality is that we are equal but distinct. Seltzer needs to simultaneously lighten the fuck up and reexamine the evolutionary justification for gender distinction.
(11) 
Post Your Comment
Did you know you can now share a link, image or video?
Click to submit your own notas.
did she mention the fact that the men in these movies aren’t all that great of an example of male personalities either? gender deconstruction doesn’t just affect females. apatow shows “men” who seem to have the maturity level of teenagers with no depth or other complexities to their characters.
btw, sex and the city is a horrible depiction of female stereotypes too.
Judd is a big adolescent, that is absolutely true. However, his stories are about these man-boys growing up. I think he just doesn’t understand women.
As for Sex and The City, I totally agree that it is offensive to both men and women. All Carrie Bradshaw cares about is shoes and sex. shallow as a puddle.
yeah, i get it’s about the process. i was just also thinking of all the male characters that they are friends with, that they encounter, etc. maybe we’re supposed to conclude they too will eventually go down that path.
and yeah, he don’t know jack about women, or what makes a good female character. maybe he’s just not interested in that part of the story.
“genetically predisposed”? “Men have an evolutionary need to spread their seed”? Ok, first, let’s get our science in order here. Evolutionary psychology is an unfalsifiable (i.e., can never be proven correct or incorrect, and therefore not science) pile of crap that is bases gender dynamics on the ways that gender is constructed today. There is no evidence whatsoever that men or women are genetically predisposed to act in any way at all - zero. The critiques of evolutionary psychology are far too massive for it to be taken seriously, so get your science in order before making arguments justifying men’s behavior. Scientists even have a hard time distinguishing what it means to be male and female - take a look at chromosome variance, and the constant debate about this in olympic competition, things that I think point pretty clearly to the fact that the gender binary is another social construction.
Second, I imagine Ms. Seltzer’s concern with Judd Apatow movies is because TV and movies are a major socializing force in the United States today. Kids spend more time in front of a TV than in school - not that they’re getting fabulous messages in school either, but it gives some idea of how powerful media images can be. So I understand her concern about this man-boy’s portrayal of women in a negative, stereotyped fashion - our kids are learning what it means to be adults from this massive douchebag.
Third, Sex in the City sucks, and, unfortunately, women are very complicit in the spread of misogyny (have you looked at an issue of cosmo lately? ever?). So the fact that it is made by women does not get it off the hook. And it doesn’t get Apatow off the hook either.
i’m not trying to add fuel to the fire….BUT… i’m 95% that sex and the city was created by a woman, produced by women, but maintained and written by a gay man.
My point on SATC is that despite being a fucked up disgusting show, it is just a show. The stereotypes are there for convenience to make simple thematic points, not to tear the fabric of gender relations asunder. Moreover, many of these stereotypes strike a chord in people because those types of people actually exist. The particular people in real life are much more than just a type for sure, but we’re talking about comedic fiction. And if fiction can’t use stereotypes, but must instead portray fulsome perspectives on every character, why go to the movies?
“We need a woman to worship to make this work.”
That’s not giving men much credit. It sounds like you’re suggesting that without fixating on an idealized woman, men are incapable of moving beyond parties, weed, and making out in a buddy’s basement. In short: a Judd Apatow movie.
You’re not making your case very well; in fact, one might say this article makes Sarah’s case for her.
Are you suggesting that in my defense of Judd Apatow movies, I’m defending Judd Apatow movies?
You’re not making your comments very well; in fact, one might say you’ve made a tautological argument.
“Are you suggesting that in my defense of Judd Apatow movies, I’m defending Judd Apatow movies?”
I’m simply noting that your defense consisted first of “It’s just a movie!” but concluded with “And life is actually just like a Judd Apatow movie.” The first idea is a bit troubling when dealing with questions of gander narratives in popular entertainment, and the latter is as unflattering to men as it is to women. What’s unique is combining both into the same argument — one that manages to undercut itself *and* reinforce Sarah’s own points.
Carry on.
You and Sarah are troubled and unflattered. I am not. That said, I appreciate your engagement.
Funny People was an hour too long. Apatow needs to better respect women AND my time.
Great article, Paz! No homo.