Utterly pointless question about T.V Shows

[Ghost803]

So yea, just a thing I noticed. That in many shows with single career women characters, they almost always end up trying to have a baby or more often trying to adopt. Why is that?

 

[mgb_phys]

Babies are cute, advertisers like babies - you can sell anything to parents.
The alternative would involve TV writers thinking up a novel way to add depth to a character.
Adopting allows you to fit getting a baby into a 5week slot and means you don't have to show an actress getting (gasp) fat.

 

[FredGarvin]

Ahh...the ol' "Murhpy Brown" syndrome.

 

[turbo]

Depending on the demographic (teen girls, in the case of the long-running Friends) babies are a hot topic, including unintended pregnancies, unintended multiple births, adoption, single-parenthood, etc. During the run of Friends, all the women were involved in child-bearing except the one who was actually married, and she had to adopt, and accidentally ended up with twins. (my wife is a fan, so I hear it all)

 

[Brilliant!]

It's a great way to rope in the Lifetime Network demographic. By that I mean, it's a bit sexist and reinforces stereotypes, but there are enough people who buy into the stereotypes to make it profitable.

The best feminist TV shows are those based around a single, high-powered, female executive/lawyer/doctor who works 16 hour days for a living and wants to adopt. She's likely to have enough money to afford her own maternity leave, but will eventually have to return to her 16 hour days, leaving the child to be raised by nannies.

I was going to make a sarcastic comment like "Yeah, that sounds really family-friendly." Then I remembered, this is pretty much the American standard regardless of a one or two-parent household.

There I go again. Applying logic and reason to TV shows. My girlfriend is always getting on to me about that.

 

[brewnog]

Because all women want babies, and all women watch these programmes. 100% of fact.