Funny or Frustrating?

 A beloved movie as I was growing up was Mrs. Doubtfire. Robin Williams plays a man who after a bitter divorce disguises himself as a woman and becomes the housekeeper for his ex-wife. The movie made $219 million. As I was completing the reading for this week, I came across the listing for this movie on a streaming channel. While the movie is a comedy, it also seems to follow many taken-for-granted "normal" roles for men and women.

Sellnow describes hegemony in feminist perspectives as one that simultaneously empowers men and puts down women who don't follow stereotypical roles. In Mrs. Doubtfire, Daniel (Robin Williams) is a man who is portrayed as the fun-loving dad who goes out of his way to spoil his kids. His wife Miranda (Sally Field) is portrayed as the enforcer of the family who is always cleaning up after her husband. This conflict eventually leads to divorce. Even in the divorce process, Miranda is made out to be the villan for not allowing her husband to do what he wants.

In a desire to spend more time with his kids, Daniel disguises himself as an older women (Mrs. Doubtfire) and applies for and receives the job as housekeeper for Miranda. Throughout the movie Mrs. Doubtfire uses his knowledge of Miranda to seemingly know all her needs. A part I remember most is one wear Daneil first is dressed as a woman. He complains about how he has to wear high heels and he cusses the person who invented them. An underlying message is that it's wrong for him to have to wear heels but perfectly ok for others to.

Mrs. Doubtfire enforces homework and chores. Why is it that as a woman, he can implement this rules but not as a man?  In other scenes, Mrs. Doubtfire is making dinner but of course the pots boil over, he burns the chicken and starts a small fire. Of course this reinforces the hegemonic portrayal of the woman cooks and the man is incompetent in that arena. Throughout the course of the movie, Mrs. Doubtfire learns to cook, vacuum, play with the kids while dresses as a woman, and fends off flirting men. Is this an underlying message that because he's a man dressed as a women that it's harder for him to learn how to do these things than it is for a woman? 

The movie progresses through very predictable scenes. In the end, the kids find out about his dual role (Mrs. Doubtfire, Daniel) and keep it a secret. Mrs. Doubtfire creates havoc for his ex-wife's new boyfriend and in the end the ex-wife finds out. In a follow up scene where Daniel is appearing before a judge for assaulting another man while dresses as Mrs. Doubtfire. Daniel acts as his own lawyer and the judge only questions his odd behavior. Miranda looks sad and guilty as though she is the villain for keeping her kids safe. Daniel is portrayed as the hero because he gets visitation and in the end Miranda goes against the judges orders, brings the kids to Daniel, and admits life was better with Mrs. Doubtfire. 

I know the movie is a comedy and it's a fun movie. I didn't see any of these underlying messages in the movie previously. I think the writers and filmmakers went about to make fun of the difference in gender roles. I think there needs to be some additional thought into what messages are coming out in movies. 

Are there other shows that offer a similar concept (male or female portraying an opposite gender in an effort to gain acceptance) ? Does this reinforce the hegemonic norms for men and women?