Is “Dads” the Year’s Most Racist Sitcom?

Screenshot: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yeLSEd8Ts4">FoxBroadcasting</a>/YouTube

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


“Well, you’re lucky your dads are American; my dad beat me with a math book ’til I was 16,” says Veronica, an Asian American character (played by Brenda Song) on the upcoming Fox sitcom Dads. The new series (executive produced by Seth MacFarlane of Family Guy, American Dad!, and Ted fame) premieres on September 17, but it has already generated controversy for its comic portrayal of Asian Americans and the Chinese. The show focuses on two founders of a video game company, and how they deal with their intrusive fathers. Comedy supposedly ensues, some of it at the expense of Asian folk.

In the pilot episode, the main characters (played by Seth Green and Giovanni Ribisi) insist that Veronica dress up like a “sexy Asian schoolgirl”—one who giggles like a Japanese teenage stereotype—in order to impress a group of Chinese investors. Chinese people are mocked and declared untrustworthy. The “Asian men have tiny dicks” stereotype is gleefully deployed. The term “Oriental” is used because…funny. And it doesn’t help that Dads co-creator Alec Sulkin once tweeted, “If you wanna feel better about this earthquake in Japan, google ‘Pearl Harbor death toll.'” Sulkin sent this tweet on March 11, 2011, the day a tsunami struck Japan and killed thousands. None of the victims, Japanese or otherwise, was ever implicated in the plot to bomb Americans in the 1940s. (Sulkin soon deleted the comment and apologized via tweet.)

Full disclosure: I am indeed of Asian descent—my parents were born in Bangkok, and I was born in Washington, DC. I rarely have a problem laughing at jokes that invoke Asian/Asian American stereotypes, so long as they are funny and/or have something wise to say. If you’d like my personal opinion of Dads, I’d say that the real problem does not lie with any ethnic or racial stereotypes, but with the fact that it is unoriginal and often a painfully unfunny, lazy waste of production space.

As you can guess, the Dads material pissed off some people. Following calls for the network to reshoot the problematic portions of the pilot, Fox entertainment chairman Kevin Reilly and COO Joe Earley wrote a letter defending the program; they did not indicate any plans for reshooting scenes. “You will see that Brenda Song’s character is a strong, intelligent, empowered young woman who basically runs the company, and who almost always gets the upper hand on the guys,” Reilly and Earley wrote. “This is a show that will be evocative and will poke fun at stereotypes and bigotries…Everyone involved with Dads is striving to create a series with humor that works on multiple levels and ‘earns’ its audaciousness. That said, we do recognize comedy is subjective, and we may not be able to please everyone, all the time.”

Some advocates aren’t satisfied with the response. “They say it gets better in future episodes. Well, okay, let’s see them,” Guy Aoki, the founding president of the Media Action Network for Asian Americans, tells Mother Jones. MANAA has roughly 400 members, and is part of a multiethnic coalition (which includes the NAACP) that meets with network executives once a year to discuss race and television. “They have succeeding episodes in the can, and we don’t want to wait until September to see them,” he says. (According to Aoki, Fox has yet to respond to his request.)

“If I were a producer on that show, I’d say we should reshoot this—and we should give this [Chinese] guy a big dick!”

After a recent panel discussion on Dads, Aoki attended a mixer where he chatted with more Fox executives. He says that others at the network share his desire to have more sitcoms that challenge ethnic and racial stereotypes, rather than simply regurgitate them. “There was another Fox producer there…who told me, ‘You know what? If I were a producer on that show, I’d say we should reshoot this—and we should give this [Chinese] guy a big dick!'”

Perhaps the thing that troubles Aoki the most about Dads is Sulkin’s creative involvement. “That tweet isn’t something I think he should be allowed to live down,” he says. “Read the tweet, and you tell me he doesn’t have a grudge against the Japanese. Maybe he has a grudge against Chinese people, too!”

TV shows associated with Seth MacFarlane have (as does MacFarlane himself) a long record of generating controversy with political incorrect content. Family Guy—MacFarlane’s flagship series that both Dads creators have written for—is certainly no stranger to employing tired Asian stereotypes in the name of silly humor. The series has been called out by GLAAD and others for airing “offensive” and “idiot” content about transgender people. Sarah Palin and Bill O’Reilly criticized Family Guy and MacFarlane for an episode in which a female character with Down syndrome identifies her mother as “the former governor of Alaska.” (Palin’s son, Trig, has Down syndrome.) And when MacFarlane hosted the Oscars earlier this year, he made what was widely interpreted to be a pointless rape joke about Roman Polanski and a Jack Nicholson orgy. During his Oscar ceremony gig, he also performed his “We Saw Your Boobs” song, in which he recited a list of famous actresses who’ve gone topless in film; a few of the characters mentioned were raped in their referenced film, and critical observers took note.

Whether Dads offends your sensibilities or not, the series fits a pattern. (MacFarlane did not respond to Mother Jones‘ multiple requests for comment.)

“We are the one group that can get picked on and people think they can get away with it,” Aoki says. “People are afraid of offending black people, but they aren’t afraid of angry Asian people. And that’s why this stuff happens.”

Here’s the trailer for Dads, which features much of the controversial material seen in the pilot. Judge for yourself:

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate