Carol Leifer was a writer on the show for many years and the inspiration for Elaine, as she was an ex-girlfriend of Jerry’s and they remained friends after the breakup.

>it's hard to disentangle the two

It's not hard at all. It's a TV show.

Well the show motto was "no hugging, no learning".

But don't you think Elaine was a "strong independent woman"?

Shadduppp! [pushes <some guy> in the chest with two hands, <some guy> falls over backward, looking alarmed]

I think she said "Get out"

Do you feel that Elaine was misandrist for basically treating men the same way?

Elaine literally says that she hates men on the show lol.

I don't know why it's off-putting that Jerry was always failing at relationships. There's never an insinuation that he's a sexual addict. He just has a ton of first dates because he's a weirdo and so are his friends. It was fairly common for characters in that era of sitcoms to date a stream of new people. The only difference between Jerry and other characters was that the dating was usually a method of creating tension for characters who fans thought SHOULD have been dating. But that type of storytelling requires a sort of earnest humility in the character, and the Jerry Seinfeld character had none to give. Elaine did the exact same sort of thing with men in her relationships.

To me it just seems like they're exploring the funny side of relationships. That they started with funny observations about relationships and then picked a combination of main character and side(?) character that made sense to play out each joke. None of the main characters have any regard or respect for their romantic conquests - once the joke is done, they move on to the next thing. Just like they don't have respect for each other or anything else in the universe - except parents.

People who look to polish their hobby horse always seem to find a way. The Elaine character is exactly the same and you didn’t pull out your misandrist violin for some reason. Care to reflect on that?

Forced gender and identity based virtue signalling gets so tiring.

Yet, it's not nearly as tiring as as people accusing other people of "force[ing] gender and identity based virtue signalling."

Especially since accusing others of virtue signalling is, itself, a form of [virtue] signalling - https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=42280

This doesn't make any sense as one of these is logically less in volume than the other one, since it's just a reaction to the first virtue signaling. It's probably more tiring to you because you post stuff like that a lot.

It makes sense because the latter is by definition a form of virtue signaling while the former is just presumed to be.

Virtue signaling involves intent, so a person pointing out something is, say, misogynistic might do it because they are really concerned about the topic and it's the way they feel, even taking the risk of an unpopular opinion. Whereas someone denouncing them for virtue signaling is overtly engaging in virtue signaling, i.e. publicly proclaiming their distaste or disinterest to the topic.

Unlike the first case, there is no larger public interest the denouncer claims to protect.

>It's probably more tiring to you because you post stuff like that a lot.

Nope, I absolutely do not, nobody in my life has ever accused me of virtue signalling or even implied it. Try again.

Many successful comedic shows are named after their creators.

Bob Newhart had _two_ shows to his name. Carol Burnett had a show named after herself too. Of course, I'm dating myself by readily recalling those. :-)

Lucille Ball may have been the prototype!

Three, if you count the short-lived "Bob" where he's a cartoonist.

Making the characters somewhat amoral jerks was very much intentional - the mantra of the show was "No hugging, no learning."

>I realize the character is not the same as the comedian, but it's hard to disentangle the two

No, it's really not.